Sitting of 17 December 1991

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

    Defence-related Jobs
    Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of jobs in the north-west region of England which are related to defence requirements.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the impact upon jobs in the defence industry of his Department's plans for the future.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Historical figures, broken down by region, for the number of jobs related to defence requirements are published in volume 2 of the 1991 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", a copy of which is in the Library.
    The future level of employment in the defence industry is a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned.
    Mr. Lamond: That answer is in line with what we have had before, so it is not unexpected. If we are prepared to participate in a European bank for reconstruction and development to help countries in eastern Europe which are facing the same problems as Britain's defence industry workers, could we not at least set up a defence diversification agency to help the tens of thousands of workers in the north-west and throughout the United Kingdom who will be thrown on to the scrap heap?
    Mr. Clark: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is shared by my Department, but I do not think that on reflection he would want the defence industry to be singled out for particular treatment from our other manufacturing industries. We are particularly concerned about the anxiety and deprivation that result when people lose their jobs as a result of the changing international climate. I am in constant touch with defence industry leaders through the National Defence Industries Council and the Defence Manufacturers Association, and my Department participates in the regional seminar staged by the DTI for small and medium-sized defence industries. An agency such as the hon. Gentleman suggests would do little more than we are already doing unless it were funded and empowered to make grants and loans which, as he will realise, is not a practical suggestion, because it would mean singling out a particular sector of British industry.
    Mr. Bill Michie: Opposition Members will obviously be disappointed at the Minister's reply which is characterised by his usual laid-back approach to the matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that our competitors in Europe and elsewhere will ensure that whatever happens to future orders their defence industries will be compensated by alternative diversification? Once again, the Government seem not to give a damn what happens to our skills and to the jobs of the future. As always since the Government came into power, we are in the slow lane.
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman's question is completely misleading. Among our so-called competitors, the United States and west German defence industries are suffering much heavier job losses than we are. The job losses in United Kingdom defence industries as a result of the change of emphasis in British procurement are as nothing compared with those that would be suffered under the Labour party's defence policy—if so dignified a term can be used for something so confused, contradictory and misleading. Such job losses would be horrific and far more widespread.
    Mr. Dover: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the importance of British Aerospace as a major employer in the defence industry in the north-west. Will he accept its deep gratitude for the way in which his officials are explaining his Department's needs so as to ensure that the right commercial decisions are made about the markets to go for in future?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes an important point about markets. It ill behoves Opposition Members constantly, for ideological reasons, to decry my Department's sponsorship of the sale of arms to friendly countries wishing to defend themselves within the terms of, for example, article 51 of the United Nations charter.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not my hon. Friend delighted with the $450 million order—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is most unseemly.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:—that British Aerospace has just won for 20 RJ70s that is especially designed for the United States market and fills a niche that no one else could have filled?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that good example of the special skills and capabilities that the British defence industry still has, and which I do not doubt will serve it well in future in both domestic and export markets.
    Mr. O'Neill: The Minister has repeatedly said that he does not want to single out the defence industry for special consideration. He surely recollects the precedents set in the steel and coal industries, in which the Community was involved in Europewide initiatives to limit the impact of the decline in demand for the products of the companies concerned. If the Minister is not prepared to shoulder the burden on behalf of the British taxpayer, is the time not right for him to work with the European Community in establishing a Europewide diversification initiative?
    Mr. Clark: I have not heard of such an initiative, but if one were to be promulgated by the Community, we would consider it carefully.

    Surplus Land
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding the disposal of land surplus to his Department's requirements.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): It is Government policy that the defence estate should be no larger than necessary for defence purposes. We continually seek opportunities for rationalisation and the release of land surplus to our requirements. To ensure that the best return is achieved for the taxpayer, it is our normal policy to offer property not needed by the services for sale on the open market.
    Mr. Hunter: May I ask my hon. Friend urgently to investigate why his Department declines to release to Basingstoke and Deane borough council land in the village of Bramley that is earmarked for a playing field under our local plan? Is he aware of the concern and indignation that perceived unwarranted delay causes?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend will know that that is part of a parcel of land of about 45 acres in total. We are in negotiations with the local authority for planning permission, and we hope to obtain it for housing on some of that land. We are also talking to potential purchasers. I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I will make sure that my officials are also made aware of it.
    Mr. Viggers: Where the Ministry of Defence has occupied land for generations or even for centuries, will my hon. Friend ensure that in disposing of it the Ministry will work as closely as possible with local authorities to ensure that it is developed consistently in accordance with the wishes of local people?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend in that regard. To enhance the value of any land of which we are disposing, we often need planning permission, which we can obtain only with the help of local authorities. We therefore work very closely with them.
    Dr. Godman: Will there be any disposal of surplus Ministry of Defence land in Scotland, or is it likely that, due to the redeployment of British forces from Germany, the Ministry will be looking to purchase land in Scotland?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is difficult to say where we might want to purchase land. Where we have training areas, we are keen to enlarge them if possible. Many of the weapons systems that we use now are bigger than before and have longer ranges, and so on. Also, a degree of armour will return from Germany which will need space for use in training. We do not have a closed mind, but we should like to rationalise our training areas, enlarging some that we already have and disposing of smaller ones.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Broughton moor site in my constituency is disposed of, will its environmental sensitivity be taken into account?
    Mr. Hamilton: I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence for owning more sites of special scientific interest than anyone other than the national parks. We are extremely good stewards of the land that we have. As to Broughton moor, we shall do all that we can to take environmental considerations into account.
    Dame Janet Foulkes: May I impress on my hon. Friend that in Plymouth we are tired of waiting what seems like years for land to be released? All that we ask is for sufficient land so that we may then help ourselves.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am well aware of the anxiety of people in Plymouth to get on with the whole business of the release and development of Ministry of Defence land. We are doing what we can, but I take my hon. Friend's point that it has been an ongoing saga for some time now.

    British Nuclear Deterrent
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the cost of refitting Polaris submarines in the current financial year.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the British nuclear deterrent.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): HMS Renown, now nearing the completion of her refit, is the only Polaris submarine under refit during the current year. The cost of the work to date has been about £150 million.
    Britain's credible and effective independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantee of our security. The strategic deterrent will continue to be provided by the Polaris force until Trident comes into service from the mid-1990s.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the Polaris fleet plagued with cracks to the nuclear reactor, and has not the game been given away by Mr. Reg Farmer, a former member of the Ministry of Defence safety of nuclear warships committee? Is it not time that the Secretary of State came clean and admitted to the House that the boats are dangerous, the cost of repair and renovation is beyond reasonable expenditure and the boats should be withdrawn? By taking that action, the right hon. Gentleman would be conforming with the United Nations nuclear nonproliferation treaty for the first time.
    Mr. King: That question shows the weakness of preparing a supplementary before hearing the answer to the main question. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my reply, he would have realised what rubbish his supplementary was.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the distribution of its nuclear weapons around the country, it is extremely important for Britain to maintain its nuclear deterrent and to be ready for any eventuality?
    Mr. King: Certainly I agree. At a time when the world's largest nuclear power is in the process of disintegration into separate republics, if not worse, and when 27,000 nuclear weapons exist there, the vast majority of which are capable of inflicting considerable damage on this and other countries, it would be lunacy for us to undermine our nuclear deterrent. It is the one nuclear shield that we have. Had the advice of some hon. Members been followed over the years, we might now be in a very exposed position.
    Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State must reflect a little on the answer that he has given about the Soviet Union. Does he accept that one of the reasons for the United

    133
    Kingdom's continued possession of a strategic deterrent was the fact that it would provide another centre of power, and thus create disequilibrium in the mind of a potential foe? If so, how does he justify the fear that there may be a number of fingers on the disintegrating Soviet strategic deterrent, when at the same time he seeks to justify the proliferation of nuclear strategic deterrents in the hands of France, the United Kingdom and the United States?
    Mr. King: That is a fairly complicated question, which may confuse people and prevent them from seeing our present need clearly. It is vital that we preserve our own independent nuclear deterrent as protection against nuclear blackmail; it is equally important that we take every possible step—as we are doing—to ensure that the process of rapid political change, and the change of authority that has taken place in what was the Soviet Union, do not lead to a more dangerous situation in regard to the present control and authority over nuclear weapons. To try to wrap up that question in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested, or to lose sight of either of those objectives, would be extremely unwise.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that highly unsatisfactory and inadequate reply, I give notice of my intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Air-defence Frigates
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace type 42 destroyers with a new air-defence frigate.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): There will be a requirement to replace the type 42 destroyers from around the turn of the century. An 18-month period of exploration with France is under way to consider the prospects for collaboration on an anti-air warfare frigate to meet this requirement.
    Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he give us any timetable for the construction of the new vessels, and will he give an assurance that at least 50 per cent.—and preferably more—of the hull and interior construction work will come to United Kingdom shipyards?
    Mr. Carlisle: We certainly welcome this collaboration and wish to bring it to a successful conclusion. The timetable that my hon. Friend asked about is as follows. After the exploratory period of 18 months, we hope to proceed by mid-1993 with full development, leading to a first order by the mid-1990s. We aim for an in-service date in the early years of the next century. As for equipment, part of the purpose of the exploratory work is to agree a memorandum of understanding to cover all procurement aspects.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: Naval construction work of this type will obviously lead to work for subcontractors. In the past six months, two of my constituents have had their passes removed by Ministry of Defence navy police. Both are respectable men and one of them worked on the facility at Faslane for eight months. It is a great pity that passes
    134
    are being taken away from hard-working people, who are not even given any right of appeal. Will the Minister comment on that?
    Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman will send me details, I will look into the matter. With regard to subcontractors, we are proud of the quality of work produced by them. Any shipbuilding orders feed through into other employment, apart from the main shipbuilders.
    Mr. Boscawen: While my hon. Friend is considering replacement of the type 42 destroyers, will he bear in mind the urgent decision that he and his colleagues have to take very soon about the future of HMS Polar Circle as a replacement for HMS Endurance? Some of us have recently seen that vessel. We believe that she is a very fine ship and that she is needed by the Royal Navy and the Foreign Office. We therefore hope that a favourable decision will soon be reached regarding HMS Polar Circle.
    Mr. Carlisle: As has been said in the House previously, my hon. Friend will know that we are committed to the work being done in the south Atlantic, which HMS Polar Circle will shortly be carrying out. I take this opportunity to say that not only that ship but our collaboration in relation to the French frigate and the type 23 frigate orders which will be given shortly show our commitment to naval orders. That is in stark contrast to what would happen if ever the Labour party came to power, with its plans to reduce our spending on equipment by many billions of pounds.
    Mr. Boyes: What assurances can the Minister give that in attempting to develop a common requirement for a new air defence frigate we shall not end up with another fiasco of expensive and fruitless bickering between countries with different design requirements? The NFR90 project suffered difficulties of that kind and our involvement in it led to almost two years being wasted. Can the Minister tell us whether Britain's shipyards will be assured of a very early decision on a type 42 replacement, thus allowing for some continuity of work and ending the grave uncertainty in the shipyards so that men and management can get on with what they do best—building ships in British yards?
    Mr. Carlisle: We have certainly learnt the lessons of the NFR90. One of those lessons was that we had to align the needs of the platform with those of the systems. We are already doing work on that with the French. That is part of the exploratory programme. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the project, but he must face the harsh reality that if we ever had a Labour Government there would be no money available to pursue this project, let alone order any more type 43 frigates.

    Competitive Tendering
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to encourage competitive tendering for military research and development.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Equipment procurement including development is already subject to competitive tendering wherever practicable. As regards research, once a full trading relationship has been established between the

    135
    Ministry of Defence and the Defence Research Agency, we intend to implement a progressive extension of competition.
    Dr. Clark: Does my hon. Friend accept that military research and development provides a significant technological spin-off for civilian use? Does he accept, therefore, that if more of the research sponsored by his Department were replaced by competitive tendering by universities, research associations or private companies, the benefits for non-military use could he greatly enhanced?
    Mr. Carlisle: I respect the point made by my hon. Friend. It might be of interest to the House to hear that already about 40 per cent. of the research undertaken by the Defence Research Agency is subcontracted from the Ministry of Defence to universities and industry—indeed, almost the whole of the development work goes to industry. We certainly welcome collaboration with the civil sector and industry, a good example of which is our work on jet engine technology. We wish to develop that interaction.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a research and development policy and a future procurement policy? Unless there is a prospect of orders, research and development in the military sector is bound to suffer.
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As he knows. the research effort in the Ministry of Defence is undergoing substantial change in terms of the Defence Research Agency. Our aim is to ensure that we become more efficient and enhance the effectiveness of our sharp end research.

    Nuclear Weapons (Transport)
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if' he will make a statement on the transport of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Safety and security are of paramount importance in our nuclear weapons transport methods and procedures. We do not move any nuclear weapons by road, and would not do so, unless it was safe to do so.
    Mrs. Mahon: Why are such weapons transported at all? Have the Government not in effect acknowledged the findings of the Drell panel report on the safety of nuclear weapons by setting up their own review? Will the Minister assure us that he will stop the transportation of any nuclear weapons until the Drell panel findings are issued?
    Mr. Hamilton: Certainly not. The hon. Lady, like many Opposition Members, probably does not realise that her party's policy on nuclear weapons has changed. Nuclear weapons must be kept up to date, and they must be serviced at intervals; if that is not done, they become ineffective. If there is a policy of having nuclear weapons, those weapons must be serviced at intervals to keep them running properly.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there have been no leakages of radioactive material in any of the convoys travelling to and from the establishment at Burghfield in my constituency?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can certainly confirm that. As I said earlier, the safety of the carriage of radioactive material is paramount. Although there have been mechanical breakdowns, they have merely affected the vehicles carrying the material. There has never been any question of nuclear radiation seeping out.
    Mr. McFall: I welcome the establishment of the Ministry of Defence working party under Professor Oxburgh in the light of the Drell report, even though the Government had to be dragged a little to achieve that. On the transport of nuclear weapons, which is covered in the Drell report and should therefore be part of the Oxburgh report, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give local authorities notice when nuclear weapons are to be transported through their localities?
    Mr. Hamilton: When there is any question of those materials being transported, we deal with the local police. I believe that that is quite adequate. The local police are responsible for the safety of their areas. One problem is that some of the local authorities with which we have to deal are extremely left wing and anti-nuclear. They leak information about convoys to members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, resulting in convoys being disrupted and people's lives being put in danger.

    Royal Naval Reserve
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the Royal Naval Reserve; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: As my right hon. Friend said in his statement on 10 December, our aim is that the naval reserves should be
    "streamlined but more closely integrated with the Royal Navy."—[Official Report, 10 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 733.]
    Mr. Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will recognise that mine counter-measures is a hazardous undertaking—the penalty for getting it wrong is a very large bang and lots of little bits. As the best way to reduce that risk is regular training, can he explain the logic of mothballing two of the River class MCMVs belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve which undertakes mine counter-measures and of leaving two divisions, including the largest—London division—without a ship?
    Mr. Hamilton: We have had to take into account the changes in the international situation when considering the RNR. including the lengthening warning time. In those circumstances, it was thought right to reduce some of the activities of the RNR and to make them more relevant to the future.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: As the Minister reconsiders the regular-reserve mix of the Royal Navy, as he promised on 10 December, will he ensure that a proper study of task threats is completed and will he create a supplementary list of personnel whom it is planned to axe until that review of task threats is complete?
    Mr. Hamilton: Clearly, the regular-reserve force mix study will have to take into account what we see as threats and how we intend to deal with them. We expect to make a statement on that in the new year.
    Mr. Robert Banks: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him to accept that the best training for Royal Navy reservists is with the regular Navy and will he give that priority in the coming operations for the Royal Naval Reserve?
    Mr. Hamilton: I hear what my hon. Friend says and we shall see whether more opportunities can be given to the RNR to train with the regular Navy.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister ensure that before the review is completed we shall be able to have adequate information so that we can determine the implications for the various areas and for particular bases which are under threat? Will he give an undertaking today to give us information on recruitment levels, retention levels and the position of one base as compared with another before such a report is produced?
    Mr. Hamilton: The whole process of rationalising the RNR will be progressed in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence and with the RNR itself and it will make proposals.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the air squadrons of the Royal Naval Reserve have been especially effective and exceptionally well recruited and that there have even been one or two Harrier pilots in the reserve? Could not that be an example for the flying service, the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Hamilton: The position of the Royal Air Force Reserve is, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that does not have the opportunity to fly aircraft. I do not believe that the Harrier pilots who found themselves in the Royal Naval Reserve will have the opportunity to fly either, but it is certainly useful to have them in the reserve should they be needed.

    "Options for Change"
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the costs of providing accommodation for those leaving the Army as a result of the reductions in the Army under "Options for Change".
    Mr. Tom King: Considerable work has been done on arrangements, not only for accommodation but for the resettlement of those who will be leaving the service in the course of the rundown. We are considering a number of new proposals. I will keep the House informed.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that the current level of 14,000 service families who are resettled every year by the Ministry of Defence is certain to increase dramatically during the restructuring? Does the Ministry of Defence yet have an estimate of the number of personnel families who will not be able to make provision for their own housing? Is he aware that that situation will be compounded substantially by the fact that there are about 1,700 ex-service families currently inhabiting Ministry of Defence premises to which, strictly, they have no title? Is not it time that some urgent policy measures were introduced by the Ministry of Defence to deal with the major problem from 1992 onwards?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has correctly established that there is a considerable turnover every year
    138
    in any case. The rundown and the changes involved in "Options for Change" will add to that. Off the top of my head, I think that the figure is about 25 per cent. on top of what usually happens annually. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the changes will take place over a four-year period. However, we are actively involved and a number of steps are being taken. I have appointed to a new post—the director general of resettlement—Major-General Burden who has returned from the British Army on the Rhine. He has an excellent record in this field. A number of proposals are being worked on by housing associations, by voluntary housing bodies, by the Royal British Legion and by the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, which are working with the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Department of Employment on a whole range of opportunities. I think that the hon. Gentleman will get the feeling from that that a considerable effort is being made by many people to try to tackle the problem in the most effective way.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State ask Major-General Burden to come to west Norfolk to have a look at houses on two RAF bases, Sculthorpe and West Raynham, which may close in the future? Will he consider urgently the possibility of the married quarters at the bases being made available to Army personnel who are being made redundant?
    Mr. King: I assure my hon. Friend that that matter is one aspect that we are considering. Some service housing is already available to service men on discount purchase, which gives them the opportunity to get on the home ownership ladder. There may be opportunities to rent out existing service property or surplus service property. We are trying to see how we can employ the whole of the defence estate, including married quarters, to help resolve the problem. We will do everything that we can in the area.
    Dr. Reid: Is not the truth of the matter not only that the Secretary of State is doing nothing about the housing needs of the service men and women who will be made redundant, but that he does not even know the facts? That was confirmed in a written answer from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He said:
    "Information on the private housing arrangements or plans of those Army personnel who have applied for. redundancy is not held by the Ministry of Defence."…[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 356.]
    Is not the Secretary of State aware of the deplorably low level of home ownership among other ranks in the armed forces and of the dearth of easily affordable council properties as a result of Government policies? Does the Secretary of State intend to thank those who have given service to Queen and country by making them not only jobless, but homeless?
    Mr. King: I am afflicted today by people who prepare their supplementaries and do not bother to listen to the
    answers. After the answers that I have given, I do not know how anyone can say that nothing is happening on the matter. The hon. Gentleman should have the courtesy to recognise that a considerable amount is being done. There is a challenge to be faced and the hon. Gentleman would make a more constructive contribution if he played a part in helping instead of trying to score cheap party political points when there is a genuine problem to be tackled. For once in his life he should stand up and support service men who need help.

    Jobs (South Dorset)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of studies affecting his Department's employment in south Dorset.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: My hon. Friend is already aware of the studies into the rationalisation of the Defence Research Agency, the relocation of the Procurement Executive and the review of the Army training base. My hon. Friend will also know that as part of "Defence for the 90s" we are reviewing the scope of naval support, although as I made clear in July, there will be a continuing naval presence at Portland.
    Mr. Bruce: May I place it on record that I know that my hon. Friend is doing his best to ensure that south Dorset continues to have a large amount of Ministry of Defence employment? I urge him to look at one current study which concerns the possibility of moving the sea systems control first to temporary accommodation and then, in 1995–96, to permanent accommodation. Will he ensure that the sea systems control moves only when the permanent accommodation is available? Will he locate the naval support command, which would be ideally suited for Portland, in the premises that are then vacated?
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is tireless in trying to protect defence jobs in south Dorset and to increase their numbers there. I am aware of the concern of the people of the Procurement Executive about the move to Bristol. I hear clearly what my hon. Friend said about seeking to avoid a double move. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory. We are carrying out a study now and we shall seek to resolve that uncertainty as soon as we can.

    Trident
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the estimated total cost of acquiring and maintaining the Trident nuclear weapon system.
    Mr. Tom King: The current estimated cost of acquiring the United Kingdom Trident system is £9,863 million. We expect the level of running costs of the Trident force to be well below 2 per cent. of the defence budget, not significantly different from those of Polaris.
    Mr. Canavan: Are not we entitled to be told the whole truth, as revealed by Greenpeace, which is that the total lifetime cost of Trident will be more than £23 billion? About half that could be saved if Trident were cancelled now. Instead of extravagant spending on such an unnecessary weapons system, will the Secretary of State now make the peace dividend a reality by cancelling Trident and investing the money in areas such as education and the national health service?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman must be unaware that his party is now pledged to keep the nuclear deterrent, according to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). I have made it clear that the cost of running a Trident deterrent will be well below 2 per cent. of the defence budget. I regard that as an economical insurance and the ultimate safeguard against nuclear blackmail. I regard it at present as an important insurance.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reasons why we are updating Trident are basically the same reasons as caused the Labour Government to update our nuclear deterrent by bringing in Chevaline, the difference being that we are doing it openly and they did it under wraps?
    Mr. King: I agree absolutely. We are told continually that the Labour party is united on this issue. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has shown how divided it remains on the nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: While accepting the need for the United Kingdom to have the protection of a strategic nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future, may I ask the Secretary of State whether, as a result of his recent conversations with his French counterpart and the agreement reached at Maastricht, consideration has been given to greater co-operation in strategic nuclear matters with France?
    Mr. King: We are in close contact and, as is known, we are examining in the sub-strategic nuclear field how we could work more closely with the French Government on a wide range of defence matters.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most sensible people in Britain recognise that expenditure on our nuclear deterrent is about the best and safest investment that we can make, especially in view of the alarming situation in Russia and the break-up of the former Soviet Union? Will my right hon. Friend not stint in providing Britain with the best independent deterrent?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. [Interruption.] At a time when the largest nuclear power in the world is in the process of disintegration into separate republics, when that massive nuclear arsenal is under some central control of the remaining central authorities, and when our keen concern is to ensure that that security is real, it seems absolutely unthinkable that we should not have our own protection and the ultimate assurance of an independent deterrent. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are important questions. I ask the House to listen to them, please.

    Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects TASM to be in service; and where they will be based.
    Mr. Tom King: The WE177 free-fall bomb will be approaching the end of its service life around the turn of the century, but no decision has yet been taken on the system to replace it, or where it will be based.
    Mr. Bennett: In their discussions on the replacement system, have the Government talked to the German Government about the possibility of basing a new nuclear missile system in Germany? If not, when do the Government intend to have such discussions? Would not it be far better to seek an effective non-proliferation treaty than to go for a new generation of nuclear weapons?
    Mr. King: I have just returned from a NATO meeting last week at which we agreed the military strategy that will accompany the strategic concept now agreed, of which Germany is a prominent supporter. NATO will continue

    141
    to base effective and up-to-date sub-strategic nuclear forces in Europe. The alliance strategic concept, of which Germany is a strong supporter, makes that point clear.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the answer that he has just given is further reinforced by the fact that several third-world countries, including some middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Algeria and perhaps Libya, are currently acquiring nuclear weapons? For all those reasons, it is essential that we keep a sub-strategic nuclear system in western Europe.
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Not only do we need a strategic deterrent, but there is a strong argument that a sub-strategic deterrent continues to be relevant at a time when there is a real risk of several new nations appearing which have some form of nuclear capability and when we risk the proliferation of not merely equipment but perhaps technology from some of the scientific bases in the former Soviet Union. My hon. Friend's point is very important.

    Bullying
    Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department to prevent bullying in the services; and how much money has been spent in dealing with this matter since June 1988.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The services take a serious view of bullying and it has been made very clear that bullying and ill-treatment will not be tolerated. A range of measures to combat bullying has been introduced, including the banning of initiation ceremonies and, specifically in the Army, the implementation of a training package on personnel management.
    Information on expenditure is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that I welcome both advances which have been made, but it will be obvious to him from my correspondence with the Department that some bullying still goes on. The only way to deal with that is by the appointment of a military ombudsman, who can deal with the problems objectively and is seen to do so. Please may we have an ombudsman?
    Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the existing disciplinary systems within the services are inadequate. I do not believe that to be so. They are objective and deal with such cases fairly. I do not think that anything would be gained by having an ombudsman to handle those problems.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Garrett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Garrett: Last week the head teachers association of Cambridgeshire wrote to the county council to say that because of critical shortages of books, equipment and
    142
    facilities and because of oversized classes, it would have serious difficulty providing the national curriculum. Under those circumstances, what advice does the Prime Minister give to his constituents—to buy private education, as he does?
    The Prime Minister: In Cambridgeshire the education standard spending assessment for the current year is £225 million, 16·4 per cent. higher than last year. There has been another substantial increase for 1992–93, an increase which safeguards the position of all children in Cambridgeshire.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the British Medical Association's somewhat belated conversion to the concept of fund-holding GPs? Does he agree with the BMA that that should now be extended to every GP who wants to hold a fund?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that GP fund-holding has been proving successful and has been extending quite dramatically. I welcome the fact that that is the case. We are currently considering how the benefits of fund holding can be extended and will make an announcement in the new year.
    Mr. Kinnock: In the interests of establishing the causes of the present mortgage crisis, could the Prime Minister confirm that, as Minister of State for Social Security, he halved mortgage support for newly unemployed people and that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he put the mortgage rate up to its highest in history?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework—rather unusually—better than he has, he would know, first, that the change in the 16-week rule was introduced after lengthy consultations with building societies and, secondly, that at the time, they said that there was no reason for people to lose their homes because of that reduction; nor have they.
    Mr. Kinnock: I think the answer that the Prime Minister was groping for was yes. Since he and his policies are uniquely responsible for the difficulties being experienced and the record repossessions and arrears, will he accept the obligation for introducing a proper mortgage rescue scheme, like the one recommended by the Labour party, instead of trying to shift the blame on to everyone else?
    The Prime Minister: The alleged mortgage rescue scheme proposed by the Labour party is a farce and has been denounced as such and the right hon. Gentleman should know it. As for the real problem, we are in the midst of discussions with the Building Societies Association and others and in due course we shall make an announcement that will build on the assistance that we have already provided. We have been considering the problem for some time—[Interruption]—unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who has only just discovered it.
    Mr. Kinnock: What is a farce, a tragic farce, is the Government's record—a Government who came to power to provide a property-owning democracy and ended with a debt-ridden recession. Since, because of the right hon.

    143
    Gentleman's policies, the building societies stand to lose £1 billion because of mortgage repossessions and since local authorities are having to spend £500 million on bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation, does not the Prime Minister think that the rescue mortgage scheme that we have promoted would be the effective way to ensure not only the relief of misery for scores of thousands of families, but that at least he did the honourable thing by his victims?
    The Prime Minister: The alleged mortgage rescue scheme about which the hon. Gentleman boasts was described this morning by an independent commentator as
    "a policy made in an Enid Blyton story book"—[ Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's policy is ludicrous. As for the levels of owner occupation, there are 3·5 million more owner-occupiers today than there were in 1979 and no doubt 3·5 million more than there would have been had the right hon. Gentleman been in government.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: If one were looking for the reasons for the present situation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been the departure of the building societies and other lenders from the traditional concept of not lending more than 75 per cent. of actual valuation, nor, from the point of view of personal status—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to make his point.
    Sir Hugh Rossi:—more than one quarter of monthly salary? If those criteria had been adhered to, many people would not be in their present position. Does my right hon. Friend agree—
    Hon. Members: Too long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being rather long-winded.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Will my right hon. Friend consider legislation to ensure that those traditional criteria are adhered to in future to stop this cyclical problem arising every so many years?
    The Prime Minister: It is a sad fact that many people over-extended their mortgage commitments and now face difficulties. The Government are playing their part to alleviate those difficulties and we expect the mortgage lenders—all the responsible ones—to play their part in that. The sensible ones know that it is in their interests to do so.
    Mr. Ashdown: If the Prime Minister is really keen to assist families who now stand in danger of having their homes repossessed, will he recognise the anomaly that exists between those on low incomes who pay rent and receive housing benefit and those on low incomes who pay mortgages and do not?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise that point very well. But the right hon. Gentleman should not pose, as he frequently does, as the friend of the home-owner—[Interruption.]—Oh, no. His policies are to put up taxes
    144
    and abolish mortgage income tax relief. He should stop coming to the House pretending to support home-owners when his policies would discriminate against them.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that only the very wealthy or the very foolish can afford to go to the libel courts for justice? If ordinary people are to have justice, perhaps a jury should find whether somebody is guilty of libel, but these £250,000 and £500,000 judgments are not justice but folly. Should not judges be able to decide what award is justified?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter on which I should be wise to seek the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor. Even in the heat and battle of Prime Minister's questions, it is best to go away and reflect on some matters.

    Leith
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the port of Leith.
    The Prime Minister: I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country and very much hope to visit the Edinburgh area again before too long.
    Mr. Brown: That is welcome news. Leithers will give the Prime Minister a warm welcome, but they will put him in the hot seat because of mass unemployment, homelessness and general misery, which have been experienced not just in my constituency, but throughout Britain. Nevertheless, being constructive, members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians have published a report entitled "Kick-start", which makes various proposals on how to get people back to work and revive the economy. Will the Prime Minister read that report and, more importantly, act on it? If not, the lessons are clear—there will not be a kick-start come the next election, but the Tories will be kicked out. That message is clear in my constituency and I am sure that it is clear in others.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that during the course of this Parliament, unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 32 per cent. The Scottish Office has taken a number of initiatives on homelessness, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In the four Scottish cities, £3·5 million in extra capital allocations have been made available for homelessness and a further £4 million extra capital for additional homelessness projects was made available last November. From April 1991, deficits on all local authority hostels met by Government subsidies will be worth an extra £1 billion a year. So a great deal has been done by the Scottish Office. In future, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge the dramatic reduction in unemployment in his constituency during this Parliament.

    Engagements
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December 1991.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that inward investment from America and Japan has brought highly paid, highly skilled and highly trained new jobs to areas like south Wales? Does he also agree that to brand such investment as "sweatshops" is a grave affront to the employees of those companies? The Labour party is telling those investors that they are not welcome here and encouraging them to go elsewhere.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is within the recollection of the House that, some Question Times ago, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was boasting about the Japanese investment in his constituency. Perhaps he will tell us whether that is "sweatshop" investment. If it is not, will he denounce his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who made the comment?
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Battle: Does the Prime Minister recall when, as Minister for Social Security, he cut mortgage support in half and said that there would be no reason to suppose that repossessions would increase? He said, "It will not happen". In view of that, does not he owe many thousands of families in Britain a personal apology?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts more carefully. The Building Societies Association assured the Government at the time that, when the rule was introduced, there would be no reason to expect people to lose their homes as a result and they have not done so. The simplest inquiry by the hon. Gentleman would have ascertained that fact.
    Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Councillor Mrs. Lydia Simmons, the Labour chairman of the housing committee in Slough, on her appointment as a member of the board of the NHS trust for Wexham Park hospital in my constituency? Does he agree that there is room for sensible people of all political persuasions to serve the community through NHS hospital trusts?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We need people of talent, whatever their political persuasions, in such public positions and I look forward to people of talent taking them up regularly.
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Prime Minister promise the House that no senior citizen, sick or disabled person need die from hypothermia or any illnesses resulting from it because they do not have the money to heat their homes? Does the Prime Minister agree that the elderly, sick and disabled should automatically receive a heating allowance every winter instead of having to go cap in hand to the Government? Does not he understand that it is action, not words, that the elderly, sick and disabled of Britain require of him?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that the House was advised in the summer of a new scheme to assist people during periods of very cold weather—well over I million payments are expected to be made for the recent cold spell. Those payments were not available under previous Governments.

Tees and Hartlepool Port
3.30 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed sale of the Tees and Hartlepool port to a consortium that includes Humberside Holdings Ltd., with consequences for the local communities of Tees and Hartlepool, and the sale of British ports in general."
The matter is specific in that the Tees and Hartlepool board yesterday announced its recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport to sell the port to a consortium that includes Humberside Holdings Ltd. The board does not appear to have taken into account the fact that Humberside Holdings Ltd. saw two of its associated companies, Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. and John Sutcliffe Stevedores Ltd., go into liquidation with outstanding liabilities to dockers on the abolition of the dock labour scheme of £3,034,001 in the case of Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. and £3,598,314 in the case of John Sutcliffe Stevedores Ltd. Humberside Holdings Ltd. set up a third company, East Coast Port Services, to make it the largest stevedore group in Grimsby and Immingham, providing the same services as those companies that went into liquidation. John Sutcliffe Stevedores also left on its books, by way of non-preferential claims, £142,247 to 43 small firms.
The matter is important as not only is Humberside Holdings Ltd. not a fit and proper bidder for the port of Tees and Hartlepool, but the Government, during the passage of the Ports Act 1991, stated that preference would be given to worker-management buy-out schemes and gave assurances, both to the consortium of Tees and Hartlepool—consisting of managers and workers alike—and to the other trust ports throughout the land, that such schemes would be favoured. As a consequence, there are management-employee buy-outs on the table for the ports of Tilbury, Medway and Clyde, all of which are likely to be affected by the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to ignore the bid of the local Tees and Hartlepool consortium.
The matter is urgent because the Secretary of State cannot even entertain the recommendation of the Tees and Hartlepool board because Parliament has not empowered him to do so. The requisite statutory instrument dealing with the clawback of funds from the sale of land owned by
148
port authorities has not completed its passage through Parliament, so it cannot be right to announce what the Secretary of State is minded to do until the Ports Act 1991 is perfected. If that were to happen, what would have happened to the will of Parliament?
A full debate on the Floor of the House would give all Members who served on the Ports Bill, and other Members with constituency interests, a chance to give their views on what constitutes an abdication of Government responsibility, a reneging of promises given and undertakings entered into.
Therefore, I call for a debate because what we see in Humberside Holdings Ltd. is the ugly and unacceptable face of capitalism.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed sale of the Tees and Hartlepool port to Humberside Holdings Ltd., with consequences for the local community of Tees and Hartlepool."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman had to say on this matter, but, as he knows, I have to decide whether to give his application precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I must rule in this case that it does not meet the criteria of the order and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that I raised this matter with you by way of a request for a private notice question on Tuesday—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Order."]
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter that we discuss in the Chamber. Had the hon. Gentleman raised it under Standing Order No. 20, that would have been different.
Mr. Devlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Leader of the House on Thursday for a statement on this subject. It is a matter of grave concern to the people of Teesside and there should be some opportunity for the Government to set out their views on it before the end of this Session.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has raised the matter under Standing Order No. 20, and I have ruled. I have nothing to add. I hope that there will be other opportunities to raise this matter.

Points, of Order
3.37 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises out of the debate on RECHAR which you so kindly allowed me to initiate last week and during which the Under-Secretary of State responsible for consumer affairs argued fiercely that the Government's stance was absolutely correct, that they would not change it, and that it was legally entirely clear.
We discovered this morning that at much the same time the Secretary of State for the Environment was drafting a letter that says: "I believe"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Member, who has not been here long, that I cannot rule on whether what Ministers say is right or wrong. This is not a matter for me.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Just hear him out.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman leave the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) to me please—and that goes for his hon. Friends who are prompting him from either side, too? I am not responsible for answers given in the Chamber; I have no idea whether they are right or wrong. I am responsible for matters of order. Is this a matter of order?
Mr. Enright: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to accuse either of the gentlemen in question of misleading the House, because that would be unparliamentary, but it is important for the House to know which of them is right. Will the Prime Minister act as referee and tell us which half of the Cabinet he supports so that my constituency can get its RECHAR funds before Christmas?
Mr. Speaker: As long as the hon. Gentleman does not ask me to referee.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order.
Mr. Haynes: Mine is. You have a wonderful opportunity, Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State for the Environment does not come here very often—but he happens to be here now. Get him on his feet!
Mr. Speaker: I cannot get the right hon. Gentleman on his feet now, although I will in a minute on the Local Government Finance Bill.
Dame Peggy Fenner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that I am not given to raising bogus points of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—but I ask you—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is it?
Dame Peggy Fenner: I accept the principle that, if you call a Member to explain why he wants to apply under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate on a subject, no one else may contribute; but if that Member mentions another's constituency and the concern felt by Medway port authority, one is still left with no way of
150
contributing. It is therefore unfortunate that we have no way of replying when our constituencies are mentioned in these circumstances.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady should draw that to the attention of the Procedure Committee. I am bound by the rules, and the rule is that, on a Standing Order No. 20 application, only one three-minute speech may be made.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about something that arose in the Consolidated Fund Bill debates on the Adjournment last Thursday when we debated the question of pensions. During that debate some Opposition Members wished to quote what Members of the upper House who are directors of Maxwell companies said in the other place. I seek your guidance as to what the rules are about quoting speakers in the other place. We are able to quote our own record, Shakespeare and everybody else, but it appears that we cannot quote the report of the upper House.
Mr. Speaker: There is a strict rule about this. Ministers in the other place may be quoted but not Back-Bench speeches made in the same Session. The relevant passage in "Erskine May" is at page 375.
Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to know why there was so much delay before I knew that my question 7 on defence was to be linked to question 1. Without a tip-off from some of my colleagues, I would not have come to the Chamber: I would not have known and I could have lost the question. Secondly, how did the House decide on the linkage between my question 7 and question 1, which is a regional matter? Thirdly, what does it mean when the Minister says that "With permission", he will link questions? Whose permission is it—mine, yours, Mr. Speaker, or that of the House?
Mr. Speaker: This question is frequently raised with me. I regret to tell the hon. Member that "With permission" does not mean with my permission. It is merely a form of words; it is a convention. However, it is the Minister's responsibility to let hon. Members whose questions are linked know about this. I am surprised that this was not done, and I think that the hon. Member should take it up with the Minister concerned.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to place on record that I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that I proposed to raise the matter. The ports concerned covered too wide an area for one specific question.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw attention to the fact that a number of questions that I put down yesterday about the Security Service were blocked, as is usual. In one of those questions I asked the Prime Minister to make a statement——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a plain case of cheating. The hon. Member, whose question was not accepted, cannot read it out in the Chamber now.
Mr. Flynn: May I make the point to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this morning's papers this very matter was the

151
subject of a press release. If there is a new period of glasnost with MI5 or MI6, can it be extended to hon. Members and not limited to the press?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? You will probably be aware that the new head of MI5 has for the first time been identified. Questions have previously been refused by the Table Office because of the blocking system regarding the Security Service. Would it be possible for that to be reviewed in the light of the fact that the head of MI5 has been named? There is a spirit of glasnost, but only a bit, and many of us believe that the Security Service should be accountable to Parliament. In the absence of that, would it be possible for the Table Office to accept questions such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred, which until today have been blocked? I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will give this matter careful consideration.
Mr. Speaker: That has already been done. In the light of the new circumstances, the Table Office allows questions on certain matters.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) about the linkage of his question with question 1. It used to be the practice that, if an hon. Member was not present when the question with which his has been linked was answered, his question would be answered separately by the Minister when it was reached. That practice should still apply.
Mr. Speaker: Those are all matters that the Procedure Committee could well consider. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. So-called reforms frequently lead to other problems.

Armed Forces (Liability for Injury)
3.45 pm
Mr. John Browne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that, in an action for liability in tort in a case involving the armed forces, a plaintiff need not in all cases show negligence on the part of the Crown.
My Bill would reverse the onus of proof of negligence for compensation for those armed services personnel who have sustained severe injuries in the course of their duties. It would ensure that, where obvious and serious injury was sustained by members of the armed forces in the course of their duties, compensation which would equate to that in civilian life would be paid by the Ministry of Defence as a matter of course unless the MOD could prove negligence on the part of the service people involved. That reverses the present onus of proof whereby injured service personnel must prove negligence on behalf of the mighty MOD, a Ministry which can and all too easily and often does withhold on the grounds of secrecy documents that are vital to proving a case of negligence.
Ours is a warrior nation. Because of that the men and women of our armed forces hold a special place in our hearts, at least in times of war. Sadly, in times of peace we are sometimes apt, as in Kipling's famous poem "Tommy", to take them for granted.
Because we truly are a warrior nation, probably all British people, including all hon. Members, yearly, on the vigil of Remembrance Sunday, echo those time-honoured words, "We will remember them". It is true, Mr. Speaker, we will remember them. But what about those who are not killed, or at least not quite? I speak of those who suffer horrific wounds but are saved from death by the miracles of modern science, good luck and their own outstanding mental fortitude. Many of them live on but are severely disabled. Do we truly remember them? The honest answer is yes; officially we do remember them, but not nearly well enough.
I believe that, regardless of political party, the British people feel that the Government should care more—much more—for our injured service men and, with regard to our armed forces, should be seen to be the very model of a good employer.
In 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) introduced the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill. It was a most progressive and well-intentioned Bill, supported by the MOD. In Committee, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), for whom I have the highest personal regard, set out the Government's three principles for settling these cases. He said:
"we wish to settle out of court … in the interests of the plaintiffs…we are not seeking to set up legal barriers by employing a raft of lawyers to deter genuine plaintiffs…we shall proceed diligently and quickly to reach settlements. We shall not seek to protract cases.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C. 18 March 1987; c. 21–22.]
The Under-Secretary of State also mentioned another most interesting fact. He said that the civil service estimate of the financial cost of the Bill would be about £13 million per year after 10 years. Mr. Speaker, it is now some five years since that Act came into force and the total cost of claims is put at only £1 million a year. Yet the still-deformed bodies of some of our injured service men

153
are living proof of the injustice of under-compensation. As to under-compensation, those figures speak for themselves and confirm that is so.
I turn now to the case of the three injured Grenadier Guardsmen. I do so because theirs is a well known case, but sadly its settlement was a very rare exception.
In the summer of 1989, those Grenadiers were ordered to prepare a trench on the Batus live firing range in Canada. In digging, one of them struck a buried, unexploded anti-tank shell that had been fired some years before and lay concealed in the ground. The shell exploded, blowing the legs off all three Grenadiers. Their bodies were injured so badly that, despite prompt casevac, it took the best in medical science two years to nurse them back to sufficient health even to be invalided out of the armed forces.
A board of inquiry was convened, but while it concluded that none of the Grenadiers was to blame, the board was not even required to investigate why the blind shell was in the area used for trench digging, or whether or not all safety briefings had been effectively observed. Despite that, the House was told that no blame was attributable to anyone.
Eighteen months later, when the first Grenadier was invalided out of the Army, the Government appeared to dig in their heels at the very thought of paying compensation anywhere near that equating to the levels applicable in civilian life.
Those three men were cut down by devastating injuries in the prime of their youth. After their two-year ordeal, they were mentally drained, and were depressed by their immobility. Furthermore, they had no real personal wealth, yet the mighty Ministry of Defence challenged those mutilated Grenadiers to prove legal negligence. Worse still, the same Ministry withheld the the board of inquiry's full findings, which were vital to the guardsmen's case. The Ministry provided only an abridged version that left out the crucial damning details.
Where was the spirit of the Government's assurances to the Committee on 18 March 1987? They were ignored, and the Government fought those injured men to the last trench. We all know that pressure was brought in part by the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister personally intervened, and a just settlement was agreed. Those Grenadiers were lucky, but many, many more ex-service men in similar states of severe disablement have yet to receive anything like proper compensation. Something must be done fast to correct that great injustice.
154
My Bill sets out to do something at least for those most badly injured, by reversing the present unjust burden of proof. It would not open the floodgates to minor injury claims, for it would extend only to the most severe and obvious injuries, such as loss of limbs. My Bill is modest, and would come well within the Government's present budget of £13 million a year in respect of the 1987 Act. I commend it to the House—and if right hon. and hon. Members accept my Bill today, I beg the Government not to kill it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Browne, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir Russell Johnston, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Patrick Duffy, Mr. Michael Colvin and Mr. Churchill.

ARMED FORCES (LIABILITY FOR INJURY) BILL
Mr. John Brown accordingly presented a Bill to provide that, in an action for liability in tort in a case involving the armed forces, a plaintiff need not in all cases show negligence on the part of the Crown: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1992, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it about the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne)?
Mr. Winnick: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have raised this matter before on a number of occasions, as you may be aware—for instance, in Adjournment debates and during Question Time. One of the people mentioned by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) is a constituent of mine.
I am very pleased that the Government finally relented and that an agreement was reached. There are no differences between Conservative and Opposition Back Benchers on this important issue. I note, however, that, although an Opposition spokesman on defence is present, no defence Ministers are. That is very unfortunate. Do not Ministers consider the issue to be important?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by the Ministers who are present.

Orders of the Day
  Local Government Finance Bill
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended ( in the Standing Committee), further considered.
    Clause 1

      COUNCIL TAX IN RESPECT OF DWELLINGS
      3.55 pm
      Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 1, line 10, after 'beginning', insert
      'in 1992, the Secretary of State shall by order provide that 100 per cent. of liability for personal community charge shall be eligible for community charge benefit and in the year beginning in '.
      If there is one single step that we could take to relieve the suffering and misery of millions and, at the same time, remove chaos and costs from the administration of the last year of the poll tax, it is surely the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution. If we lived in a sensible world in which democracy worked effectively, that is what would happen, for hon. Members on both sides of the House have repeatedly pressed for the abolition of that contribution. Successive Conservative Members did so on 13 and 26 March.
      I welcome the fact that the principle that no one should make a 20 per cent. minimum contribution to the Government's alternative to the poll tax has already been conceded, as has the principle that there should be no clawback from the amount allegedly put into benefits to compensate for that contribution; an announcement to that effect was made at a Government press conference.
      Although we welcome those measures wholeheartedly, we wish to ask a simple question. The principle has been conceded; no clawback will take place after April 1993. Why can that not happen immediately? In Committee, the Minister of State said that the new tax would he a different tax. The poll tax was a people tax, he said—a personal tax—and it was therefore impossible to abolish the minimum contribution before the introduction of a property tax.
      That is a trifle strange, because the 20 per cent. contribution was introduced under the old rating system. The Government have conceded that they were meddling with the previous principle of allowing those on nil or very low incomes to pay nothing when they introduced a 20 per cent. property tax contribution. They seem to think, however, that the principle that the poll tax must engender a universal contribution of at least 20 per cent. cannot be removed between now and April 1993.
      The truth is that a dispute is in progress within the Government, and even within the Department of the Environment. The Secretary of State believes, and has made it clear—
      The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): Here we go.
      Mr. Blunkett: We do not have to go far: we always find disagreement in the Conservative ranks. The Secretary of State believes that the contribution should have been
      156
      abolished months ago, and we are very pleased about that; the Under-Secretary of State—who, bless his cotton socks, lives in a world of his own—cannot even understand why we want to abolish it. When, a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a simple statement—that the 20 per cent. contribution should go now—the Minister said, "Why'?" The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities does not believe in the abolition of the 20 per cent., so we do not even have to debate with him why; he understands why he does not want it to be abolished. He thinks that every person, whatever their means—even if they have no income to pay it, which applies to 3 million women who are subject, with their husbands, to joint and several liability—should make a contribution, because he still believes in that charge. Everybody else, however, is left with the mess that has been created, not merely in terms of individual difficulty and suffering but in terms of the administrative and legal chaos engendered by the problems of collection. The cost of collection is something that even those who are willing to contemplate the misery of the poll tax are able to understand.
      In the first short debate yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) raised the 20 per cent. question and the difficulty that faces students who have never been compensated for the 20 per cent. contribution, the Minister of State suggested that the Audit Commission had not come down firmly in favour of the abolition of contribution and questioned my hon. Friend's figures. It may be instructive, therefore—in order to prevent the waters from being muddied—to put on record what the Audit Commission said. In response to the Government's original consultation paper on the council tax, "A New Tax for Local Government", in paragraph 15 the Audit Commission said:
      "The administrative costs of the principle of universal payment of community charge are high. On average, after taking into account the uplift in income support which they have received, charge payers, who receive 80 per cent. relief, contributed about £6 a year net to the public purse in 1990–91."
      In paragraph 16 the Audit Commission said:
      "Pursuing these defaulters for such small amounts is not a good use of scarce recovery resources when there are much larger debts outstanding."
      In the document entitled "Administration of the Community Charge: Some Longer Term Considerations" the Audit Commission said:
      "Exempting 20 per cent. of payers would more than pay for itself and would ease the pressure on the system, particularly in areas where collection is very difficult, anyway."
      Those clear quotations from what the Audit Commission said vindicate my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and suggest clearly that there is widespread support for abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution now in order to prevent the chaos that already exists over collecting the poll tax now.
      I should have thought that the problems of collection would have been a matter of concern for anyone who claimed that he or she was in favour of probity and prudence in respect of public finance. The problems of collection are mirrored nationally in other forms of taxation, with £4 billion of tax outstanding from the last financial year in income tax, value-added tax, corporation tax and duties. Over £1 billion is outstanding on VAT. As much as £364 million of income tax was written off last

      157
      year, never mind awaiting collection. I must be compensating for some of that lost revenue because I am still trying to get the Inland Revenue to pay back some of the money that it owes me.
      The problems of non-collection of the poll tax are exacerbated at local level in a way that none of us could have foreseen. We made strong predictions about the problems which would occur. That is why we believe that it is crucial to tackle them head on, not in the daft ways about which we heard in Committee. We were told that local authorities that were struggling to collect the tax should be penalised by ensuring that their services had to be cut still further—a more insensitive suggestion is unimaginable. Lord Boyd-Carpenter repeated that suggestion from somewhere in the depths of the countryside.
      Inner-city local authorities have had to face the problems of deprivation, education, housing, transport, the environment, leisure and public health while struggling through the courts with the 7·5 million summonses which had to be taken out this year to enforce collection of the poll tax.
      Conservatives in this House and in the other place have made stupid suggestions about how to deal with this genuine problem. Some people ask, "Could not the tax be collected through deductions in benefits?" The need to go through the courts and obtain deduction orders contributes to the administrative and legal difficulties. Even if deductions from benefits could be managed—suddenly, that has become a favoured solution to the problems engendered by inadequate incomes and by increased interest rates and mortgage charges—we cannot continue to pile deduction on deduction. There are deductions for mortgage interest payments, deductions for the direct fuel costs of people with small children or elderly relatives who would otherwise be threatened with having their service cut off, deductions for outstanding community care loans—another Government invention—and deductions for water charges.
      One cannot have all those deductions and expect people to have their poll tax contributions deducted as well. They would be left with virtually no money with which to buy their food and clothes. Presumably, their only recourse would be to EEC handouts and the Salvation Army. If one took that into account—and presumably a gift at Christmas to salve someone else's conscience—they would still be left in the new year with the impossibility of making ends meet. That is the reality of the struggle that people face in paying the poll tax.
      What are we to do? How do we persuade the Government about the reality? Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out the struggle that occurs in Strathclyde, which has faced an additional year of the poll tax, and the £34 million of cuts which had to be made to cope with last year's problems of non-collection. Those are real cuts and difficulties, not imagined ones.
      Conservative Members would dismiss that point on the ground that a Labour authority cannot manage its affairs, but it would be difficult to pursue that case. Strathclyde council has never been pilloried as a loony-left council. It struggles with the problems that occur in major inner-city areas of Glasgow and a major rural hinterland.
      158
      We must try to persuade Conservative Members that there are other reasons why it would be prudent for them to agree to the abolition now of the 20 per cent. contribution. The cost of doing that would be small.
      Conservative Members keep exaggerating what the cost of abolition would be. It seemed to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) in May and to myself in June and November that the cost of the 20 per cent. contribution kept going up, sometimes by as much as £200 million! It has been spelt out again and again—and I have already mentioned the Audit Commission—that the cost of not collecting or of struggling to collect is so great that it would be a saving if we abolished the 20 per cent. now. It would allow local authorities to concentrate specifically on those people who can afford to pay the poll tax but who are currently not paying. It would allow them to ensure that their administrative time, their legal expertise and the time of the courts could be spent in endeavouring to do what Conservative Members are constantly telling us should be done and which they now have the opportunity to help us to do.
      Abolition would not only help those who are struggling to raise the 20 per cent. contribution but would have a beneficial economic effect nationally. [Interruption.] I might be able to enlighten the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), if he listens carefully. I am keen that he should understand why we want to abolish the 20 per cent. in case he again makes the mistake of saying that he does not understand why. The national debt is also dramatically affected by the non-collection rate. Authorities have to borrow to pay the basic revenue running costs and because the cost of borrowing is so great for them, and because the increased public sector borrowing requirement to cover that has an effect on the national debt and on the inflation rate, it is important that the Government take that into account. In that way, we might persuade the Government that the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution could help to solve the problems of the nation as a whole.
      Abolition would not cost very much because nobody has been able to prove what the true cost would be. In Committee I think it was the Minister of State who for the first time came up with some figures for the earmarked contribution. For next year I think that he suggested that with the uprating the figure would be £1·40 a week for a single adult under the age of 25. That is the contribution that they claim that they have made towards the amount that has to be raised, but only a few months ago the Government made their position very clear. They said:
      "There is no specific amount for the community charge in any one individual's benefit."—[Official Report, 27 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 446.]
      The Government said that the compensation formed "an integral part" of overall rates. Either it does or it does not; either it is included in those benefits as a general contribution or it is not. The abolition of the contribution and the decision which has been taken for 1993 that it should not be clawed back could easily be applied to the poll tax. If it were, there would not only be a sigh of relief from those affected but we could get on with the job of trying to see out the poll tax in a reasonably orderly fashion.
      Those on the lowest incomes and those who are struggling to pay the 20 per cent. contribution and to make ends meet would not only be relieved of the contribution

      159
      but would have gained their share of the benefit from the switch to value added tax. Those on the least income were the ones who gained the least from having the £140 flat rate reduction last March, but they end up having to pay the VAT increase for the benefit of those who gained most.
      I hope that the Government will take on board what I have said and will be willing to respond in a reasonably acceptable fashion. I have presented the case without rhetoric and in a mild and gentle fashion. I have not even had to resort to my box of tissues which I offered round in Committee to try to avoid getting the cold that I now have. I hope that I have managed to get across a reasonable case in a reasonable fashion.
      If there was ever time when the Prime Minister could make reality of the gentle rhetoric of his conversion from the harsh and uncaring doctrines of she who nurtured him—and he has shown no real signs of that in domestic, political and social policy—it is now through this measure. The Government should abolish the 20 per cent. contribution and help the individuals affected which would help to abolish the poll tax with some semblance of order, financial competence and common sense. It is not a lot to ask.
      4.15 pm
      If the Government abolish the 20 per cent. contribution now—they may choose to do so just before the election—they would do a great favour to millions of people who are not written about in the papers, who do not appear on front-line news programmes on television and who probably do not even get a mention on "Yesterday in Parliament". We are not talking about 100,000 people who
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I will make some brief points which arise from the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He said that if it is expensive to collect a tax, it should not be imposed or collected. I hope that that will be the principle of any Labour Administration who take office in the 21st century. It will be very expensive to collect my tax, so I look forward to its not being imposed.
      There is a slight contradiction in one concept. We always hear from the Opposition that local authorities are starved of money, yet it is proposed that local authorities should be more starved of money by exempting people who, I take it, the Opposition imagine might vote for them from having to pay anything into the kitty.
      There is nothing unfair about what the hon. Member for Brightside calls the poll tax, which is in fact the community charge. It is a simple licence fee for local authority services. If we have the benefit of those services—I do not—we use them. What is wrong with paying a licence fee for that? To bleat that there are people who cannot afford it, although they can afford to drink in pubs, to have television sets, to run motor cars, to go to football matches and the like, is special pleading. It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Brightside should suggest that if it is expensive, as it is, to collect something as simple as a television licence fee, one should merely be told that one does not have to pay. If it is expensive for somebody to clean out the dustbin, presumably one does not get the dustbin cleaned. That is the other side of the coin. Under the socialist millennium and other Kinnocchio, we shall
      have in our imperial concept—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to refer to the Leader of the Opposition by such a name.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was not referring to the Leader of the Opposition, because it does not occur to me that he will ever be Prime Minister of Britain. I was referring to an imaginary empire.
      Mr. John Maxton: First, the hon. and learned Gentleman obviously has not grasped the point. What we propose will save local authorities money by taking away from them the duty to collect the 20 per cent. charge. Secondly, can we assume from the nature of the speech that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making that he intends to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill at 10 o'clock tonight? What he is saying does not match the principles of the council tax. There will be 100 per cent. rebates, so many people will have nothing to pay for local services. He opposes not the socialist millennium, but the millennium of his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have not yet come to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I am dealing with the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. What I do at 10 o'clock tonight is a matter which is deep in my conscience and will not be revealed even to the Whips at this time.
      The philosophy of the Opposition is easy to follow. It goes this way: "The local authorities are starved of money. Those whom we think will vote for us should not have to contribute to that money." Are we seriously saying that, because it costs as much to issue a 1s 6d postal order as it does to issue a £25 postal order, the people who buy the Is 6d ones should not have to pay for them? That is essentially what the hon. Member for Brightside is saying. It is a fatuous concept.
      If the hon. Member for Brightside can produce for me cases of people who have deprived themselves of paying the television licence fee or the car tax, never go to a pub and live in meanness because of the 20 per cent. factor, I will say hurrah. But I believe that the whole thing is a charade of whingeing and whining, complaints and mercy begging. Let us all simply pay our licence fee for local authority services. Let the Opposition stop complaining that local authorities are underfunded while suggesting measures by which they should be further underfunded.
      Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) has completely missed the point. We are well aware that he does not like the new council tax and that he favours the poll tax. That is fair enough. He has made his objections clear. I respect his view, although I do not agree with it for many reasons, which we discussed in Committee. One reason is that the tax should be based on a person's ability to pay. That is what it is all about.
      By no stretch of the imagination could we say that many of the people caught by the 20 per cent. rule have the ability to pay. That is why they do not pay. There is no question of going to football matches for the people who pay the 20 per cent. There is no question of having a car or going out to the pub at night. They simply cannot afford it. Many of them have about £42 a week to live on, to clothe themselves and so on. On the social argument alone, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman touched, we

      161
      should do away with the 20 per cent. rule because the people to whom it applies are the least able to care for themselves with the money that they have.
      But we do not argue on the social point. We are arguing on the basis of the cost of collecting the 20 per cent. I see my borough treasurer fairly regularly. The local authority is short of money because of the difficulties that it faces. When we debate the standard spending assessment, we will deal with the reasons why the authority is short of money. When we discussed the new council tax, the borough treasurer wanted two things. One was to stop having to collect the 20 per cent. from people whom he was having to pursue through the courts. If they cannot pay the 20 per cent., how can they pay the 20 per cent. plus the cost of going to court? That does not bear argument and will merely increase the debt.
      In Committee, we argued about the impossible position in which local authorities would find themselves when they tried to collect the poll tax. My local authority, which is small compared to many, made 60,000 alterations to the register in nine months of the financial year. It issued 57,007 reminder notices, 46,164 final notices and 12,457 summonses.
      The police can no longer take the summonses out as they are too bogged down. If they do, the courts cannot deal with them because they are too bogged down. My authority has issued 9,680 liability orders and 5,698 financial information requests and has authorised attachment of earnings in 438 cases, attachment of income support in 371 and issued 149 warrants to bailiffs.
      All those transactions w ill continue while the authority introduces the new tax. The death of the poll tax arid the birth of the new council tax are causing problems within the financial department and the treasurer asks two things: first, do away with the 20 per cent. rule and, secondly, allow local authorities to design the new format for the tax, rather than running it centrally. The people on the ground are more capable of dealing with the problem than are central Government.
      The disadvantages of the 20 per cent. rule for local authorities—its collection, the routine of trying to get it, and finishing up in court—so far outweigh the financial benefits which accrue from it that it would save them money if they could do away with it. Under the old system, local authorities would review the rent liabilities—people who had not paid the rent and thus had not paid the rates, as they were built into the rent structure. As hon. Members will know, treasurers used to cut their losses. When they felt that it would cost more to pursue liabilities than they were likely to get back, they wiped out the liability. That is what is happening at present with those people who have to pay 20 per cent.
      If borough treasurers find that they have crossed over the border and can no longer recoup their money, surely in any financial circles it would be argued that it would be sensible for them to cut their losses. If authorities pursue 20 per cent. of the tax through the courts, they will only get themselves into more debt rather than recoup their money.
      Abolition of the 20 per cent. rule would give local authorities room to manoeuvre to pursue those who owe the largest amount, as it would release staff, and save police time and court time. It would be a saving all the way down the line, rather than a loss. It seems too ridiculous for words if, for the sake of ideology, we force local authorities to spend more to recover less. It is time that we considered the problem more seriously than the
      162
      Government have done until now. Let us do away with the tax and get down to the business of running local authorities in a sensible way.
      Mr. Bill Walker: It will not surprise Opposition Members who served on the Standing Committee that I rise to speak on the amendment because we must consider what the Opposition are asking. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), in reasonable terms, suggested that we should allow local authorities to wipe out the responsibility of those who fall into the 20 per cent. community charge category, and that we should put that in the statute—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am merely quoting back what the hon. Gentleman said in his speech. The Opposition give the cost of collection as the reason.
      Mr. Blunkett: For the sake of clarity, I must put it on record that we did not suggest an indemnity, or wiping out the debt that is currently owed.
      Mr. Walker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that clear, because it is a fundamental point.
      The important aspect of the argument of the hon. Member for Brightside was that, because of the cost of collecting the debt and the involvement of so much manpower—he drew attention to the situation in Strathclyde, and the splendid councillors there; I imagine that that is why Strathclyde is so short of policemen—[Interruption.] The Opposition are suggesting that, if their proposal were adopted, local authorities would be able to concentrate their energies on collecting the remainder of the debt. He claimed that some people were able to pay but had not paid.
      4.30 pm
      What is to prevent a local authority from taking that action now? If a local authority wished to separate debts between the 20 per cent. and other categories—it would not be difficult to do that because it is clear from the value of the debt whether people are in the 20 per cent. or another category—it could chase the outstanding higher debts. That would be a businesslike and logical approach to the problem. Obviously, one should go for the bigger debts first. The cost of collection makes that the logical approach to take. That would allow the authority the scope that the hon. Gentleman claims the amendment would provide. In other words, I argue that authorities already have that scope if they wish to use it.
      Mr. Maxton indicated dissent.
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The local authority determines whom it takes to court and which debts are chased. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) explained what happened with rent arrears. As he said, when it was known that certain arrears would never be recouped—because the cost of chasing them would be so great—they were written off.
      Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman served, as I did, in Committee on the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and will be aware that the law was changed under that measure in terms of collection between the rating system and the poll tax. He is right to say that, under the old rating system, the local authority had the ability to write off a sum if it wished to do so. That course

      163
      is no longer available to an authority under the new system, and that is one reason why we are in our present mess.
      Mr. Walker: The proposal about which I was speaking was put forward by Labour Members, and I was simply commenting on it. Local authorities can chase such debts as they determine in law shall be chased. If authorities do not chase higher debts, as against those in the 20 per cent. category, it is their decision not to go after them. I understood the hon. Member for Brightside to claim that Strathclyde faced financial problems because of the number of people in the 20 per cent. category and the need for the authority to use so much manpower to chase that debt. He went on to say what ratio of the total debt was represented by the number of people in the 20 per cent. category.
      Mr. Maxton: Representing 70 per cent.
      Mr. Walker: Yes, 70 per cent. of the debt in Strathclyde, being the number in the 20 per cent. category. Hence, the authority should be chasing those in the 30 per cent. category, if it thinks it can get the money which is owed.
      Mr. Maxton: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not understand Scottish law on this matter, and I leave it to my English hon. Friends to deal with the law applying to authorities elsewhere in the country. Local authorities in Scotland are obliged to take out warrants against those in debt. The Act instructs them to do that. Once a warrant is taken out, it is for the sheriff officer to decide who will and who will not be proceeded against.
      Mr. Walker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consults his former hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about that, for he probably knows more about the detail of the provision of the Act than any other hon. Member. Having travelled the route of a non-payer, he was on the receiving end of what a local authority is capable of doing under the law as it stands. The hon. Gentleman's case fell down because he said that, if we gave local authorities the ability to write off and do what they wished with the 20 per cent. payers, they could then concentrate their energies on the rest. Nothing under the present legislation stops them proceeding against those who cannot pay but should pay.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is simply confusing the argument, and I suspect that he is doing so deliberately.
      In a previous incarnation, I used to issue warrants. I was a provincial solicitor for the South of Scotland electricity board, so I know the warrant system perfectly well. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, before the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, agents acting on behalf of a person who was owed money, whether substantial or insignificant sums, could pick and choose between the debtors against whom they proceeded.
      Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Kirkwood: I shall give way in due course.
      164
      It is significant that, under the 1987 legislation, local authorities were obliged to take out warrant proceedings against all and sundry. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) may speak about this point, but I understand that the only discretion allowed by the 1987 Act was that priority could be given to the order in which instructions were given to sheriff officers to pursue debtors. Local authorities had discretion to that extent only. If that is what the hon. Member for Tayside, North is trying to say in his confused way, I agree with him, but I suspect that he is pursuing the argument simply to confuse the matter, which amounts to administrative chaos and much hardship for those who cannot pay.
      Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is getting it right.
      Mr. Kirkwood: That is encouraging.
      I have been following the argument from a social security viewpoint. Alas, I was not privileged to be one of the chosen few who served on the Standing Committee, although I read some of the proceedings with interest. When the Minister winds up, will he say what consideration the Department gave to that question before the legislation? I perfectly understand the exigencies of a political emergency that had to be dealt with quickly, but was active consideration given to dealing with that problem and abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution? What is the current assessment of the cost of that? It would be helpful to the debate if the Minister could say a word about that, because his Department must have an estimate, although it may be difficult to arrive at an accurate figure.
      I welcomed the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security that compensation would not be clawed back, because £700 million is not an insignificant figure. There was much uncertainty about whether the Government would go all the way and haul that money back out of the pockets of those who qualified for income support, to add to the other misery that such people were suffering. The Government's made the right response to that problem.
      Nevertheless, the problem in Scotland is peculiar to the extent that the legislation applied for a 12-month additional period. Nineteen-eighty-nine was a particularly difficult period for those on low incomes, because they had just begun to feel the effects of the Social Security Act 1986, which took effect in 1988. Water rates, particularly north of the border but also I suspect in other parts of the country, started to bite. Many people lost single payments to which they were entitled. Much of the transitional relief was taken out of the system as the relief funds that had quite rightly been introduced ran out.
      The combination of all those factors in 1989–90, particularly in Scotland, took a heavy toll of pensioners who used to qualify for supplementary pensions and, under the new income support system, received pensioner premiums. Much hardship was caused. All of us north of the border—I speak for all parties—heard people on low incomes, particularly pensioners, explain how they simply could no longer make ends meet. When two-pensioner households had to pay two 20 per cent. contributions, it made the difference between profit and loss. Those who had previously been able to manage found that the combination of changes, including the 20 per cent. contribution, made it impossible for them to make ends meet.

      165
      As a result, a high proportion—some estimates make it 15 per cent., some as high as 40 per cent.—of people subject to the 3 million warrants issued north of the border have found it impossible to make ends meet. Discussions that I have held with representatives of citizens advice bureaux and other poverty pressure groups suggest that there is a continuing problem which has been rolling on since 1989–90 during the two or three years of the poll tax. Those problems are getting worse.
      Many pensioners are now taking recourse in the deregulated credit market; they borrow money from money lenders. Some of them buy their consumer durables and clothing from catalogues that enable them to buy on credit. Many of them are storing up problems that will get worse before they get better. The Department had a duty to consider that combination of circumstances, and I hope that the Minister will say that that aspect has at least been considered. The Department faced a difficult political problem, and, like everyone else, I welcome the fact that the poll tax has been abandoned. However, when considering alternatives, the Department had a duty to consider all the circumstances before it opted for the Bill.
      It is a great shame, a tragedy, that the opportunity was not taken to abolish that level of difficulty in 1992, as the amendment suggests. I accept that it may have been expensive to do so. However, no other single act of the Government could have more effectively ameliorated the continuing problems of financing the poll tax.
      I subscribe entirely not just to the content of the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), but to the way in which he deployed the argument. I do not think that we should give the issue a high political profile, although of course it contains political aspects. The hon. Gentleman made his proposal in a measured way. His suggestion was underscored by the essential administrative argument and the Audit Commission's claims, which I think are now widely accepted by hon. Members.
      Huge administrative costs are involved in collecting the 20 per cent. contribution from those who are least well-off and sending out poll tax book after poll tax book through doors every time there is a change, keeping the registers up to date and employing extra staff in local government. One aspect that riled people in the small market towns that I represent in south-east Scotland involved the adverts that were seen week after week for local government officials in finance departments on wages that were, for my part of the country, relatively high. Such officers were being employed in droves. New computer equipment and computer operatives were also being taken on to keep the administration under control.
      They have managed to do remarkably well in south-east Scotland, where the non-payment rate is relatively low. That is because people in my district of the country are honest, law-abiding citizens, as they were in the 16th century, when they used to murder Englishmen with gay abandon. We celebrate that every year in our common riding festivals, to which hon. Members are hereby invited——
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart) rose——
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Kirkwood: I give way to the Minister, who is obviously going to come next summer.
      Mr. Stewart: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the honesty and integrity of his constituents. I hope that he will agree that the other reason why Borders regional council has done well in collecting the tax is that, from the outset, it enthusiastically tried to maximise collection.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Yes, that is absolutely right. One scheme that the council came up with, of which I was fortunate enough to be able to take advantage, was the allowance of a small discount for people who paid straight away. That worked extremely well. However, such a system is open to people such as me, but not to all my constituents.
      Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman refer to the record? In the Borders in October 1990, 42 per cent. of the community tax was unpaid and in October 1991 it was 49 per cent. Is that what the hon. Gentleman considers a relatively good record?
      Mr. Kirkwood: Yes, it is for that stage of the year. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the end-of-year figures, he will see that the total collection rate is 96 and 97 per cent. Therefore, he will find that the lower percentage was a statistical freak.
      It would create huge administrative costs and be sheer lunacy to proceed with the tax for the year 1991–92, which will be an extremely difficult year for many people on low incomes. It would fly in the face of the evidence from local authorities, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and other organisations that have studied the problems. The Government should accept the timeous amendment, which will make a substantial difference to those who are least welloff and would go a long way to easing the transition between the hated poll tax and the new council tax when—God help us—it is introduced in 1993.
      Mr. John Bowis: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) started by saying that he agreed with the Labour party spokesman and ended up by giving a fine display of how community charge collection could work in practice. Perhaps that explains why his pressing bid to serve on the Bill's Committee was rejected by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who leapt in to take her rightful place.
      I question two aspects of the amendment: first, what it says and, secondly, what the Opposition have said it says and their reasons for doing so. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) waxed gently but eloquently in favour of the abolition of the 20 per centers. I do not believe that the amendment removes the 20 per centers. If it did, there would be a considerable new poverty trap for the many people who are one step above the income support requirements and who consequently miss out on so many benefits. There would be a sudden drop from the 20 per cent. qualifying level to zero. The amendment produces a sliding scale down from 100 per cent to zero, to which I do not object in principle—it is something that we shall enact in future legislation.

      167
      However, the hon. Member for Brightside cannot suggest that everyone on a 20 per cent. charge will be excluded from payment under his proposals. In addition, he cannot say that the collection problems will be less, as instead of pursuing people for their 20 per cent. bills he would have to pursue them for 1, 2 and 5 per cent. bills.
      Mr. Blunkett: I want the hon. Gentleman to concede that if the taper were kept at the present 15p, as opposed to sharpening it to the 20p proposed for council tax benefit for 1993, people would be better off with the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution—with 100 per cent. available rebate. Instead of being penalised from 1993, as some who are struggling just above benefit levels will be, they will be pleased to find that they, too, are helped.
      Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my point. He suggested that a few people who have their charge removed altogether might benefit, but I maintain that the sliding scale would still exist, which would make the system that much more difficult to implement.
      So much for the wording of the amendment; what about its purpose, as spelt out by the hon. Member for Brightside? It is supposed to relieve people who are liable for up to 20 per cent. of the charge. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is in his hands and those of his colleagues in local government to relieve such people in the coming year. We already have a system to enable people to meet the challenge and remove the charge from everyone on income support. All that local authorities need to do is set their spending requirements at such a level that they come in at or below target. The 20 per cent. of community charge incorporated in the income support system will then pay, or more than pay, the amount required by local authorities.
      It has been said time and again that my council provides good-quality services at low cost. I do not wish to repeat the fact that this year and next we will have a zero charge, good though that is. I want to cite the fact that last year we had a £148 charge. This year, before the Budget change, we had a £136 charge. So we are talking about collecting from our 20 per centers about 50p a week, which is more than adequately compensated for in the income support system. Each and every one of my less well off constituents benefited considerably—they were in pocket as a result of the system.
      The system that enabled that to happen depends crucially on good management by local authorities, on councils looking after taxpayers' money that they receive from the centre and charge payers' money that they collect locally, and on their spending it wisely. My borough of Wandsworth has achieved the zero charge so that every less well off constituent is in pocket, not by means of additonal grant from Government—as I have often said, the neighbouring borough of Lambeth received one third more in Government grant last year, has done so this year and will next year—but by spending the money wisely.
      The ability to set a low charge while maintaining quality is entirely due to the fact that over the past decade my council has been able to make £50 million efficiency savings. Let us compare that with the activities of many Labour authorities. The Labour-run council of Leeds, for instance, sent about 800 people to celebrate twinning
      168
      arrangements in Germany, at a cost of about £76,000. Was that really the right priority, the one that the less well off people of Leeds wanted?
      Mr. John Battle: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts and spell out to the House the precise amount of the contribution of the local chamber of commerce, which wanted to establish trade links.
      Mr. Bowis: I even missed out one item: the sum of £17 a day expedition given to each of 12 councillors who accompanied the 800.
      The former leader of Wakefield council had his room rebuilt three times in four years. He then moved into the chief executive's office because his room was not big enough and had a shower installed in it. When a new chief executive arrived, he decided that his room was not big enough either and had it expanded at a cost of £16,000. Wakefield council spent up to £1·5 million refurbishing the town hall. Are these priorities helping the less well off people in these boroughs, or are those councils overspending wastefully? Those Labour authorities could not care a fig about the less well off—if they could, they would ensure that their spending was on target so that the element of 20 per cent. in the income support system would pay for poor people's contributions.
      Mr. Allen McKay: It is all very well the hon. Gentleman pointing a finger at some councils' expenditure without asking why it was incurred in the first place. We in Parliament need more room across the road and have spent millions of taxpayers' money on moving across the road. The hon. Gentleman is in favour of that, but he complains about local authorities doing the same. He did not mention Wandsworth's standard spending assessment, but could he tell me why it costs my authority £1 less per person to run the authority than it costs Westminster? Why does Westminster get £2 a head to educate its children when my authority gets only £1? Where is the justice in that? The hon. Gentleman should give us the whole story and compare like with like.
      Mr. Bowis: We certainly should compare like with like and it is difficult to do that across the country, but we can do it across boundaries in London, where it is fair to compare allocations. One third more is allocated to Lambeth than to Wandsworth, but the latter makes the money work efficiently so that costs are kept down.
      I was not talking about debt charges; I was talking about £1·5 million redecorating costs and questioning that sort of priority. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman occupies a lavish new office. I still make do with my shared office in Dean's Yard. No doubt one day it will be brought up to the standard to which the hon. Gentleman has become accustomed.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend is right to illustrate some of the absurd spending by Labour councils. Our Labour-controlled county council wanted to close an old people's home in my constituency for want of a few thousand pounds, yet it cleaned up the front entrance to county hall and carved the name "Nottinghamshire County Council" in stone over the entrance—as though we did not know that is what it was called. It also carved the name of every councillor to win a seat two years before, at a cost of £250,000. It is that sort of absurd expenditure which irritates us.
      Mr. Bowis: That is an eloquent example of exactly what I am talking about. I should imagine that Nottinghamshire carved her name with shame, not with pride.
      I close with two more reasons why overspending can lead to overcharging vulnerable people and they explain why we get angry when we hear Labour Members talking about vulnerable people. Their wasteful policies result in poor people paying more. I refer first to collection. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire rightly highlighted his council's policy in this respect and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed what he said. Most good collectors are Conservative councils, but not all. There are councils of all parties and of none which manage to collect. Salford manages to collect 103 per cent. of target and Gateshead collects 104 per cent.; so we know that Labour authorities can do it, too. That must include a large number of people on the 20 per cent. who are paying legally and rightly, if not willingly, and at least doing their duty by their fellow citizens.
      The campaigns that we have seen by the Opposition parties—not, I must say, the Liberal Democrats, but some other parties, particularly the Labour party—to persuade people not to pay have resulted in surcharges on the vulnerable this year. Those surcharges stand as a record of shame to the Labour party and to any other party that supports that policy of non-payment. The people who are having to pick up the tab for that policy and that connivance in non-payment are not just the Mr. and Mrs. Average in any constituency, but the less well off, those who are in receipt of income support, but who have honestly paid their contributions and now find that people better off than them are causing them to be surcharged to pay for that non-payment.
      5 pm
      Mr. Maxton: First, as an hon. Member who presumably supported his Government in wasting £14 billion on imposing this tax, the hon. Gentleman might show some humility and apology rather than doing what he is doing. Secondly, will he stop smearing the Labour party as regards non-payment? The Labour party has been absolutely clear in its opposition to non-payment of the poll tax. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) will bear out, we have always opposed non-payment as a policy and we will continue to do so.
      Mr. Bowis: When I see the leaders of the hon. Gentleman's party throwing out hon. Members on the Benches behind him who advocated non-payment and throwing out leaders of councils throughout the country who have advocated non-payment, I will accept from him lessons about standing four square behind law and order and willingness to pay one's taxes.
      This is a debate about the 20 per centers. The Bill introduces a scale down to zero. I do not disagree with the principle of that scale for the future, because once we move to the new tax, when in theory at least the system will change in terms of both income support and the community charge, we are into a new ball game. I am very happy to add as a postcript, as a result of my question to Social Security Ministers, that everyone on income support is given the added bonus. They will not have to hand over to the councils the 20 per cent. element in income support because of the new scale; they will have the
      170
      benefit of keeping that in their pockets. So the whole country will benefit, as citizens of Wandsworth have to date.
      Mr. Battle: The contribution or the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) came across as a last-ditch defence of the poll tax. I shall be surprised if the hon. Gentleman does not vote against the council tax, on the basis that he would prefer the poll tax to remain. Some of his speech sounded exactly like the arguments that we had when the poll tax was introduced—a mish-mash of half-baked myths and half-truths about Labour local authorities and others which do not stand close scrutiny. They are unfounded allegations that could be challenged anywhere within or outside the House.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to Leeds city council, which has never been rate-capped or poll tax-capped. Indeed, Conservative Ministers have commended the prudence of Leeds city council. He may find that he will fall out with some members of his own party who support trade links with Europe, while he seems to be running with the Prime Minister and suggesting that we should blow cold on Europe and not build the vital trade links that our cities need to ensure that our industries are taken through to the next century and not rubbed out by this Government's economic policies.
      Getting back to the amendment, I find it difficult to understand why the Government are holding out any longer—or, more precisely, who in the Government is holding out—against withdrawing the 20 per cent. rule from next April. Why can it not go through tonight? There are overwhelming arguments for getting rid of it from next April. We would welcome the reintroduction of the 100 per cent. rebate, with the council tax as part of that. It is the only part of the council tax Bill so far which has met with universal acclaim.
      There is also general relief, as others have said, that the Government agreed in Committee that there would be no clawback of the compensation element when the council tax is introduced. That is welcome, because it perpetuated a further injustice in the poll tax. Now that the Government have got as far as accepting the principle that there should he no minimum contribution to local government, it is hard to see why the question of timing should hold matters up. It seems to me that that is all that is left; it is simply a question of the timing of the introduction. It certainly cannot be the principle of the 100 per cent. rebate, because that is now universally accepted.
      It has been helpful that some Government Members agree with us that the 20 per cent. rule should be abolished now. I was on television with the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) on the "Scrutiny" programme when he agreed that it would be much better if the Government abolished the 20 per cent. rule now; and I know that he is not alone. Many Tory Members agree with that point of view.
      That reflects a change of approach by Conservative Members. I believe that they all see and acknowledge that the time is now up for the 20 per cent. minimum rule, on which the former Prime Minister insisted. I hope that the Government will accept our amendment tonight and agree that it is unnecessary to perpetuate that injustice.
      All that seems to remain is a lingering confusion about what means-tested income support is and what it is supposed to do. Income support is not part of the tax system, whether local or income tax. It is for people who

      171
      pay no tax because they are on a very low income or have no job. It should be separated, and is separated by the benefits system, from the tax system. It is part of the income maintenance system and should never have been confused with the taxation system. From the start the Government have presented that basic contradiction in their ideology. They have insisted on the notion of universality, that all must pay, regardless of their ability to pay, or, more important, their inability to pay and regardless of their lack of income. It may, on the face of it, seem laudable that everybody should make some contribution. The problem is that that principle comes into direct conflict with a means-tested benefit system, where people are asked what income they have and, if they do not have an income, are given support from the state.
      The Government now refer to means testing as "targeting". The problem is that universality clashes and cannot operate with means testing, or targeting. Universality and means testing are incompatible. That is the basic contradiction built into the poll tax from the outset and that is why it is unfair to poorer people.
      The whole purpose of income support is to support the incomes of poorer people. It can be argued that everybody should pay their rent and rates or rent and poll tax and we agree with that. But people should not be expected to pay them out of income support if no allowances have been put into income support in the first place. If they have no other source of income, because they have no jobs, the money that they receive from income support should pay their basic bills. That is the basis of income support, but the Government approach has been to lower the level of income support and to deduct, as it were, rent, rates or poll tax. As a result, that income support has been penalised and that is the injustice in the poll tax. I believe that it is not necessary to continue it any longer.
      I remind the House of the history of the 20 per cent. rule. Until 1 April 1988, all those on supplementary benefit, as it was then called, received a 100 per cent. rebate if they paid rates because the system was means tested. If someone did not have enough money to pay his or her bills, the principle could take that into account.
      The new system of income-related benefit which was introduced in April 1988 allowed only those who received rate rebates to qualify for a maximum rebate of 80 per cent. Everyone at that stage was required to pay 20 per cent. of the rates. In other words, the 20 per cent. principle was introduced during the last year of the rates to prepare for the universal principle of the poll tax. Therefore, the principle of the 20 per cent. contribution was simply carried forward from the end of the rate rebate system to the poll tax rebate system. No matter how low one's income, everyone was required to pay at least 20 per cent. of his or her poll tax bill.
      I am surprised that the Government have now conceded that that principle is unjust and are prepared to return to the full 100 per cent. qualification for rebates from April 1993. The Government appear to have acknowledged that they were wrong to try to use the income support system as a means of deducting local tax, or the poll tax as it was.
      Why are the Government holding out against all critical opposition, whether from the Labour party, public bodies outside the House, other parties and even some
      172
      Conservative Members from the Back and Front Benches? There seems to be no logic or economical reason for holding to the 20 per cent. rule any longer. There certainly is no reason of principle.
      I emphasise that those people who have been asked to pay the 20 per cent. minimum contribution may have had to face severe financial difficulties. I am sure that most hon. Members will have heard from such people at their advice surgeries, particularly pensioners, who say that the 20 per cent. contribution can cause real hardship if poll tax levels are high. Nor do those levels have to be above the rate for poll tax capping. That should have been taken into account. When the poll tax was introduced, it was simply assumed that 20 per cent. was a notional figure and that people could chip in a small amount to make a contribution because it would not make a real difference to their disposable incomes. In fact, as we have all learnt during the past few years, that 20 per cent. can make a considerable difference to people's incomes.
      It was the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), one of the great architects of the poll tax, who, in The Guardian on 8 March, said:
      "The charge is higher than people on low incomes can afford because the rebate system has become totally inadequate. It was designed in 1988 when we expected community charges to be much lower than they turned out to be."
      I agree with that statement. It precisely highlights the problem.
      In the responses to the consultation paper "A new tax for local government", those calling for the immediate abolition of the minimum 20 per cent. contribution included the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Rating and Valuation Association, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of London Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Society of London Treasurers. In other words, evidence of the need to abolish immediately the 20 per cent. payment has been building up.
      In support of the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution, the audit commissioners said:
      "It is worth mentioning one change which would assist authorities in their current collection arrangements and therefore, indirectly, facilitate the introduction of the council tax."
      That has to be a helpful suggestion. It is a friendly remark suggesting to the Government that the abolition of the 20 per cent. rule will ease in the council tax and ensure that the kind of confusion and chaos that we have seen in local government finance in the past year is not repeated next year.
      5.15 pm
      In a memorandum in March this year the Child Poverty Action Group said:
      "The strong reluctance to make this change—
      the immediate restoration of the 100 per cent. rebate
      "stems from the principle underlying the poll tax that everyone should make a financial contribution to local services. We believe this argument is flawed on both principle and pragmatic grounds."
      The Government have already accepted the principle that the 20 per cent. contribution is flawed. That is why they decided to reintroduce the 100 per cent. rebate. I hope that the Minister will not cling to it. When he gave his press conference on 28 November he seemed to suggest that it would be inappropriate to introduce some of the changes and that it would be better to wait and introduce all the

      173
      changes at the same time under the new system. He seemed to be arguing that, as long as the poll tax had a shelf life, the principle that everyone must pay regardless should be held to, as though it were irrevocably wedded to the principle of the poll tax. I hope that he does not believe that; that he now fully subscribes to the notion that there should be a 100 per cent. rebate system. The working out of the income and benefit system is different from that of the tax system, whether it is based on property or personal income, or on a combination of the two, as is the council tax. I hope that the Minister is not holding on to a residual principle that everyone must pay.
      On 26 March, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said:
      "About 70 per cent. of defaulters are those who are supposed to pay 20 per cent."—[Official Report, 26 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 858.]
      If the 20 per cent. deduction has become the problem of the whole system, it is nonsense to continue for a further year. If that is the case, it should be tackled now, not simply compounded, allowing problems to build up in the future.
      I hope that the Minister will take seriously the Audit Commission's argument for abolishing the 20 per cent. minimum contribution. In its report, "Administration of the Community Charge: Some Longer-term Considerations", it says:
      "exempting 20 per cent. payers would more than pay for itself and would ease the pressure on the system, particularly in areas where collection is very difficult anyway."
      If the Government cannot accept the amendment and do not agree to abolish the 20 per cent. rule now, the inevitable result will be that the problems that have been experienced this year will be experienced on exactly the same scale, if not worse, next year. It must be good economic management and common sense to abolish that 20 per cent. contribution now.
      We are pleased that the Government have at least acknowledged in principle that the 20 per cent. rule should go, but I hope that the Minister can now assure me that there are no pragmatic reasons for not making the change now to be effective from next April rather than having to wait longer. Not many changes were made to the Bill in Committee, but I hope that, as on the clawback, the Government will say that the amendment is common sense and that they are prepared to accept it.
      Mr. Harry Cohen: In a rare moment of wit in Committee, the Minister referred to one Labour policy as Rowland revaluation—rolling revaluation. The Conservatives who supported the poll tax should be called "Bill 'em High" and their corollary "Owen a Lot". Certainly a lot of people owe the 20 per cent. minimum charge under the poll tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, it has been said in the House that about 70 per cent. of all poll tax defaulters come in the 20 per cent. category.
      Continuing that charge for the next 15 months has been slammed by many pressure groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux says:
      "Clients are finding it increasingly difficult to manage on present levels of benefit. Meeting their basic needs such as food, clothing, water and heating more often than not means that they are unable to meet the 20 per cent. payment in full."
      The association added:
      "Introduction of a 100 per cent. rebate would relieve considerable hardship for many of our clients".
      174
      The Child Poverty Action Group says that the 20 per cent. contribution places a considerable financial burden on many households and NACAB adds:
      "While the sums concerned may appear to be small, they are payable for each adult in the household and come on top of many other rising costs that have to be met from benefit."
      Those are scathing remarks from organisations that have to help the poorest in our communities—who are hammered by the 20 per cent. minimum payment which the Government insist on continuing for another year at least.
      The Audit Commission argues that it is nonsense to try to collect that payment. It says that 20 per cent. payers
      "contributed £6 a year net to the public purse in 1990–91…while the average collection cost per charge payer was around £15."
      It cost more to collect those 20 per cent. payments than they produced in revenue. The commission's pragmatic arguments for abolishing the system include this:
      "Exempting 20 per cent. payers would more than pay for itself and would ease the pressure on the system, particularly in areas where collection is very difficult already."
      Council rebate and benefit systems are under enormous pressure in trying to process claims and have been forced into chaos. That is the case in my local authority and in many others throughout the country. Many of my constituents have written to say that incorrect bills omitting rebate which are the consequence of that burden on local authorities have resulted in their being summoned to appear before the courts. I know that that is true of charge payers in several other constituencies.
      The staff who deal with 20 per cent. rebates could he engaged instead on collecting the poll tax from those who owe the full amount and do not pay it. The Government are preventing councils from effectively collecting those moneys.
      As to the benefits clawback and the Government's argument that the poorest should use their benefit payments to meet their 20 per cent. poll tax bills, the Child Poverty Action Group says that it and other organisations query the basis on which the Government calculate compensation,
      "since benefit rates in April 1988 were set 50p per week lower for each adult than the illustrative benefit levels given in the 1985 White Paper, uprated in line with the Rossi index. Claimants have also been paying additional VAT…The arguments about the exact amount of compensation can get very complex…But the figures"—
      that is, those produced by the Government—
      "take no account of community charge levels higher than average".
      Many are higher than the average and the poorest end up losing. The Government do not seem to care. The CPAG adds that the figures take no account either of
      "the losses that many claimants have suffered in previous years, when the Rossi index, used to uprate means-tested benefits, did not include increases in community charge levels."
      The CPAG concludes that the Government accepted that they will not claw back the compensation element in means-tested benefit when the council tax operates, so they have already accepted that the double counting argument is no longer relevant. As the Government have done that in relation to the council tax, they should do so in respect of next year's poll tax, abolish the 20 per cent. payment, and not reduce benefits.
      When my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends and I make that argument on the Floor of the House, we are met with stony silence by the Secretary of State and his

      175
      Ministers. The Government's nastiness in refusing to abolish the 20 per cent. payment proves that, although the Tories claim to be different since the departure of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), they remain intent on punishing the poor.
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) concluded his remarks sooner than I expected.
      The continuation of the 20 per cent. poll tax payment is unfair, uneconomical, and unreasonable. The Government do not have a leg to stand on in view of the arguments that they previously deployed as to why it is necessary to maintain the 20 per cent. payment until the introduction of the council tax in April 1983. It is clear that nothing but meanness of mind on the part of the Government prevents them from implementing 100 per cent. rebates from April 1992.
      The Government's action is unfair because of the hardship, distress, illness, and other problems that it will cause for many in our communities who cannot afford to make a 20 per cent. contribution. Conservative Members say that that represents only a few pounds a week—but if a person's income is only a few pounds a week, that contribution represents a considerable amount of money to him or her.
      I will not rehearse all the problems that people face in trying to make that payment, but I cite the example of a 22-year-old man in my constituency who is unable to obtain full-time work. After he has paid his rent and modest food costs, he is left with £3 a week from which to pay the bus fares—which are expensive in Bristol—that he incurs in attending job interviews, and his community charge contribution. It is beyond belief that such a person should be expected to continue paying poll tax when the Government have accepted in principle that a 100 per cent. rebate ought to be introduced.
      The same applies to pensioners. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have experience of pensioners coming to surgeries and experiencing the humiliation of having to say, "This is how much pension I receive a week, and this is how much I spend on gas, electricity, and rent. The two do not balance, and I cannot afford the poll tax."
      Often, pensioners cannot afford to pay even for the fuel needed to keep them warm in cold weather. They need constantly to balance their meagre finances—paying one bill this week, and another bill next week. It is cruel of the Government, having accepted the principle of a 100 per cent. rebate, to make people suffer for yet another year. That is the unjust nature of continuing to force a 20 per cent. poll tax payment on the poorest in our communities.
      Many people are struggling to meet their poll tax liability. They are the very people at whom the amendment is directed.
      Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but, as she said, I did keep my remarks succinct. My hon. Friend made a good point about high public transport costs in Bristol. Is she aware that in London they account for about one third of the benefit level?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Although transport costs are interesting, they do not come within the amendment.
      Mr. Cohen: My point was that claimants must pay their 20 per cent. poll tax contribution out of the benefit that they receive, although a third of their benefit is taken up by transport costs. Is that not deporable?
      5.30 pm
      Ms. Primarolo: It is indeed. It is even crazier that qualification for benefit depends on claimants' ability to prove that they are actively seeking work and attending interviews—which, of course, requires them to travel.
      Council after council has clearly demonstrated that it costs more to collect the 20 per cent. minimum contribution than is gained through that contribution. Its abolition would mean a net saving for poll tax payers who are not receiving benefit. Hon. Members have explained that this afternoon, quoting from the Audit Commission report and from what local authorities have said. The 20 per cent. contribution is unfair, forcing people to endure unnecessary suffering; it is also uneconomic and unreasonable, even when judged according to the Government's logic.
      The Government's consultation document on the council tax stated clearly that 100 per cent. rebates would be introduced, and we welcome that. The Government also said that they would have to consider adjusting benefit rates when the council tax was introduced because of the "compensation element" given in means-tested benefits in April 1988 and 1989, when claimants were required to make a 20 per cent. contribution.
      On 28 November, the Government themselves kicked that stall away by announcing that there would be no clawback when the council tax was introduced. They have now accepted the two main principles involved: first, that the poorest should make no contribution to local government taxation, and, secondly, that there should be no clawback to compensate for the changes made in the social security system.
      There is, to put it mildly, a strong case for putting both principles into practice immediately so that they are operational by April 1992. The arguments for reintroducing 100 per cent. rebates have already been well rehearsed, but the Government's arguments for not introducing them in 1992 should also be considered. First, they have claimed that the poll tax—the community charge—is different from the council tax; secondly, they have said that benefit levels for 1992–93 have already been set and that change is therefore impossible.
      In Committee, the Minister said:
      "In 1993, we shall move to a new system that is based on property. Until then, the system of taxation will be based on people. We increased people's social security benefits so that they could contribute to the personal tax".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 December 1991; c. 963.]
      According to the Government's own description, however, the council tax is only partly a property tax; it is also a personal tax. The single-person discounts are an obvious example of the way in which the personal element is retained.
      The Government have said that there will be no clawback of the minimum contribution. They have kicked away that stall quite nicely, too. It has been difficult to sustain the argument that the community charge is a charge for services in practice. The Government's own statements comparing the distributional impact of the poll

      177
      tax with that of the council tax lend weight to the view that the poll tax is just another form of local government taxation.
      Finally, the Government imposed the requirement for a 20 per cent. minimum contribution to domestic rates before the poll tax was introduced. Their argument that the 20 per cent. payment cannot be abolished because of the personal-taxation element is a load of rubbish. Although the council tax is both personal and property-based, the Government are providing 100 per cent. rebates, and in any case the 20 per cent. contribution was orginally introduced under a property-based system.
      Yet again the Government have trimmed their arguments to suit whatever they choose to do at any time. Perhaps we all do that to some extent, but this is an important issue: we are discussing whether the poorest and most vulnerable members of society should make a 20 per cent. contribution. The Government have admitted that there is no reason for that contribution to be made any longer, and have said that it will not be made after 1993. Why, then, do they not abolish it from 1 April 1992?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I deliberately waited until what seemed to be the very end of the hon. Lady's speech before intervening; after all, she did say "Finally" a few moments ago.
      At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) taunted me: indeed, he invoked the Almighty's attention to my cotton socks, so annoyed was he by the fact that, in Committee, I had asked the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) why he wanted to abolish the 20 per cent. rule. I have not yet received a full reply to that question.
      One point has not been raised either today or in Committee. Opposition Members seem blindly to assume that abolishing the 20 per cent. rule would cost local authorities nothing. That is not true. Has it occurred to the hon. Lady that local authorities would still incur a cost in working out who should be exempted? She cannot duck that part of the equation. We have heard only a partial argument today, as we did in Committee.
      Ms. Primarolo: I wish that I had more time. I can say "Touche" to the Minister, for we have already made that very point to him. We asked whether local authorities would be burdened with costs when trying to calculate who would be entitled to the 25 per cent. single-household discount under the new system, and suggested that without a register it would be difficult for local authorities to establish who was receiving income support. In Committee, Ministers continually told us that there would be no problem: council tenants, even if they were not receiving 100 per cent. rebates, would receive housing benefit and income support.
      The Government have now decided not to claw back the compensation element in means-tested benefits—[ Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one debate can take place at a time, and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) has the Floor.
      Ms. Primarolo: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      The 100 per cent. rebates will be very welcome, but they will not be introduced until 1993. We should like them to be introduced in 1992. On the Government's own
      178
      admission, abolishing the 20 per cent. minimum contribution is logical. The Government have accepted that claimants should continue to receive compensation, as well as ceasing to pay the 20 per cent. contribution.
      The conclusion is simple. The Audit Commission's pragmatic arguments for the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution have always been convincing. According to "The Administration of the Community Charge: Some Longer-term Considerations", published in 1991, the Audit Commission said:
      "exempting 20 per cent. payers would more than pay for itself and would ease the pressure on the system, particularly in areas where collection is very difficult anyway."
      That answers the Minister's point. The Audit Commission is supposed to be expert in knowing what local authorities can or cannot do.
      I hope that even at this late stage the Government will realise that they are being unfair, unjust, unreasonable and illogical and that they will therefore vote for the amendment so that 100 per cent. rebates can be introduced for those on benefit from 1 April 1992.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: I wish to refer to the position in my area, which will not have escaped the Minister's notice. He is aware that I am deeply concerned about those in Rotherham who will have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax next year and who will have to pay 20 per cent. of that part of the successor tax that relates to property when the new system is introduced. While the Government determine the level of poll tax, in so far as they determine the standard spending assessment, those areas that receive an unfair and excessively low standard spending assessment will find that they have to continue to raise a much larger figure, even from the poorest who pay 20 per cent., than should be the case.
      Three years ago, the Department of the Environment could not include employment as a factor in determining standard spending assessments, or refer to the tourist character of an area in determining SSAs, but now it has given way and allowed contributions to be made and support to be given to tourist areas. However, it has not allowed unemployment to he taken into account in areas such as mine. That inevitably means that those who live in poor areas or in areas with high unemployment will find that the poorest in the community, even though they have to contribute only 20 per cent., will inevitably have to pay, proportionately, a great deal more.
      The Minister and others believe that people ought to pay 20 per cent., but I notice that their belief does not extend to Wandsworth, where no one has to pay anything. The residents of Wandsworth paid nothing last year and they will pay nothing next year. I suspect that, if the Government remain in office, the people of Wandsworth will not even have to pay anything the year after that. However, it does not seem to have dawned on Ministers that they may not be providing a fair level of SSAs to areas that refrain from levying a poll tax and that then receive the benefit of not having to incur administrative costs of at least £2 million.
      The request that the 20 per cent. relief should be changed so that the poor receive 100 per cent. benefit should be extended to the rest of the country and not concentrated merely on the borough of Wandsworth. I take a dim view of the unfairness that is inherent in the methods of grant determination, an unfairness that inevitably will continue. The Government have been told during the last two or three years of the inherent unfairness

      179
      of the system. Until that unfairness is dealt with, it is wrong for the Government to impose burdens on the poorest and for the poorest to continue to experience higher burdens of taxation simply because they live in poorer areas.
      While the Government continue to classify poor areas as rich, needy areas as affluent and necessitous areas as salubrious, the system will remain grossly unfair. If the Minister looks again at the figures for my constituency, he will have to confess that they are grossly unfair. While that unfairness exists, I object to my constituents having to pay an unfair burden of poll tax. That is particularly acute when it comes to the neediest in the community.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) raised topics that were not raised by any other speaker. We do not take account of unemployment when establishing the standard spending assessment. However, we do take account of social factors. If unemployment continues apace for a period, it is reasonable to assume that its effects will be reflected in social factors. It is precisely the measurement of social factors that gives a higher standard spending assessment to Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Hackney and to a lesser extent to Wandsworth than to Rotherham. The hon. Gentleman must not say that social factors are not taken into account. They are. It is precisely that which leads to the higher settlements for the places that I mentioned.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) opened the debate by speaking softly and gently. He urged me to reply in the same tone. I am not entirely sure that I shall be able to do so. There were elements in his speech that excited me somewhat. In particular, I found a deep contrast between the hon. Gentleman's approach and that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Perhaps unusually, I found a certain amount of good sense creeping into the argument on the Liberal Benches. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire appears to recognise that the proposal would have a cost. He asked me, very reasonably, what that cost would be. I shall answer his question.
      The hon. Member for Brightside seemed, for most of his speech, to assume that the proposal would cost nothing. It was an extraordinary approach, particularly when one recollects that his, hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) accused the Government of having wasted £14 billion on the community charge—not a figure with which I agree. Money has been spent, but that money has not been wasted. It has been provided for the community charge reduction scheme—to reduce the community charge by £140. That money has gone into benefits and has been used to help people to afford to pay their community charge in one way or another.
      Although the hon. Member for Cathcart plucks the figure from the air, if he recognises that all these measures are designed to help people to pay the community charge and that they have a cost which has to be found from the central taxpayer, it follows as night follows day that the Opposition's proposal would also involve a substantial cost.
      Mr. Maxton rose——
      Mr. Portillo: After I have given way to the hon. Member for Cathcart, I shall tell the House what that cost is.
      Mr. Maxton: If the Minister is so concerned about ensuring that people can pay the poll tax, he should accept the amendment. That would be the best way of ensuring that the very poorest get out of the poll tax net altogether. I gather that, as the Minister had £4 billion to provide the £140 discount, all he would have had to do was to make a reduction of £126 and use the other £14 to abolish the 20 per cent. rule, not from 1 April next year but from 1 April of this financial year.
      Mr. Portillo: We shall come to the figures in a moment, when the hon. Gentleman will be "illuminated".
      I thank the hon. Member for Brightside, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and others, including the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who applauded what the Government are to do when the council tax is introduced, which is to provide 100 per cent. rebates. I confirm that there will be no clawback of the amounts that were put into the social security benefits. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was absolutely right to say that the implied cost—£680 million—is not insignificant. It means that the benefits will be £680 million higher than they would otherwise have been had they been increased simply in line with inflation since 1989. Whether it is expressed in terms of the burden that it imposes on income tax, corporation tax, value added tax or in any other way that one chooses to express it, £680 million is, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, not an insignificant amount.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) did not deal with what concerns the Government—our priorities, what can be afforded and what it is right to do. She seemed to be engaged in a debating society debate about whether giving up contributions to local taxation from April 1993 meant that the Government had no logical basis on which to sustain them during 1992–93.
      In a personal tax—the community charge—based on the principle that everyone should pay something, it is appropriate that those payments should continue to be made. I say that not merely as a matter of dogma but as a reflection of many expectations outside the House. Moneys have been put into people's benefits. Those moneys have been raised by taxpayers. They are the rich and those on low incomes—the spectrum of people in this country.
      People have a right to expect that the moneys that have been provided to meet the 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge should be used for that purpose, that that policy is sustained and that local authorities should make every effort to collect the contributions.
      Mr. Bryan Gould: The Minister tried to peddle that argument in Committee. It was unconvincing then, and it is unconvincing now. If the basis of the 20 per cent. contribution is that it is a necessary corollary of a personal tax, and as we have it on the authority—often repeated—of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—that the council tax is 50 per cent. a personal tax, logically, there should be a 10 per cent. contribution under the council tax. That is manifestly not the case. What has happened to the Minister's principle?
      Mr. Portillo: I wish to express the thanks of the House to the hon. Gentleman for appearing near the end of the debate——
      Mr. Gould rose——
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is very sensitive, but I shall give way.
      Mr. Gould: I think that everyone present believes that the Minister's remark was a particularly cheap shot. I was out of the Chamber for only a brief period and, unlike the Secretary of State, I have religiously sat through all the debates today and yesterday.
      Mr. Portillo: As ever, the hon. Gentleman's sensitivity leads me to believe that I must have been closer to the target than I suspected. The hon. Member signs up as a member of the Bristol, South debating society. I am not saying that it is impossible to abolish the 20 per cent. contribution; this is a tax under which a contribution is expected from everyone and under which those moneys have been made available. The problem of non-payment has been made much worse by the activities of some Opposition Members to whom I shall come in due course.
      The amounts which have been put into benefit, as presently uprated, are £1·31 for single people under 25, £1·48 for single people over 25 and £2·62 for couples, yet the 20 per cent. contribution averages about 80p a week for single people and £1·60 a week for couples. We do not know what the charges will be next year—I hope that they will be not much higher. The benefit rates will rise to £1·40 for single people under 25, £1·58 for single people over 25 and £2·80 for couples. The House can see that the amounts that are available under income support are well above those that people are asked to pay.
      Mr. Blunkett: I shall not delay the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he will tell the House from where he has extracted those figures. Earlier this afternoon, I quoted an answer by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security—the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—at column 446 of the Official Report of 27 March, which suggested that those figures could not be extrapolated from the benefit levels and that they had never been included as a specific amount.
      Mr. Portillo: As the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience, the theology of social security is that social security benefits cannot be broken down into amounts for particular purposes. None the less, a specific amount was added when the upratings were first made. I have uprated the amounts for the years since then.
      The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire wanted to know the costs of implementing the measure. One must remember that we would have to pay 100 per cent. rebates to those on income support and, to avoid a cliff edge, have a sliding scale for those who were above the income support level but on low incomes. The total cost of increasing benefits not only to those on income support but to those further up the income scale would he £440 million this year and £500 million in 1992–93.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Are those English and Welsh figures, or are they national figures including the Scottish figure? Perhaps the Minister would like to write to me about that matter.
      Mr. Portillo: I believe that they are Great Britain figures. It is a considerable sum.
      Much has been made of the Audit Commission's figures. I tried to deal with them to the satisfaction of the House. The Audit Commission was looking at 1990–91. In that year, £71 was the average amount that the people paying 20 per cent. were asked to pay. The Audit Commission compared the £71 that those people were asked to pay and the amount that had been added to income support, which, on average, was £6 below the £71. That seems to be a wholly spurious comparison and is not of any interest. If one were to relieve people of the 20 per cent. contribution, one would have to increase the benefit levels, and I have outlined the cost of doing that.
      In any case, I do not agree with the Audit Commission's collection figure, which it puts at £15 but which I put at £12·50, on average. Taking 1990–91, when the average contribution was £71, the net revenue that was collectable after deduction of costs was about £60.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) made a good point when discussing the costs of collection. The good sense which he talked was met by an intake of breath among the Opposition. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—made a good point, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), when he said that the cost of administration did not go away when 100 per cent. benefit was paid to people. One must still assess them and provide them with the benefit, so there is still a lot of administration. The Labour party has managed to avoid that point throughout the debate.
      It was breathtaking that the Labour party has talked about all the difficulties of non-payment and collection. The Labour party has shown extraordinary irresponsibility in concluding that the only response if a tax is difficult to collect is to abolish it or, if it is difficult to collect from a portion of the population, to let those people off.
      There was something even more breathtaking than that. We sat here yesterday and listened to Labour Members attack the Scottish National party for advocating non-payment. History is now to be rewritten—as though by a group of Soviet historians—to remove from the history books the contribution of Labour Members who advocated, and set the example of, non-payment.
      I should like to put on record the names of those Labour Members who signed the statement that advocated non-payment. The hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)——
      Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Portillo:—the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), for Tottenham (Mr. Grant)——
      Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order.
      Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is incumbent on the Minister as a matter of order to read the statement to the House.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: It is up to the Minister whether or not he reads it. It is not a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Portillo: I was just about to come to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who signed the statement, so he will be able to read it out himself. Other hon. Members who signed were the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and Mr. Eric Heifer, the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—he is now in his place—for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), for Leyton, for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and Mr. Pat Wall, the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo)—also in her place—for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).
      6 pm
      That is not all—three Scottish Labour Members of Parliament declared that they would not pay the community charge when they launched the Committee of 100 to campaign against the community charge in Scotland. They were the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).
      The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun yesterday said, extraordinarily, that he had not paid himself but that he had not urged anyone else not to pay. Do the Opposition know nothing about the example that legislators set? Do they know nothing about the effect that people who are sent to Westminster to make laws may have on their constituents if they say that they will not pay taxes that have been passed in the House?
      We have seen an extraordinary display from the Opposition today. They want to forget their past. They say that the 20 per cent. contribution should be abolished because it is difficult to collect. They want to forget that they made it difficult to collect the 20 per cent. contributions because they urged people not to pay the tax, did not pay it themselves and set a terrible example. It is not for that reason that I ask the House to reject the amendment, but for the arguments that I have outlined. When hon. Members vote tonight they will bear in mind the heavy guilt felt by the Opposition.
      Mr. Maxton: I have heard the Second Reading speeches from members of the Government Front Bench and I have sat through the Committee stage waiting to hear one Minister or one Conservative hon. Member say that they were wrong about the poll tax. I have waited for them to show some humility for having imposed the tax on the people of Scotland and then on the people of England and Wales and to apologise for the fact that they got it dramatically wrong. But what do we get? We have heard yet another arrogant speech from the Minister of State in which he tried to justify the unjustifiable.
      184
      Having listened carefully to the Minister and to all the Conservative hon. Members who have spoken, I do not understand why they are getting rid of the poll tax. All of them argued in favour of its retention. That is what they have been doing, so why on earth will the hon. Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—who is not here—and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) vote for the Third Reading of a Bill to abolish the poll tax? The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross may not be aware that clause 100 is entitled "Abolition of community charges". He will vote for the Bill tonight despite the speech that he made earlier.
      It is clear that the Government are getting rid of the poll tax not because they no longer believe in it, but because they know that it is an electoral disaster which will bring them down. It will remain an electoral disaster until the general election. It is returning to prominence and the Government will suffer as a result.
      If the Government are not prepared to accept any of the sound practical and principled reasons given by the Liberal Democrats and by Labour——
      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie rose——
      Mr. Maxton: Let me finish this point. If they are not prepared to accept our arguments, I shall offer the electoral argument. Their electoral chances will improve if they can show that they are doing something about the poll tax before the election. The one thing that they can do about the poll tax before the election is to abolish the 20 per cent. minimum payment on 1 April 1992 instead of leaving it until 1993. That is the one thing that they can do to improve their electoral chances, but they are not prepared to do it.
      The truth is that the Government want to hang on to every last vestige of the poll tax for as long as possible. Tonight and during all the debates on the 20 per cent. minimum payment and on the council tax we have witnessed the struggle in the Tory party between those who want to get rid of the poll tax completely and those who want to keep it. As a result, the Government have come up with a half-baked compromise which satisfies neither element and which will create almost as big a chaotic mess as the poll tax did.
      The Minister said that the principle behind the 20 per cent. payment was that everyone should pay something. However, the 20 per cent. minimum payment was first introduced not for the poll tax but for the old rating system. When it was introduced the Bill covering England and Wales had not yet been introduced into the House. Therefore, we can assume only that its introduction on 1 April 1988 was a wholly cynical way of trying to show that the numbers who would benefit from the introduction of the poll tax would be greater than would otherwise have been the case.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), looks rather puzzled, so I shall explain. The Government introduced the minimum payment under the rating system on 1 April 1988. All single people had to pay 20 per cent. of the rates which for, say, a council in Castlemilk in my constituency were about £450; so a single person would have had to pay £90 a year. That would have applied to any single person—to a widow, a pensioner or a single parent. From 1 April 1989 when the poll tax was introduced that person had to

      185
      pay only £50 instead of the £90. Suddenly, the Government could claim that such people were beneficiaries under the poll tax. It was a wholly cynical exercise in statistical manoeuvring to justify the system.
      I cannot use the word that I want to describe the arguments that I have heard from Conservative hon. Members but it is blatantly obvious——
      Mr. Blunkett: Skulduggery.
      Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend suggests "skulduggery"—I am not sure whether that is a parliamentary term but it is good enough. The Government imposed the poll tax which meant that the poorest people just outside the rebate system paid exactly the same as a millionaire and that everyone paid a minimum amount. -They now intend to retain the 20 per cent., but they are happy about the fact that the Bill will give a 25 per cent. discount to every single person, whatever his income. They are happy to ensure that the maximum amount paid by the wealthiest person will be only three times that paid by those just outside the rebate system, but they are not prepared to get rid of a 20 per cent. minimum payment for the poorest in society.
      I am sure that most people welcomed the £140 a year reduction because everyone welcomes a cut in taxes. but, as I suggested to the Minister, if instead of giving that reduction they had given only £126 a year, the remaining £14—or 10 per cent.—could have been used to get rid of the 20 per cent. minimum payment not on 1 April 1992, as is now suggested, but on 1 April 1991. That would have been the sensible and humane thing to do. The 20 per cent. payment was unfair from the beginning and it should never have been imposed. The Government now have an opportunity to get rid of it if only they would act with some humanity for once.
      It is an impractical tax. Above all else, that has brought it into disrepute. The tax has brought the whole system into disrepute because the level of non-payment has not been due to the non-payment campaigns of Labour Members or of the SNP, but to the fact that the vast majority of people to whom the 20 per cent. applied simply could not afford to pay it.
      The note that I have just received from the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), does not say, "Sit down." It says, "Merry Christmas and a happy new year. Will you join me for a drink which I am prepared to pay for?" Anyone who believes that will believe anything.
      The system is unworkable. The vast majority of those who have not paid the tax are those on rebates and especially those who are on the 20 per cent. minimum payment. Some 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of those who have not paid the tax in Scotland are either on the minimum 20 per cent. payment or are on rebates. The non-payment campaign is not the cause. I opposed the principle of the campaign. which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) enunciated last night. I also believe that it has always been a dangerous diversion away from the truth about the 20 per cent. minimum payment and non-payment, which is that people simply could not afford to pay. It has given Conservative Members the constant excuse to attack the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), the SNP and some of my hon. Friends. The poll tax remained in place for six months longer than it should have simply
      186
      because the Government were able to attack those people and had an excuse for keeping the poll tax on the statute book. It would otherwise have collapsed and gone.
      In Scotland, local authorities have now issued 3 million summonses for poll tax debt. The vast majority of them have been issued against the very poorest in our society. It is in itself an obscenity that we are hitting the widows, the single parents and the old-age pensioners. To tax such people makes the tax uncollectable and a waste of time.
      Conservative Members suggest that local authorities could get the money deducted directly from income support. In the vast majority of cases in which that has been tried the social security departments have turned down the application because most people who have not paid already have deductions, which means that nothing more can be deducted. How do the local authorities get the tax?
      I remember that during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill I said that we should finish up with warehouses full of Walkman radios which had belonged to youngsters who could not afford to pay the tax. That is what we are coming to. It is not a matter of whether local authorities try to collect the tax. The fact is that one cannot get money from people who do not have it. Local authorities have to try to get the money through the warrant sale and poinding procedure. To try to do that for 3 million people is impossible. We do not have the sheriff officers to do so and——
      Mr. Bill Walker: It would be helpful for the hon. Gentleman to tell the House what the adult population of Scotland is today.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Maxton: I know the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he deny that there are 3 million warrants? I do not deny that some people have received more than one warrant for debt because the tax has been in existence for three years. The point is that the warrants have to be collected individually. If someone settles a warrant for 1989–90, he may still have a warrant outstanding for 1990–91 and another outstanding for 1991–92. That does not negate my argument that 3 million warrants are outstanding.
      It is impossible to collect debts from people who do not have the money to pay and who have few goods which, under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, can be taken from them. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross will know that the Debtors (Scotland) Act, which should have abolished warrant sales altogether, went only halfway down that road. It took out of the warrant sale procedure many domestic goods. As a result, there are few things, especially in a poor household, which the sheriff officers can poind and take away for sale. That is why I used the example of the Walkman. Often it is the only thing a young unemployed man or woman has which a sheriff officer could collect. What would one get for a second-hand Walkman? A fiver or £10 does not pay off the debt and is far less than the cost of trying to collect the money.
      The Government are desperately trying to cling to the last remnants of the poll tax and especially to the one part of the tax which, above all, has been unfair and has made it unworkable—the 20 per cent. minimum payment. The Government have now deserted the principle that everyone should pay something towards local government

      187
      finance. If they had any humanity left, they would get rid of the tax now. They would accept our amendment or at least admit the principle of it and then table amendments in the other place. Unfortunately, they do not have the humility or the guts to do that. They do not have the guts to stand by their principles, as is shown by the 20 per cent. minimum payment, nor do they have the guts to get rid of that payment on 1 April 1992. The whole problem is—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should know that I make my speeches in my own way without instructions from anybody.
      The Government could have got rid of the poll tax itself on 1 April 1992 if they had taken our advice. That would have been the humane thing to do. Now they have an opportunity at least to get rid of the most obnoxious part—the 20 per cent. minimum payment—on 1 April 1992. If Ministers cannot bring themselves to do that, Conservative Members who urged the Government to get rid of the poll tax should join me and my hon. Friends in the Lobby to vote for the amendment, which aims to get rid of the 20 per cent. minimum payment now.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 320.

      Division No. 29]

      [6.18 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Corbett, Robin

      Allen, Graham

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Alton, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Anderson, Donald

      Cox, Tom

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Crowther, Stan

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cryer, Bob

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cummings, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Darling, Alistair

      Barron, Kevin

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Battle, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Beckett, Margaret

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

      Beith, A. J.

      Dewar, Donald

      Bellotti, David

      Dixon, Don

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dobson, Frank

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

      Douglas, Dick

      Benton, Joseph

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Blair, Tony

      Eadie, Alexander

      Blunkett, David

      Eastham, Ken

      Boateng, Paul

      Edwards, Huw

      Boyes, Roland

      Enright, Derek

      Bradley, Keith

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Caborn, Richard

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

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Flannery, Martin

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Foster, Derek

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foulkes, George

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Fraser, John

      Carr, Michael

      Fyfe, Maria

      Cartwright, John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Galloway, George

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Clelland, David

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      George, Bruce

      Cohen, Harry

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      188

      Gordon, Mildred

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Gould, Bryan

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Graham, Thomas

      Mullin, Chris

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Murphy, Paul

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Nellist, Dave

      Grocott, Bruce

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Brien, William

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Haynes, Frank

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hayward, Robert

      Parry, Robert

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Patchett, Terry

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Pendry, Tom

      Henderson, Doug

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Prescott, John

      Home Robertson, John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hood, Jimmy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Radice, Giles

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Randall, Stuart

      Howells, Geraint

      Redmond, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Hoyle, Doug

      Reid, Dr John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Robertson, George

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Illsley, Eric

      Rogers, Allan

      Ingram, Adam

      Rooker, Jeff

      Janner, Greville

      Rooney, Terence

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Salmond, Alex

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lambie, David

      Short, Clare

      Lamond, James

      Skinner, Dennis

      Leighton, Ron

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Litherland, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      Livingstone, Ken

      Soley, Clive

      Livsey, Richard

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McAllion, John

      Stott, Roger

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Strang, Gavin

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Straw, Jack

      McFall, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McKelvey, William

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Turner, Dennis

      McNamara, Kevin

      Vaz, Keith

      McWilliam, John

      Wallace, James

      Madden, Max

      Walley, Joan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Marek, Dr John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Maxton, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Meacher, Michael

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Meale, Alan

      Wilson, Brian

      Michael, Alun

      Winnick, David

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Worthington, Tony

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Tellers for the Ayes

      Morley, Elliot

      Mr. Martyn Jones and

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Allason, Rupert

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Amess, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Amos, Alan

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      189

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Ashby, David

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Atkins, Robert

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Atkinson, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Forth, Eric

      Baldry, Tony

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Franks, Cecil

      Batiste, Spencer

      Freeman, Roger

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      French, Douglas

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fry, Peter

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gale, Roger

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Benyon, W.

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gill, Christopher

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gorst, John

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bowis, John

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Grist, Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Ground, Patrick

      Bright, Graham

      Grylls, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hague, William

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

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hannam, John

      Burns, Simon

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

      Burt, Alistair

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Butler, Chris

      Harris, David

      Butterfill, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hayward, Robert

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cash, William

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Chope, Christopher

      Hill, James

      Churchill, Mr

      Hind, Kenneth

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Irvine, Michael

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

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jack, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      Janman, Tim

      Dicks, Terry

      Jessel, Toby

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dover, Den

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Key, Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kilfedder, James

      Eggar, Tim

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Evennett, David

      Knapman, Roger

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Fallon, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Farr, Sir John

      Knowles, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Knox, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      190

      Latham, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Rost, Peter

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lord, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      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, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Speed, Keith

      Malins, Humfrey

      Speller, Tony

      Mans, Keith

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Maples, John

      Squire, Robin

      Marland, Paul

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stern, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stokes, Sir John

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Summerson, Hugo

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thorne, Neil

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tracey, Richard

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Trippier, David

      Mudd, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Needham, Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waller, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Ward, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Page, Richard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Paice, James

      Watts, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wells, Bowen

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Whitney, Ray

      Pawsey, James

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wilshire, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Wood, Timothy

      Redwood, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Question accordingly navigated
      Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising at this point. I wonder if you can help me. I am in a new and slightly strange position of not being privy to all the discussions which take place in the Labour party regarding its attitude on matters relating to the important Bill which is before the House on Report. As you will know, Mr. Speaker makes a provisional selection of amendments, which he puts before the House in a certain order. Some are selected, some are not. An order of those selected for debate is given. Clearly the debate is not open-ended. We are guillotined and there is no opportunity to debate all the topics that hon. Members would wish to debate.
      I have tabled some amendments, which have been selected in a group comprising amendments Nos. 57, 122, 85, 68, 69, 107, 124 and 108, which seem to be the only amendments to deal with enforcement procedures such as the use of bailiffs, poindings and imprisonment. Given that the selection is provisional, do you, as the current occupant of the Chair, have any opportunity to rearrange Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments to ensure that between now and 8 o'clock we shall at least have a few minutes to debate enforcement procedures and my desire to oppose the current poll tax enforcement procedures being put lock, stock and barrel into the Bill?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Member's dilemma, but the selection was made yesterday and there is no way in which it can now be changed.

      Clause 2

        LIABILITY TO TAX DEIERMINED ON A DAILY BASIS
        6.30 pm
        Mr. Gould: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'dwelling' to end of line 4.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
        No. 113, in page 7, line 10, to leave out clause 11.
        No. 64, in clause 11, page 7, line 10, leave out 'amount of council tax payable' and insert 'billing authority shall calculate'.
        No. 65, in clause 11, page 7, line 11, leave out 'shall be subject to'.
        No. 70, in clause 11, page 7, line 11, leave out 'discount' and insert 'personal surcharge'.
        No. 71, in clause 11, page 7, line 14, leave out 'discount' and insert 'personal surcharge'.
        No. 17, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, at end insert 'or;

        (c) there are two or more residents of the dwelling one of whom is a disabled person and one is his live-in carer who does not fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount.'.

        No. 114, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, at end insert 'or;

        (c) there are two residents who are married to each other or living together as husband and wife and they live with one or more residents each of whom falls to be disregarded under paragraph (2) or paragraph (9) of Schedule 1.'.

        No. 66, in clause 11, page 7, line 17, leave out
        'amount of council tax payable'
        and insert 'billing authority shall calculate'.
        No. 67, in clause 11, page 7, line 18, leave out 'shall be subject to'.
        No. 72, in clause 11, page 7, line 19, leave out 'discount' and insert 'personal surcharge'.
        No. 73, in clause 11, page 7, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert
        'there are at least two residents of the dwelling who do not fall to be disregarded for the purpose of the surcharge.'.
        No. 7, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out '25' and insert '40'.
        No. 9, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out '25 per cent', and insert '50 per cent.'.
        No. 74, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out '25' and insert '50'.
        No. 8, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out from '25 per cent.' to end of line 27.
        No. 75, in clause 11, page 7, line 32, leave out 'discount' and insert 'personal surcharge'.
        No. 81, in clause 33, page 23, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
        'R-P-PT/T'.
        No. 82, in clause 33, page 23, line 18, at end insert—
        'PT is the aggregate of the amounts the authority estimates will be payable for the year in respect of the personal surcharge as determined under sections 11 and 12;'.
        No. 83, in clause 44, page 31, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
        'R - P - PT/T.
        No. 84, in clause 44, page 31, line 8, at end insert—
        'PT is the aggregate of the amounts the authority estimates will be payable for the year in respect of the personal surcharge as determined under sections 11 and 12;'.
        No. 18, in clause 79, page 51, line 45, at end insert '; or

        (c) there are two or more residents of the dwelling one of whom is a disabled person and one is his live-in carer who does not fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount.'.

        No. 14, in clause 79, page 52, line 1, leave out '25' and insert '40'.
        Mr. Gould: In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), constantly assured us that the council tax was a combined tax. He preferred to describe it as a combined property and personal tax. He was not quite so keen when it was described as a combined head and roof tax, although I think that he eventually accepted that that is a perfectly accurate way to describe it. He certainly conceded that the council tax combined those two very different elements in such a way as to combine the difficulties which attend both.
        In Committee and on Report I think that we have established that there are real problems with the property tax element. There are problems with regional banding, with the compression of the band and consequent unfairness and with the mechanisms for carrying out valuations—what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) described as a "Mickey-Mouse valuation". That could just about have been tolerated if Ministers had been prepared to acknowledge that it was necessary to move to a straightforward property tax to get rid of the poll tax. Unfortunately, they were not prepared to do so. As a consequence we are saddled with this hybrid monster—part personal tax, part property tax, or part roof tax, part head tax, as I prefer to describe it.
        Clause 11 introduces the notion of personal discount, which is the means by which the personal element is given

        193
        effect. That element or discount has rightly attracted a great deal of criticism and attention from organisations outside the House. When and if the Government implement the tax, they can certainly not claim that they were never warned. They have been warned by me and my hon. Friends, but in case they were inclined to set those warnings aside, they have also been warned by all the local authority associations, by the Audit Commission, by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and by many journals of opinion in the world of local government. In the estimates of most objective observers the Government are running real risks in the implementation of the new tax by adding an uncomfortable and difficult-to-operate element of personal tax.
        The oddity is that we have yet to hear a convincing argument from Ministers as to why that element is there. Ministers are clear about one thing—although other people are less clear—that the discount system is not there to deal with the problem of people who cannot afford to pay the council tax.
        I give the hon. Member for Eastwood credit for the fact that he is clear that the discount has nothing to do with the ability to pay. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is looking as blank and astonished as he did in Committee, when I made the same argument. He is going to rise to step into exactly the same trap.
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am not looking blank. If we are worried about a person's ability to pay, that is where the rebates come in.
        Mr. Gould: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has at least gleaned that from his long hours spent in Committee, because that is not true of all his hon. Friends. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—although I concede he was an assiduous attender in Committee—is not present. He seemed a good deal less clear than the hon. Member for Nottingham, South has revealed himself to be.
        I absolve the Minister from all confusion. He always said that the basis for the discount was nothing to do with ability to pay. I agree that it certainly cannot be justified on that basis because, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, the only way in which we can deal with ability to pay is through the rebate scheme. That is what it is intended to do.
        The discount scheme has nothing to do with benefits. As we have frequently pointed out, a millionaire—that figure of our demonology, as the Minister would have it—who lives alone will get a substantial discount whereas a low-income family with four children will not. It is clear that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South is right—discounts have nothing to do with the ability to pay. I hope that when the hon. Member for Battersea eventually arrives he will point that out to him, because he will recall that in Committee the hon. Member for Battersea insisted that a single mother with children should have her ability to pay taken into account and concluded:
        "The discount system does that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 November 1991; c. 355.]
        It is perfectly true that he subsequently denied that he said any such thing, but the Hansard record is against him.
        So whatever else may be said for the discount system, it has nothing to do with fairness or ability to pay. Indeed, it has that familiar characteristic of so much Government legislation in this sphere, that the better off one is the more benefit one derives from the discount. Someone living
        194
        alone in a £29,000 house in Wales, for example, would get a discount worth £27·25 a year, or 52p a week. Someone living in a £330,000 house in London would receive a discount of nearly eight times that amount, £200 or £3·85 a week. It is all too characteristic of the poll tax and everything that has flowed from it.
        The Minister of State, Scottish Office, then attempted to make the argument that the basis of the discount was that a single-person household made fewer demands on local government services than a two-person household. As soon as we examined that argument—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was particularly severe on it—it became clear that no such inviolate rule could be established. There were many instances of single people making substantial demands—perhaps a single parent with a large number of children—whereas a pensioner couple might make few demands. So there was no basis on that score to be identified for supporting the discount scheme.
        Even if there were something to be said for the argument, why stop at the distinction between one and two-person households? Why not carry the argument through to three, four, five and six-person households? The Minister was alert to the problems into which that line of argument might draw him. His basis for the argument was clearly his touching, but rather primitive, view that, somehow, all relationships must be based on contracts—that there was a sort of market element to all tax relationships between the community and the individual and that unless the individual had somehow bargained for a given level of services, the tax could not be valid.
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman referred to three, four and five-person households. I have been trying to work out the implications of amendment No. 70, by which he would impose a personal surcharge. Is that his plan and does the Labour party now propose a personal surcharge on the third, fourth and fifth person in a household?
        Mr. Gould: I am delighted to learn that the hon. Gentleman attaches such literal importance to all amendments that appear on the paper. As an experienced parliamentarian, he must know that the purpose of amendments is often to reveal inconsistencies in proposals and the inconsistency in that case is well revealed.
        The next argument to be advanced was that the council tax remained to some degree a personal tax—that it was a combination, as we heard earlier, of a property and personal tax—so it was right that that element of head tax should differentiate between a one and two-person household. Again, that left unanswered the question why that logic was not carried through; that if the old principle of the poll tax was retained in the new tax, why was not that element of personal tax also paid by the third, fourth, fifth and sixth member of the household? When confronted by that argument, the Minister rapidly abandoned that line of reasoning.
        6.45 pm
        The real, convincing explanation for this monster dare not be articulated by Ministers. It is that whereas the Secretary of State—I pay tribute to him in that he was one of the few clear-eyed Members prepared to say, "We must drive through legislation to abolish the hated poll tax"—finally persuaded his reluctant, or seemingly reluctant, hon. Friends that that step was necessary, even his courage

        195
        failed him at that point. He was assured, no doubt not least by his Minister of State, that it would be virtually impossible to get such legislation through without making major concessions to those battalions who had fought so long and hard in the cause of the poll tax. They would not depart the field without a battle, he was told. They had to have their victory and trophies to take home. He was also told that while it was clear that all those supporters who would die in the last ditch for the poll tax would certainly fight for it—even if they were forced to abandon the poll tax—the last thing they would do would be to vote for a property tax, or something which looked astonishingly like the much reviled rates.
        How was the trick to be achieved? It was achieved by incorporating into the sensible proposition and basic idea of a property tax the notion of a head tax. The discount idea came from that. But the oddity is that having screwed up their courage—and screwed up their proposal as a consequence of doing so—the Government discovered that the sacrifice had been made in vain. After all, where were those great battalions of supporters for the poll tax? Did they stay to fight the battle? No, not even the Minister of State stayed to fight. He now tries to escape the problem by saying that he supports the poll tax as he supports its abolition. As a grammatical construction, it may be a good sentence, but as a logical proposition it has deficiencies.
        Mr. Peter Fry: The hon. Gentleman talks about a logical proposition. Will he explain why amendment No. 110 would do away totally with the discount, whereas amendment No. 74 would have a discount or rebate of 50 per cent.? Is Labour policy to have no discount or one of 50 per cent.?
        Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman labours under the difficulty of not having heard any of the arguments in Committee and probably of not having heard any of the other arguments on the subject, so his state of ignorance is understandable. There is no question but that we are opposed to discounts and that we believe this to be an unacceptable element of head tax. I appreciate why the hon. Gentleman tried a time-honoured diversionary tactic when things were getting uncomfortable.
        The importation of this remnant of the poll tax is unnecessary because virtually no Conservative Member will vote against the Bill. Government supporters will troop into the Lobby in support of a measure to abolish the poll tax—[Interruptionl] Perhaps one or two will not. I pay tribute to their sense of principle. Those who swore undying allegiance to the poll tax and to their right hon. Friend who forced it through have all melted away. That may be a kind expression for what they have done. They have skulked or slunk away, so the whole sacrifice was unnecessary. It may have been unnecessary, but it has left the council tax in a hopeless mess of confusion and it is worth considering some of the consequences of that confusion.
        The single person discount will apply not to a handful of properties, but, potentially at any rate, to 7 million households—33 per cent. of the total. In some London boroughs as many as 50 per cent. of households are single-person households. That is what the Audit Commission discovered and why it is worried sick about the proposal. Not only must the 50 per cent. of households in some London boroughs that are single-person households be identified and sent separate bills and so on,
        196
        but those are the very people found by the Audit Commission to move frequently; 50 to 60 per cent. of some registers in inner London change over the course of a year.
        So the problem of first identifying and then tracking, tracing and billing all those people on a differential basis is already horrific. That is why the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has issued a grave warning—I apologise for using again the example which that body provided, but it is so striking that it bears repeating—saying:
        "A CAB in Greater Manchester reports a client who had six changes of income status and three moves of address (all in different local authorities) in ten months. For three months the client was a full time student living in local authority A paying 20 per cent. of the community charge. Then the client moved to local authority B, had a part-time job and claimed community charge benefit (CCB). Then she claimed income support and was once again paying 20 per cent. of the community charge. Following this she had two months on a fluctuating income…and in receipt of CCB. This was followed by a return to her parental home in local authority C where she claimed income support and was responsible for 20 per cent. community charge…She then returned to local authority A to become a full time post-graduate student and became liable to 20 per cent. of community charge".
        That is not a particularly unusual case, but it illustrates the enormous problems with which local authorities will be faced in trying to decide the appropriate bill to be applied to a given person on a given date.
        In addition to the 7 million households, bills must be sent to the owners of empty properties, who will be charged 50 per cent. of the total bill, so that two discounts will be available. Status discounts will also affect the picture. Those will apply to households in which one of the inhabitants is a student or someone who suffers from an illness such as Alzheimer's disease and is therefore exempt under schedule 1. Notwithstanding that huge number of households and all the changes in address, we must also bear in mind the fact that people's status might change from day to day. A person who lives in a flat with a student and pays only 75 per cent. of the bill will be liable for 100 per cent. of the bill if the student gives up the course for any reason. Liability is to be determined day by day, which is a horrific prospect. Little wonder that most local authorities are already quailing at the task that lies ahead.
        Mr. Allen McKay: It is interesting to note that, except for the Secretary of State, all the hon. Members on the Government Front Bench are members of the No Turning Back group.
        Mr. Gould: That is a good illustration of what an unsuccessful battle the Secretary of State has had to carry his Front Bench team with him. That was well spotted by my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State is in an awkward position. He does not get to his feet to defend the measure—far from it. He occasionally graces us with his presence—I imagine that he derives a certain schadenfreude from the situation—but he leaves it to his No Turning Back group colleagues to defend the measure. At least they have the comfort of trying to defend it on the basis that they have salvaged something from the poll tax.
        I pay tribute to the Minister of State's understanding of the measure. I think that he virtually drafted it, which is why he handled it throughout the Committee stage. The Secretary of State did not dare to come into the Committee Room because he did not understand the Bill and knew that he would be cut to ribbons if he dared to offer a view on it. Although the Minister of State understands the

        197
        matter, even he was led into a tangle by the discounts structure. Knowing the Minister of State as I do, I can think of no more wounding charge to make against him than that he was caught in illogicality in his own Bill. The discount system led him to assert that somebody who, on grounds of Alzheimer's disease, for example, was to be exempted from a personal contribution of 25 per cent. could nevertheless become responsible for somebody else's personal contribution under the principle of joint and several liability. What a heartless position and what nonsense.
        How are local authorities to fight their way through the maze which the Government have created? How are they to track the millions of single householders who change address or status day by day, so that they can send out the appropriate bills? The Bill offers little guidance. Schedule 2 provides a few vaguely drawn powers for local authorities and Ministers have occasionally pontificated on how local authorities may grapple with that problem. But when a local authority treasurer, such as the treasurer in Birmingham city council, says that the only possible chance of dealing with the problem is by setting up a database and keeping a register, the Minister—far from saying that that may be the best way to proceed—says that it would be unlawful.
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No, he does not.
        Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman would care to invite the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box, he will hear confirmation from the Minister's own lips. I asked the Minister about that just a couple of days ago and he confirmed that his advice was that keeping a register is not only not necessary but unlawful. It seems that the Minister will not stir himself to dispute that—[Interruption.] I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply because it will be interesting to see whether he has departed from that position.
        With little help or guidance, local authorities are faced with an enormous problem, but are told that it would be unlawful to keep a register.
        Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman probe the Minister a little further about which legislation makes that list or register unlawful? Would it be unlawful under the data protection legislation? I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need such a list.
        Mr. Gould: The Minister will no doubt speak for himself when the time comes, but he may take refuge in the data protection legislation and in the wider principle that a local authority is entitled to do nothing without specific statutory authority. The Minister will probably say that the Bill gives no such authority for the keeping of a register and will probably dismiss provisions such as the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That is the advice that he currently gives to local authorities.
        There is a puzzle in all that, however, because the handbook, "Guidance for Party Workers on the Council Tax", issued by Conservative party central office, says that the head tax element is not extended to three, four and five-person households, because it would require the keeping of a register. Such households constitute 13 per cent. of the total and Conservative party central office says that 13 per cent. could not be traced without keeping a register. Yet, in respect of the 33 per cent. of one-person households, we are told not only that a register is not
        198
        needed, but that if a local authority tried to keep a register it would be acting unlawfully. I hope that the Minister will try to sort out that conundrum because it is a real, practical problem for local government.
        The only advice that local government has had on that question is that it can resort to what the Minister calls "canvassing", but which most people would understand as snooping, and that they can refer to the electoral register. One of the great objections to the poll tax was the obstacle that it placed in the way of civil liberties. We know that 1 million people, wrongly and misguidedly, disappeared from the electoral register because they hoped that that would absolve them from having to pay the poll tax. We are now told under the new proposal that Ministers will encourage local authorities—indeed, they will leave them with little option—to refer to the electoral register. Therefore, the incentive for people to stay off the register will be greatly increased.
        The pity of it all is that, even when local authorities resort to the electoral register, it will help them little because the electoral register is a snapshot of who lives in a particular building at a given moment in time. It will not help local authorities to track day by day, as they are required to do under the Bill, people who change address and status. The Government are asking local authorities to undertake a hopeless task.
        Ministers are really saying that local authorities should simply forget about who should receive what sort of bill and just send out a standard bill to every household and wait for the cries of pain. Once they have been told that there is only one person in the household, they have to re-bill, or send another piece of paper with a different bill. It is all very simple. However, when I asked the Minister what calculation he had made of the number of communications needed to establish those facts—how many times bits of paper would flow backwards and forwards between a local authority and a household in one year to establish who was where on specific dates—he said that no estimate had been made. When I asked him about the cost, he said that no estimate had been made. But Ministers know that re-billing costs money.
        When the Government changed the basis of billing for the current year by a last-minute change in the Budget, they made provision—I cannot remember the sum, but it was a substantial amount, perhaps £18 million—to cover the cost of local authorities having to re-bill. Therefore, they know that the procedure costs money, but blithely they say that that is what local authorities must do. Local councils have to shuttle bits of paper backwards and forwards to try to establish the correct bill.
        7 pm
        There are other costs involved in addition to those of the local authorities. When we take account of all those who will receive a single person's discount—7 million in principle—all those who will receive a double discount because their properties are empty and those who will receive status discounts, we find that the fair estimate, derived from Government figures, is that the discount scheme will cost £780 million. I used that figure in Committee and was not challenged, so I feel emboldened to do it again as I think that it is probably right.
        Ministers are inclined to say that it is wonderful that £780 million is to be saved on account of poor people living alone, irrespective of whether or not they are well off. In truth, the £780 million is not simply saved—it does

        199
        not disappear, but has to be paid by somebody. Who pays for it? The ordinary family, which is why, under the Government's proposals, bills for such families will be so much higher than they would be normally. All the concessions made to well-off people who do not need help on financial grounds will have to be paid by someone.
        Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I want to test the hon. Gentleman's definition of an ordinary, average family, as opposed to the well off. Let us suppose that a widow who, according to the hon. Gentleman's condescending phrase, is an "ordinary, average" widow, married in 1910 and now, aged 100, lives in the same house that she originally bought and mortgaged for £500. That house, for reasons quite beyond her control, is now worth £500,000. The widow produces absolutely no money and lives on a widow's pension. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that she is a well-off person, not an ordinary, average, rather poor widow?
        Mr. Gould: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, characteristically, completely misunderstood the point. The widow he described would benefit from the Government's new generous provision introduced in the Bill and no doubt qualify for a 100 per cent. rebate. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South rightly said. that is the right way to deal with people whose ability to pay is called into question. Nothing that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross said removes the fact that the discount system is entirely misplaced and will cause enormous practical problems.
        We have established on many occasions, and have done so again this evening, that the proposals for the discount system, the genesis of which is so disreputable. are unworkable and unfair. They will make it impossible for local authorities to implement the tax. They were included in the legislation for a political purpose, which is no longer necessary.
        I conclude as I did in Committee by adopting the language of the Local Government Chronicle which, on 1 November, in a leading article, stated that the discount system would have to go sooner or later because it was unworkable and unfair. It stated that it would be better to do away with it now than allow it to cause a similar disaster to the one that we all suffered under the poll tax.
        I wish that I could have some confidence that Conservative Members were alert to that danger, but unfortunately most of them have decided to sleep-walk their way through the Bill and we are now confronted with another poll tax disaster.
        Mr. Rupert Allason: I support amendment No. 9.
        The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) spoke of the genesis of discounts. I thought that it would be worth while to cast my mind back to the rating system. The great, central inequality of that system is highlighted by the classic example of two identical houses in one of which lived a widow while in the neighbouring one lived a household with two or three wage earners. It was that central inequity that made the rating system so terribly unpopular and resulted in the Leader of the Opposition rightly condemning it as grossly unfair.
        During the 1979 election campaign I received much support because of my criticism of the rating system. I was embarrassed when I fought the 1983 election and nothing had been done about the rating system. It was a further
        200
        embarrassment to me that when I stood for the third time in 1987 the Government had still not acted on the rating system, when we had consistently given a pledge to eliminate the inequity of that system.
        I was initially enthusiastic about the principle of the community charge which, when it was introduced, was going to benefit my constituency of Torbay through the grant-related expenditure assessment. However, GREA did not last long, and by November of the same year the standard spending assessment was introduced, to the tremendous disadvantage of my constituency, which ended up with the highest community charge in the south-west. From the moment that the details of the SSA became available, I consistently voted against the community charge. and that has remained my position to date.
        I am now in a curious position. Amendment No. 9 recommends an increase in the discount from 25 to 50 per cent. I believe that that eliminates the inequality which was at the heart of the original rating system. My difficulty is that the Opposition oppose all discounts. I fear that in the Division I shall have to support the Government, which I had never intended to do, on the basis that it is much better to have a 25 per cent. discount than no discount at all. I urge the Government to accept amendment No. 9. The 50 per cent. discount would help those 7 million homes in this country housing single people who do not use the same level of services as those in neighbouring houses.
        The Opposition may well dislike the idea of discounts, but it will be helpful to Government canvassers during the next election when it is stated that the Opposition opposed all discounts. Even if single people living alone receive only 25 per cent. discounts, they will be much better off than they would be under the Labour party's proposals.
        Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As the Opposition believe that taxes, particularly local taxes, should be based on ability to pay, is it not absolutely scandalous that they suggest that the elderly and the single, whatever house they live in, should have to pay more than those with the ability to pay and are not willing to grant a discount?
        Mr. Allason: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely correct; I endorse his remarks.
        My constituency contains many single pensioners. There are probably more people over the age of 70 living in my constituency than in the constituencies of any other right hon. or hon. Member. I am concerned about those people because they do not use local authority services much but are penalised by high charges. South West Water, for instance, has the highest standing charges in the country.
        My amendment would result in a reduction in the burden on these people to the tune of 50 per cent. I recommend that to the House because it will offer great relief to people who live alone. The elderly people in my constituency worry about their financial predicament. Generally, people become more worried about these matters as they get older. Amendment No. 9 would give many people tremendous relief—not just the elderly living alone but many other people at the lower end of the income scale, such as single-parent families. All would benefit from this generosity.
        The principle of discounts has already been accepted—the Government accept the 25 per cent. I am merely asking for an extension of the logic which is already so well

        201
        known to Marsham street. We should increase the 25 per cent. discount to 50 per cent. I would even accept an increase to 35 per cent. There is a certain logic in claiming that single people living alone should be allowed to pay half the charge paid by their neighbours. I commend the amendment to the House.
        Mr. David Bellotti: In Committee, my hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment to increase the discount from 25 to 50 per cent. Unfortunately, it was not well debated, due first to filibustering by Labour Members——
        Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure you would agree that, when an hon. Member uses the term filibuster to describe our proceedings, that is a slur not on Labour Members but on the Chairman of the Committee in question.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I do not think that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) meant it that way.
        Mr. Bellotti: The two Chairmen of that Committee gave distinguished service, and I am sure that no one took my remarks to mean what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) says they meant.
        Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose——
        Mr. Bellotti: I want to finish my introduction before I give way.
        There were some amazing interventions by Ministers in Committee as well. I remember one of 384 words during the discussion immediately before the debate on discounts. That resulted in my proposal to increase the discount to 50 per cent. not being taken until one and a half minutes before the guillotine fell. Despite that, I managed to speak 322 words in the time left to me by Labour Members and Ministers. At least tonight I have about 45 minutes in which to speak, and whether I take that much time will depend on how we get on. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) wants to intervene now I will give way to him—but I see that he has changed his mind.
        I commend amendment No. 7 to the House. It would increase the discount from 25 to 40 per cent. It is true, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said, that single-person households face difficulties with meeting some of their costs of living from their income. One need only think of water, gas, electricity and telephone charges, which fall disproportionately on single person households. The council tax, too, will fall disproportionately on them because the 25 per cent. discount is not enough, given the average income of single person households compared with that of households containing two or more people.
        7.15 pm
        As the hon. Member for Torbay said, the Government have conceded the principle that some extra benefit should accrue to households containing only one person. The 25 per cent. discount represents the Government's attempt to meet that need, but have they really considered whether the figure relates precisely to people's incomes?
        Mr. Maxton: I find the hon. Gentleman's arguments astonishing. He and his party advanced the idea of a local income tax based on ability to pay. Now he suggests a 40 per cent. discount for every single householder, whatever
        202
        his income. His system would mean that single householders on good incomes would pay much more than houses containing two or more people who, together, had poor incomes. What is the logic in that?
        Mr. Bellotti: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, because it enables me to explain that proposals for a local income tax relating it to ability to pay have been rejected in Committee and on Report, so we are now in the business of trying to improve this unfair tax which is based on property. To do that, it is right to examine people's incomes and to see whether they can afford the tax.
        The argument usually deployed is that the millionaire will benefit enormously, but there are very few millionaires. On the other hand, there are millions of elderly pensioners on low incomes in single households, all of whom will be hit by the council tax. We should pay more attention to those millions of elderly pensioners than to the much smaller number of millionaires.
        This problem was known under the rates as the widow factor. The plight of widows was recognised by all parties; we all agreed that the rates were unfair to them. Indeed, that was one of the main reasons why the Government brought in the poll tax, which failed abysmally, just like the rates.
        Even the Government have recognised the problem of widows. The Secretary of State for Wales, for instance, has said:
        "How much more abominable than a tax on widows? But that is what the rating system is."
        The council tax will treat widows unfairly in the same way, because it does not give them the discount that they deserve.
        The proposed discount will go only a certain way towards doing what is needful. We believe that a single-person home should receive a discount proportionate to the income of its occupant. Twenty-seven per cent. of people aged between 65 and 74 and 50 per cent. of those over the age of 75 live alone. Millions of people in our country live alone——
        Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about England, Wales, Scotland or Britain?
        Mr. Bellotti: In every constituency represented by every hon. Member there are many elderly people living alone. Even with a 25 per cent discount, single adults living alone in a property banded above D will pay more under the council tax than under the poll tax. Is this fair? I do not believe that it is, and we ought to look at it again.
        It is interesting to note that there is some all-party support for the idea of raising the discount above 25 per cent. Some members of the Committee would have liked to support such an amendment in Committee and we have had a speech already tonight from the Government Back Benches in support of it.
        I will quote some specific figures that give credibility to amendment No. 7. Taking first the retirement pension of a single person at £52 and of a couple at £83·25, the single person's pension as a percentage of the couple's pension is 62 per cent. Then, looking at average pensioner income—this is from written answers in Hansard, 25 July 1990, c. 305–6, based on 1987 net income figures—the single person figure is £75·10 and the couple's figure is £145·67. The single person's income is 53 per cent. of the couple's income.

        203
        The next example, gross household income, is taken from the 1989 family expenditure survey. The pension of a single retired person mainly dependent on state benefits is £58·88 and that of a couple is £101·50. The single person's pension is 58 per cent. of the couple's.
        Taking the average of those three quite different sets of figures, we draw the conclusion, as does Age Concern, which has advised the Committee and hon. Members in general on this, that the average single person's income is 60 per cent. of that of a household consisting of two people.
        On the basis of those figures, and with the advice which Age Concern and other sources have given, we believe that the figure of 40 per cent. is the right one if one wishes to take into account the ability to pay and the income of the people whom we are taxing. Those are good principles for any taxation system. I challenge the Minister to deny that 40 per cent. is the right figure. If there are any sources available to the Government that disprove that figure, it is right that the Minister should put those sources to the House. He could not put them to the Committee and I look forward to seeing whether they can be put forward tonight. If they cannot, the Government must surely recognise that the 25 per cent. is 15 per cent. below what it should be and that we are asking single-person households, on average, to subsidise households of two or more persons in the payment of the council tax.
        It is people on lowish incomes in that sort of situation who will suffer far more than those on higher incomes. I do not make any apology for accepting that single millionaires will be at an advantage in that situation, but the millions of people on lowish incomes, particularly the retired, will be penalised most. It is on behalf of the latter that we should have had an opportunity of voting in Committee, which we were denied, and that we should have an opportunity tonight to vote in the House. We know that there are hon. Members on the Government Back Benches who would have supported the proposal that the discount be increased from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. Not to have a vote, because of the guillotine and for other reasons, is to fail the very people for whom we should be speaking.
        I hope that when the Minister replies he will treat this matter seriously. We could not have a debate in Committee and the House deserves serious answers on this extremely important issue. If we do not get them, when this tax is put into place many single elderly people, in particular, will feel not only hard done by but that they have not been properly considered.
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am absolutely delighted that in this Bill the Government have provided the discount for a single-person household and that that discount is automatic and mandatory. I am delighted, too, that my constituents can be told in the coming months that the Labour party does not want the single-person household to have a discount.
        As the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said earlier—I apologise for referring to him when he is not in his place—there are 7 million single-person households in this country. He also pointed out in Committee, when we had no figures to put to him, that there are a very large number of second homes whose owners will effectively receive a 50 per cent. discount through only paying the
        204
        property element of the tax. It is that 50 per cent. for the empty, unoccupied homes that makes it very difficult for me to go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who wanted the 50 per cent. to apply to a single-person household.
        The hon. Member for Dagenham quite rightly used the Government figure of £780 million as the amount by which the discount system will be beneficial to single-person households. I objected in Committee and in the House tonight to his implication—it was not stated in so many words—that the £780 million would be paid locally by the other people in the area picking up the bill for the single-person households. That is a gross distortion of the truth.
        The reality is that the number of single-person households in a particular district is part of the profile that is drawn in order to establish the standard spending assessment, and therefore the grant that goes to the local authority. So that £780 million is being paid by all of us from the generality of taxation.
        Mr. Robin Squire: Just to underline what my hon. Friend is saying, it is also the case that the profile takes into account second homes, so that the same principle applies there too.
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: That is absolutely right. That £780 million is part of the 85 per cent., give or take a couple of percentage points, that central taxation and the unified business rate provide in financial support to our local authorities.
        Perhaps I can draw a little further on the hard work and research of the hon. Member for Dagenham. He pointed out in Committee that, according to the Audit Commission, the proportion in inner city areas is probably around 40 per cent. and in some London boroughs is as high as 50 per cent. Yet the Labour party still opposes these single-person discounts. I represent an inner city seat. If 40 per cent. of my households are single-person households—I do not think that it is quite that high—I shall make absolutely certain that every one knows the Labour party's policy for them.
        Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I do not think that my hon. Friend will be able to do quite that. He will be able to tell them about the Labour party's opposition to discounts, but he will not be able to tell them how much they would pay under the Labour party system, because the Labour party will not say.
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: That is fair comment. I do believe that it is a case of think of a number and double it.
        The Labour party says that we cannot argue that a single person should pay less than a family next door with several working adults. We have all made mistakes politically.
        Mr. William O'Brien: The poll tax.
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes. We made many mistakes, but there was one piece of common ground for hon. Members on both sides of the House, which apparently no longer exists. It was that it was unfair for the single-person household to pay the same as the household with two, three, four or five members. That was said year after year.
        Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman voted for the community charge.
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes, I plead guilty. I voted for it. It seemed a damn good principle at the time.
        Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my hon. Friend think that that is an entirely happy precedent when he is discussing discounts which are fraught with anomaly, difficulty and contradiction? He has been wrong once; can he be sure that he will not be wrong again?
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: What do people say about needing enemies? Of course we all make mistakes. My hon. Friend may be that perfect example of a person who never has——
        Mr. Wilkinson: No. I made the same mistake.
        7.30 pm
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes, I made a mistake. No. I do not think that I shall make the same mistake again.
        The Labour party now shuts its eyes to the two, three or four-person household, and it ignores the single pensioner living alone. Day after day, Labour Members love to quote the case of the single millionaire. Unhappily, I am not a member of the exclusive club of millionaires. I can think of only one or two in my acquaintance, but in order to find an answer to the perennial argument of the single millionaire, I asked someone whom I believe is a millionaire. The House will forgive me stealing someone else's comment. He said, "Martin, don't be silly. There is no such thing as a single millionaire. We would at least have a butler." That quietly disposes of the argument. Never mind, it seemed a good story at the time.
        The Labour party said that it wanted some mechanism other than discounts; that it would deal with pensioners with what it called a single pensioner premium. But, as Conservative Members pointed out in Committee, to talk about a single pensioner premium is to concede the principle behind discounts. It was also pointed out in Committee that, if single pensioners received such a premium, so would a millionaire. Conservative Members asked, why just a pensioner—what about a single widow? There seemed to be no answer to that question. The Labour party is not consistent, but it never is.
        I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) is not in her place. In Committee, she was keen to defend the rights of the single working mother with a 20-year-old daughter who came home from college. She was determined to defend the discount to that mother, although that did not seem to fit the rest of her contributions in Committee.
        When my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that such a student would be invisible, that a student returning for the summer holidays would not affect that household, I was not sure whether the hon. Lady was pleased or angry. She should not accept my hon. Friend's assurances. But having 22,000 students milling around my city. I am delighted about the Government's attitude to student discounts and particularly to the student gap, as it is called—the three months which often used to cause problems under the old community charge arrangements.
        In Committee, we had long discussions about that, and were genuinely sympathetic to the worries expressed by the citizens advice bureaux. However, they seemed to be arguing that, somehow or other, the single person's discount would deter people from renting out rooms in their homes. That argument is almost impossible to accept. It is a completely unfounded fear, but even if there were
        206
        the odd few cases of people refusing to rent out a room in their home because, in their ignorance, they felt that, as landlords, they would be penalised, are we seriously to argue that we should deny the discount to the other 7 million people? That is an extraordinary situation.
        As we are running short of time, let me end with one area where there is a clear divide. I have said that the most unpopular aspect of the old rating system was the fact that the single person household paid the same as the multi-occupied household next door. That was common ground between Labour and Conservative Members, but it is no longer. The hon. Member for Dagenham has said time and again that the Labour party objects in principle to the discount system, and perhaps we should emphasise that. That is something that we should proclaim loud and clear. That is the biggest criticism that we can lay at the Labour party's door.
        Mr. Peter Fry: I shall not detain the House long, but I want to refer to two aspects of discounts. The debate and the Bill are not just about local government finance but about the acceptability of local government finance. The point has been made clearly that the rating system was completely unpopular, particularly to people living on their own. That is accepted by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti), just as it is accepted on the Conservative Benches. It is incredible that the Labour party, which has reformed itself and brought itself up to date in so many other policies, is going back to an old policy on local government finance.
        But what made the community charge so unpopular was its size and certain iniquities. The great advantage—let us talk about the advantages—to many single people was that the community charge was fairer than the rating system. In this short debate, we have to address ourselves to the question whether the discount of 25 per cent. being suggested for the single householder is sufficient. I would venture to suggest that it is not.
        I support my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), because common sense dictates that to run a household on one's own is considerably more expensive than for two people with two incomes. We must recognise that. I appreciate that the legislation, as drawn, enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to draw up regulations which could redefine the 25 per cent. Therefore, I join those who say that that 25 per cent. should be altered, perhaps to 33⅓ per cent.
        Discounts for empty properties will be assessed at 50 per cent. My hon. Friend the Minister knows full well that, under the rating system, local authorities had a great deal of discretion about whether to charge on empty properties. Under the community charge, they retained that discretion. In fact, they had even greater discretion, because they were allowed to charge from nothing up to twice the standard community charge. But, as I understand it, the present legislation insists that all empty properties will be assessed at 50 per cent.
        Some of the people who complain most bitterly about the community charge are those who discover after their homes have been repossessed that they must pay the charge not only on their new property—because it is imposed on the individual—but on the property which they lost, and which they thought was now the responsibility of the building society. They discover to their horror that they are still legally liable.

        207
        Some local authorities, such as Torbay, that have within them a large number of second homes, from which they must derive some income because of the cost incurred in administering that situation, might like greater flexibility—such as that available under the rating and community charge systems. East Northants district council wrote asking me to make that specific point.
        Despite the two question marks that I put over the Bill, I believe that the Government are right to proceed with the reforms that it contains. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities on the way that he has piloted the Bill through the House so far.
        Mr. Portillo: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for his kind remarks. I am not surprised that he ventured into the fray this evening, because he has already won an outstanding victory for his constituents and I well understand his desire to enjoy another. Before the Bill came before the House, we decided to make a change so that an authority with very enlightened policies—such as East Northants—which was able to reduce both its community charge and that which the county imposed should be permitted to continue doing so under the council tax. Therefore, the tax imposed by any county can be reduced by a district. That is an important reform for my hon. Friend's constituents and I congratulate him again on that victory.
        It is satisfying when a Minister is attacked from opposite directions—by both one's own right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members. That is quite something. I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). It was full of fantasy, was entertaining and purported to represent conversations in the Department of the Environment. The hon. Gentleman produced a more entertaining account than life itself—and given that life has been fairly entertaining over the past year, that is quite an achievement.
        The hon. Member for Dagenham said that the Government are not prepared to move to a property tax and he is absolutely right—we are not. I do not believe that the British public are prepared to move to a property tax. They got fed up when there was one and only a party that has been out of power and living in blinkers for the past 12 years could possibly propose returning to a naked property tax.
        The hon. Member for Dagenham said also that the proposed discounts have nothing to do with ability to pay. It is certainly the case that they are not crafted against people's incomes. However, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that large numbers of people—such as widows, single pensioners and young people starting out in life—live on their own as single occupants of households. They are not touched by the rebate system, because—generous and expensive though it is—it does not reach them.
        Although Labour promises more generous rebates, no one believes it, because the proposal has not been costed, no details of it are available and no money would be made available. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would be shocked if she knew the extent to which the hon. Member for Dagenham attempts to lead the public into believing that Labour would operate a more generous rebate system.
        That leaves groups of people who are above income support and rebate levels, but who none the less have quite
        208
        modest incomes. We believe that a single person discount is suitable. The hon. Member for Dagenham—greatly to his political peril—refuses to acknowledge the resentment that was felt by those living alone because their liability under the rating system was the same as the family living in a similar property next door. That shows an extraordinary lack of understanding by Labour and I am delighted by it.
        7.45 pm
        The fact that Labour is committed to giving no discounts is—as was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—marvellous news from our point of view. It is extraordinary that Labour should be so out of touch with public feeling.
        It is rich for the hon. Member for Dagenham to claim that he is worried about the complexity of our proposal; that from the hon. Gentleman who suggests that there should be property valuations on four different bases and annual rolling revaluations on a banded basis—although he keeps rather quiet about it. It is extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman to say that he is worried also about the administrative complexity of our proposal. We could propose a simpler system. A naked property tax would be simpler, but it would not be as fair. We are prepared to adopt a system that is a little more complicated, provided that it is fairer and responds more to the wishes of the British public.
        No register is needed. The onus is on the individual claiming the single-person discount to inform the local authority and there is no reason why it should not conduct a canvass to establish who will be claiming that discount. That is quite different from asking single persons entitled to the discount to inform the local authority of that fact and to record their names. It is absolutely different from keeping a register of every adult in the community. Labour has not made headway with that point.
        The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is not designed for that purpose and it is dubious whether it could be used in that way. It could run foul of data protection legislation. The Data Protection Registrar is quoted as warning local councils that they could break the law if they maintain a register of all adults for the council tax. The Municipal Journal also quoted David Smith, the assistant registrar, as saying that "excessive" or "irrelevant" information held on computer would fall foul of the Data Protection Act 1984. For households that did not qualify for council tax discount, data on adults other than the liable person did not appear to be necessary. The 1976 Act, which does not apply to Scotland, is not suitable for that purpose and I am considering whether it should be disapplied for that purpose. I propose to consult local authority associations on that very point.
        Mr. Douglas: Has the Minister clarified with the Data Protection Registrar the question of local authorities compiling a list? What would be the difference in data protection terms between a list and a register? They would seem to have the same purpose. Can the Minister give any assurances on that point?
        Mr. Portillo: A local authority will record those people who step forward as being entitled to single-person discounts. It may record also those who are liable persons. There is no problem with that; it is quite different from a register.
        Mr. Gould: That matter is of great practical importance to local authorities. Does the Minister agree that his own remarks today and those of the Data Protection Registrar are a good deal less categorical than the Minister's earlier assertion that the keeping of a register would be unlawful? When does the Minister propose to resolve that issue? Does he understand and accept that it is important that local authorities should receive reliable guidance as soon as possible?
        Mr. Portillo: Yes, and when the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks, he will see that I said that I am considering disapplying the 1976 Act and that I want to talk to local authority associations about that, so we will be in consultation with them.
        I voted for my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay in 1983 in Battersea. I did so with great enthusiasm—not least because of his stand against rates. I commiserate with my hon. Friend on his misfortune this evening, in finding himself inadvertently supporting us in the Lobby. My hon. Friend will realise that I do not wish to mislead him and that the setting of discounts for single people is a matter of judgment. Given that we wish to raise a given sum by means of the tax, a more generous discount will involve a higher headline figure for double-adult and larger households.
        Let us take the example of a band D property containing two adults, whose council tax for standard spending is £400. If we allowed single people a 50 per cent. discount, that amount would have to rise to about £440. Let me add that the council tax is partly personal and partly property-based. If we regard the proportions as "half and half', it is logical to assume that households containing two or more people should pay 100 per cent., that the occupants of a house that is empty or not their principal residence should pay 50 per cent., and that a single occupant—being, as it were, in the middle—should pay 75 per cent.
        Mr. Wilkinson: In my constituency which is in outer London, someone living alone and receiving a 25 per cent. discount will pay less than the current poll tax charge—£215—only if he or she lives in a property in the lowest two or three bands. In my constituency, such properties simply do not exist.
        Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has chosen his example carefully. He will probably find that such a person will pay much less than he or she paid in rates and the Government have just reduced the community charge by £140. When the aim is to raise the same amount by means of a different tax, the burden is redistributed: some people pay more, while others pay less.
        As we know, the Opposition are committed to an arrangement that would involve no transitional relief for people such as my hon. Friend's constituents, who may pay more under the council tax. We are committed to the provision of such relief. The Opposition are committed to an arrangement whereby there would be no limit to the amounts charged; under a Labour Government who returned to the old rating system, my hon. Friend's constituent would have to pay vast sums. Labour's would be an envy tax, which would squeeze the last penny out of everyone who happened to live in an expensive property.
        Under Labour, there would be no capping of councils. Whatever those in the extremist town halls run by Labour decided to spend, the impost would be levied on the poor
        210
        people living in the areas concerned. They would have to pay through the nose, as they did when Labour was last in power and as they did under the rating system.
        Here is my warning to anyone who is considering voting for Labour and a return to the rates: do not be young, do not be single and do not be a widow, for Labour says that there should be no discounts. For that reason, I know that my hon. Friends will join me enthusiastically in defeating the amendment.
        Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) described the Bill's flaws and weaknesses in detail. Understandably, the Minister did not address my hon. Friend's points: after all, the Government have been unable to reply to many of the points that have been raised by Opposition Members over the past two days.
        The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and others referred to the old rating system. The Minister has made great play of the fact that that system had to be abolished; it took 14 years for it to happen and, after a few months, a new scheme that had received the full support of the Minister and his hon. Friends had to be scrapped because it was not working. The poll tax created much hurt and hardship for many people, but not once did Conservative Members express any regret.
        Conservative Members who supported the poll tax now say that it does not work and that it must go. Having admitted that he was wrong then, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) was asked how he knew that he was not wrong now. Time will tell. I am sure that the elderly, the young and the single will perceive that the new system will inflict as much hurt and hardship as did the poll tax, if not more.
        According to Conservative Members, those who do not benefit from services should not contribute to the cost of those services. What will they tell Ministers about what should be paid for social services, the police, the fire brigade, street cleaning and highway maintenance? They are talking poppycock; it is impossible to assess the amounts involved. Instead of going around his constituency explaining what Labour policy is, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South should explain what Tory policy is. Clearly, he wants to explain Labour policy because he is afraid to tell his constituents about Tory policy.
        We want to hear a proper response to the points made by Opposition Members. We have merely heard bids from Conservative Members: a 50 per cent. discount here, 40 per cent. there and 35 per cent. somewhere else—and 25 per cent. from Ministers. It is a dutch auction. What has not been explained is who will pay for the discounts.
        Clearly, those who pay will be the people who do not receive such discounts—the pensioner couple and the single earner in a family household. We have been told that the Bill is self-financing. Someone must pay for the discounts, but it will not be the Government; it will be members of the community who are not entitled to discounts. That is what people in constituencies such as Nottingham, South and Torbay should be told.
        As the Opposition pointed out in Committee, we need a fair and proper rebate system, based on ability to pay. That is what the Government are shying away from. Such a system would be far better than a system that paid discounts to people who were not entitled to them. How will local authorities set their budgets if they have to

        211
        calculate so many discounts? The Minister said that it was for the people entitled to discounts to apply for them, but how can a local authority set a budget if it will then have to disburse millions of pounds for discount purposes? The whole concept is misleading. The Minister should discuss the matter with the local authority associations. If the discount proposals outlined in the Bill stand, local authorities will have great difficulty in setting and administering their budgets.
        When I questioned the Minister in Committee about the discount for disabled people who are in band A, he said that unfortunately no provision would be made for disabled people in band A who need to make adjustments to their property. No Conservative Member has referred to a discount—not even the hon. Member for Torbay—
        It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [12 November], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 343.

        Division No. 30]

        [8.00 pm

        AYES

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

        Dixon, Don

        Allen, Graham

        Dobson, Frank

        Anderson, Donald

        Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Eadie, Alexander

        Ashton, Joe

        Eastham, Ken

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Edwards, Huw

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Enright, Derek

        Barron, Kevin

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Battle, John

        Fatchett, Derek

        Beckett, Margaret

        Faulds, Andrew

        Bell, Stuart

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

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

        Flannery, Martin

        Benton, Joseph

        Flynn, Paul

        Blair, Tony

        Foster, Derek

        Blunkett, David

        Foulkes, George

        Boateng, Paul

        Fraser, John

        Boyes, Roland

        Fyfe, Maria

        Bradley, Keith

        Galbraith, Sam

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Galloway, George

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        George, Bruce

        Caborn, Richard

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Callaghan, Jim

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Gordon, Mildred

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Gould, Bryan

        Canavan, Dennis

        Graham, Thomas

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clelland, David

        Grocott, Bruce

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Hardy, Peter

        Cohen, Harry

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Corbett, Robin

        Haynes, Frank

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Cousins, Jim

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Cox, Tom

        Henderson, Doug

        Crowther, Stan

        Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

        Cryer, Bob

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Cummings, John

        Home Robertson, John

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Hood, Jimmy

        Dalyell, Tam

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Darling, Alistair

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Hoyle, Doug

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

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Dewar, Donald

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        212

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Pendry, Tom

        Illsley, Eric

        Pike, Peter L.

        Ingram, Adam

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Janner, Greville

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

        Radice, Giles

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Randall, Stuart

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Redmond, Martin

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Kumar, Dr. Ashok

        Reid, Dr John

        Lambie, David

        Richardson, Jo

        Lamond, James

        Robertson, George

        Leighton, Ron

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Lewis, Terry

        Rogers, Allan

        Litherland, Robert

        Rooker, Jeff

        Livingstone, Ken

        Rooney, Terence

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Rowlands, Ted

        McAllion, John

        Ruddock, Joan

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Sheerman, Barry

        McFall, John

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        McKelvey, William

        Short, Clare

        McLeish, Henry

        Skinner, Dennis

        McMaster, Gordon

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        McNamara, Kevin

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

        McWilliam, John

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

        Madden, Max

        Snape, Peter

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Soley, Clive

        Marek, Dr John

        Spearing, Nigel

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Strang, Gavin

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Straw, Jack

        Martlew, Eric

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Maxton, John

        Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

        Meacher, Michael

        Turner, Dennis

        Meale, Alan

        Vaz, Keith

        Michael, Alun

        Walley, Joan

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

        Morley, Elliot

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Mullin, Chris

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Murphy, Paul

        Wilson, Brian

        Nellist, Dave

        Winnick, David

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Worthington, Tony

        O'Brien, William

        Wray, Jimmy

        O'Hara, Edward

        O'Neill, Martin

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Mrs. Llin Golding and

        Parry, Robert

        Mr. Jack Thompson.

        Patchett, Terry

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Beith, A. J.

        Alexander, Richard

        Bellingham, Henry

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Bellotti, David

        Allason, Rupert

        Bendall, Vivian

        Alton, David

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Benyon, W.

        Amess, David

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Amos, Alan

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Arbuthnot, James

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Arnold, Sir Thomas

        Body, Sir Richard

        Ashby, David

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Atkins, Robert

        Boswell, Tim

        Atkinson, David

        Bottomley, Peter

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Baldry, Tony

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Bowis, John

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Batiste, Spencer

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        213

        Brazier, Julian

        Gregory, Conal

        Bright, Graham

        Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

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

        Grist, Ian

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Ground, Patrick

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Grylls, Michael

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Hague, William

        Burns, Simon

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Burt, Alistair

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Butler, Chris

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Butterfill, John

        Hannam, John

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

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

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Harris, David

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Carr, Michael

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hayes, Jerry

        Cartwright, John

        Hayward, Robert

        Cash, William

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Chope, Christopher

        Hill, James

        Churchill, Mr

        Hind, Kenneth

        Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

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

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Colvin, Michael

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Howells, Geraint

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Hunt, Rt Hon David

        Cormack, Patrick

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Couchman, James

        Hunter, Andrew

        Cran, James

        Irvine, Michael

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Irving, Sir Charles

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

        Jack, Michael

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Jackson, Robert

        Day, Stephen

        Janman, Tim

        Devlin, Tim

        Jessel, Toby

        Dicks, Terry

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geofirey

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Johnston, Sir Russell

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Dover, Den

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Dunn, Bob

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Kennedy, Charles

        Dykes, Hugh

        Key, Robert

        Eggar, Tim

        Kilfedder, James

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Evennett, David

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Fallon, Michael

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Farr, Sir John

        Knapman, Roger

        Favell, Tony

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Knowles, Michael

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Knox, David

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        Latham, Michael

        Forman, Nigel

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Forth, Eric

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Franks, Cecil

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Freeman, Roger

        Livsey, Richard

        French, Douglas

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Fry, Peter

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Gale, Roger

        Lord, Michael

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

        Gill, Christopher

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Maclean, David

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

        Gorst, John

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Madel, David

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mans, Keith

        214

        Maples, John

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Marland, Paul

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Marlow, Tony

        Shersby, Michael

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Sims, Roger

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Mates, Michael

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Speed, Keith

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Speller, Tony

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Squire, Robin

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Mills, Iain

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Steen, Anthony

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Stern, Michael

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Stevens, Lewis

        Moate, Roger

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Stokes, Sir John

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Sumberg, David

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Mudd, David

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Neale, Sir Gerrard

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Needham, Richard

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Thorne, Neil

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Thurnham, Peter

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Norris, Steve

        Tracey, Richard

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Tredinnick, David

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Trippier, David

        Page, Richard

        Trotter, Neville

        Paice, James

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Patnick, Irvine

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

        Viggers, Peter

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Pawsey, James

        Walden, George

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Wallace, James

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Waller, Gary

        Portillo, Michael

        Walters, Sir Dennis

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Ward, John

        Price, Sir David

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Warren, Kenneth

        Rathbone, Tim

        Watts, John

        Redwood, John

        Wells, Bowen

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Rhodes James, Sir Robert

        Whitney, Ray

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Wilshire, David

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Wolfson, Mark

        Rost, Peter

        Wood, Timothy

        Rowe, Andrew

        Woodcock, Dr. Mike

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

        Yeo, Tim

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Mr. David Lightbown and

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Mr. John M. Taylor.

        Shelton, Sir William

        Question accordingly negatived.
        MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then, pursuant to Order [12 November], proceeded to put the Questions on the remaining amendments, moved by a member of the Government.

      Clause 26

        POWERS OF ENTRY
        Amendments made: No. 125, in page 17, line 6, leave out `24 hours' and insert 'three clear days.'.
        No. 126, in page 17, line 7, at end insert
        '; and there shall be disregarded for this purpose any day which is—

        (a) a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday; or

        (b) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

      Clause 89

        POWERS OF ENTRY
        Amendments made: No. 117, in page 60, line 6, leave out `24 hours' and insert 'three clear days.'.
        No. 118, in page 60, line 7, at end insert
        `; and there shall be disregarded for this purpose any day which is—

        (a) a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday; or

        (b) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in Scotland.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

      Clause 94

        SUBSTITUTED AND REDUCED SETTINGS
        Amendments made: No. 119, in page 64, line 2, after 'a', insert 'substituted or'.
        No. 120, in page 64, line 4, after 'that', insert `substituted or'.
        No. 121, in page 64, line 5, at end insert 'substituted or'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

      Clause 116

        SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
        Amendments made: No. 127, in page 78, line 1, after first 'Ace, insert
        '(except section (Transitory exemption for school leavers))'.
        No. 128, in page 78, line 6, after first 'Act', insert
        '(except section (Transitory exemption for school leavers))'.—[ Mr. Portillo.]

      Schedule 1

        PERSONS DISREGARDED FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOUNT
        Amendment made: No. 129, in page 80, line 44, after `impaired', insert—
        '(aa) as regards any period which includes the day he is stated in a certificate of a registered medical practitioner to have been or to be likely to be severely mentally impaired;'.—[ Mr. Portillo.]

      Schedule 2

        ADMINISTRATION
        Amendments made: No. 130, in page 87, line 36, leave out from 'shall' to 'of in line 37 and insert
        ', as respects each dwelling shown in the copy which in the opinion of the authority will be a relevant dwelling on the day when the list comes into force, notify the person concerned'.
        No. 131, in page 87, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
        No. 132, in page 88, line 1, leave out 'an exempt' and insert 'a relevant'.
        No. 133, in page 88, line 3, leave out 'owner of the dwelling' and insert 'person concerned'.
        No. 134, in page 88, line 12, leave out 'an exempt' and insert 'a relevant'.
        No. 135, in page 88, line 14, leave out 'owner of the dwelling' and insert 'person concerned'.
        No. 136, in page 88, line 25, at end insert—
        '( ) For the purposes of this paragraph a dwelling is a relevant dwelling on any day if—

        (a) on the day the dwelling is an exempt dwelling; or

        (b) in respect of the financial year in which the day falls and the dwelling, the amount set under section 30 or 93 of this Act or, where the authority is a regional council each amount set under section 93 of this Act is nil.

        ( ) In this paragraph any reference to the person concerned is a reference to a person who, in respect of the particular dwelling, would be solely liable to pay to the authority an amount in respect of council tax for the particular day if the dwelling were not or had not been a relevant dwelling on that day.'.
        No. 137, in page 89, line 13, at beginning insert—

        '.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include, as regards a case where, in respect of a particular dwelling, persons would be jointly and severally liable to pay to an authority an amount in respect of council tax for a particular day if the dwelling were not or had not been on that day a relevant dwelling for the purposes of paragraph 8 above, provision equivalent to that included under that paragraph subject to any modifications the Secretary of State thinks fit.

        (2)'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

      Schedule 3

        PENALTIES
        Amendments made: No. 138, in page 93, line 18, leave out '10' and insert '10(2)'.
        No. 139, in page 93, line 28, leave out '10' and insert `10(2)'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

      Schedule 4

        ENFORCEMENT: ENGLAND AND WALES
        Amendments made: No. 140, in page 97, line 6, leave out from `have' to 'in' in line 7 and insert
        ', or subsequently ceases to have, the debtor'.
        No. 141, in page 97, line 44, at end insert—
        `(7) The provisions of this paragraph (except subparagraphs (3) and (4)(b) above) shall apply to elected members of billing authorities or relevant precepting authorities as they apply to persons in employment; and for the purposes of the application of those provisions in relation to any such members—

        (a) any reference to a person having the debtor in his employment shall be construed as a reference to such an authority having the debtor as an elected member; and

        (b) any reference to the debtor's earnings shall be construed as a reference to allowances payable to the debtor by such an authority.

        (8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above—

        (a) a relevant precepting authority is a major precepting authority other than the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District; and

        (b) a person is an elected member of a relevant precepting authority other than a county council if he is appointed to the authority by a constituent council of which he is an elected member.'.

        No. 142, in page 101, line 23, at end insert—
        '(2) Any reference in this paragraph to attachment of earnings includes a reference to attachment of allowances.'.—[ Mr. Portillo.]
        Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent signified].
        8.12 pm
        The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        I wish to say at once how much I have enjoyed the deliberations on the Bill. I have many reasons for saying that. First, the Bill has enabled the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities—my hon. friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo)—to establish a formidable parliamentary reputation because of the way in which he led the Government side in Committee, aided and abetted by Under-Secretaries from virtually every part of the United Kingdom. They deployed the case as admirably as we all knew they would. I thank them and all my hon. Friends who helped them in Committee.
        Secondly, I pay tribute to the Opposition for the way in which they conducted themselves. They started with one general speech and they recycled it hour after hour, day after day. As I listened a few minutes ago to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), I remembered all too well the speech in which he first addressed this subject about a year ago. His speech today was identical to that one and was certainly no better.
        There have been lengthy deliberations on the Bill. Despite the opportunities provided by the guillotine arrangement for a full and lengthy analysis of the Bill, the Labour party filibustered to use up the almost over-generous time—as it appears—which the House made available to it. It is something of a disappointment——
        Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I served on the Standing Committee. On several occasions, we said that we felt that Tory Members were deliberately wasting the Committee's time. It was firmly pointed out to us that such a complaint was a criticism of the Chair and not of the conduct of hon. Members. Does that apply here as well?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am sure that the Committee Chairman would have reproached any hon. Member who did not follow the procedures of the House.
        Mr. Heseltine: Because, like me, you were not in attendance for every moment of the Committee's deliberations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be extremely helpful to remind you that the Committee Chairman had to reprove hon. Members at one stage——
        Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It happened twice.
        Mr. Heseltine: I must update my information. The Committee Chairman had to reprove Opposition Members twice for filibustering. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is correct—that has proved beyond peradventure our worst suspicions about the conduct of those affairs.
        Another curious aspect of the conduct of the debate will not have escaped the attention of the House. It is a year since we were told that the Labour party would conduct a tooth-and-nail opposition to the Bill. The Labour party was, we were told, totally opposed to it. Labour Members thought that it was wholly unacceptable, ill-considered, ill-prepared and beyond anything that local government was prepared to accept.
        218
        One would have thought that today, with this last chance, we would find Labour Members gathered on the Opposition Benches to cheer on their leading spokesmen as they tore into this piece of Tory legislation. I must confess that I have kept a note as the hours have gone wearily past to see whether the first three or the next five would add to the number of Labour Members present as the tension mounted. It is now the dinner hour, and we are within nearly an hour and an a half of the solemnity of the Bill passing from this place, and there are the Labour Members—just seven of them—to deploy their case. That says all there is to be said.
        There is no fight left in Her Majesty's Opposition. The reason is not just that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities destroyed their arguments day after day; they have failed in another respect to match up to the enormity of the opportunity we gave them. I should have thought that the Opposition would come forward with their own measured proposals tabled in amendment after amendment so that their argument could be weighed against ours.
        I do not for one minute suggest that the Opposition did not think of that idea for themselves. Just a few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was leaping about all over the place, waving a Bill which he had carefuly drafted to get rid of the poll tax. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that the Opposition can draft Bills and amendments and have them debated. The moment that he failed to succeed in that particular—and wholly irrelevant—gesture, the idea of putting in amendment form the proposals in "Fair Rates" had no appeal for the Opposition. We know why—they do not have the first idea how they would grapple with the complexities of local government finance, how they would draft the legislation and what instructions they would give. That has been manifestly proved by the way in which they have conducted their opposition to the Bill today.
        There is a third reason why I have so enjoyed the passage of the legislation. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) yesterday entertained the House with a historical re-run. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) here—he is a former member of the Labour party, who is now found somewhere else, in the Scottish nationalist movement, I think. He yesterday took what I thought was a wholly justified onslaught.
        I thought that the Labour party was less than fair to the Scottish National party yesterday when it tried to suggest that it was that party which had somehow incited the nation not to pay the poll tax. I am not saying that the Scottish National party was not part of that process—I am sure that it was, because there are few bizarre extremities in which it is not playing its role. However, the idea that it was the Scottish National party which incited the nation not to pay the poll tax is not historically accurate.
        When I read Hansard, I could hardly believe it. I shall read three quotations which are jewels of parliamentary history. In the first, the hon. Member for Garscadden said:
        "Politicians who hope to make law cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. It is a luxury which they cannot afford and which sets a dangerous precedent."
        What were certain Labour Members of Parliament doing without let or hindrance from their leaders or Front-Bench spokesmen who have no complaints, who campaigned for them, who sought to get them elected to the House, who sat with them, who issued the Whip and allowed them to

        219
        take part in Committees, no matter what protests they made to stop people paying the poll tax? Now an Opposition spokesman is suggesting that that is a dangerous precedent.
        However, it did not stop there. The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
        "Non-payment was bound to affect local government services—it was designed to do so. Marginal reductions in funding hit many of the most vulnerable in the community."
        We have been saying that for days, weeks and months. The Opposition have been bringing about those marginal reductions in revenue which, according to their own spokesman, hit the least privileged members of society, the very people whom the Labour party claims to represent.
        The third quotation is very much along the same lines. The hon. Gentleman said:
        "When a library closes or education services suffer, people are entitled to ask, 'Is this the price that we are now paying for the SNP non-payment campaign?'"—[Official Report, 16 December 1991: Vol. 201, c.35.]
        No, it was the price we were paying for the Labour party's non-payment campaign. A new scale of hypocrisy was yesterday introduced into the debate by the parliamentary Labour Party.
        The fourth and final reason for supporting Third Reading is simple. The legislation, despite all the delaying tactics of the parliamentary Labour party, brings the poll tax to an end at the earliest possible practical opportunity. While the Labour party has tried to ensure that the poll tax remains on the statute book, we have been determined that it should go, and a Third Reading will bring that about.
        The Bill provides for the poll tax's replacement, also at the earliest possible opportunity, by a new fair council tax which will be in place by April 1993. It also preserves the arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the levels of the community charge by £140 per payer, and we are determined to maintain those lower levels of payment in the new system. That, of course, contrasts starkly with the aim of the Labour party, which is determined that there will be an unfettered ability for local authorities—too often controlled by Labour—to spend without regard under any system of local government finance that it would introduce.
        As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities eloquently said, there is now a very sensible and clear distinction. We shall have a fair system in place by 1993. There will be rebates for those who cannot afford to pay, there will be discounts for single people and a broad spread to reflect the ability of people in homes to pay a reasonable amount in accordance with the circumstances of the household. Against that, the parliamentary Labour party is determined—if it won power—not only to increase income tax to 59p in the pound, but to allow local taxes to rise without let or hindrance. The more Labour can tax people, the more it will be pleased. One fact from which the country can take satisfaction is that the Bill on which we are voting tonight will be on the statute book next year, when this party has won the election to ensure that that happens.
        8.25 pm
        Mr. Gould: I suppose that we should be flattered that the Secretary of State graced us not only with his presence but with a contribution to the debate. Clearly, that was a
        220
        late change of plan as Government business managers had provided us with a piece of paper which assured us that "Mr. Michael Portillo" would open for the Government. Who knows which of our taunts or what embarrassment the Secretary of State felt at our jibes that he did not have the courage to speak about the measure and knew nothing about it finally forced him to his feet? Was it worth waiting for? I fear not.
        The Secretary of State confirmed all that we had said—that he knew nothing about the measure. It was no wonder that he dared not come to Committee to suffer the assault on the details of the provisions because he did not understand them. Consequently, even under pressure, he waited for the moment when he could indulge in his favourite tactic of airily using a broad brush. It struck me that he was in the mode in which he is most comfortable—a mode which has no relation to the detail of the Bill, to the facts of life or to the realities of local government. He could make a few broad points of doubtful validity and then sit down with the sycophantic cheers of a handful of his supporters ringing in his ears.
        The one interesting thing that the Secretary of State said was that he enjoyed the passage of the Bill through the Committee. I bet he did. I bet that he enjoyed it enormously from his dinner table, from his opera seat, from the theatre or from his bed, for heaven's sake, while the rest of us were doing our duty and considering the Bill that he had introduced as a supposed solution to the problem of the poll tax.
        The Secretary of State said that the great virtue of the Bill was that it abolished the poll tax. There is cause for celebration in the fact that clause 100 proclaims the end of the poll tax, but would that it were so. If the Bill did abolish the poll tax, we could at least say that, whatever its other failings and shortcomings, it had at least achieved that. However, I am afraid that even that limited purpose is inadequately served by the legislation. We have heard hints to that effect from the speeches made even today by some Conservative hon. Members, very few of whom—indeed none of whom, as I understand it—are willing to stand up for the principle of the poll tax. As I understand it, none of them will vote against the Bill because of clause 100. All those brave soldiers in the cause of the poll tax who were going to surrender their honour and virtue at high cost and die in the last ditch will all troop through the Lobbies to vote for that clause. The only exception of whom I know among Conservative Members who is likely to vote against the Bill will do so on different grounds.
        Mr. Wilkinson: Abstain.
        Mr. Gould: Even to abstain is an achievement. As I understand it, no one else among all those poll tax warriors will vote against the Bill. How they must choke on it. Every word that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), for example, uttered throughout the Committee dripped with regret for the fact that the poll tax is to go, and dripped with support and enthusiasm for the whole principle of the poll tax.
        Is the poll tax unfair, as the Secretary of State and the Government say? The people could not be persuaded that it was fair. Is it unfair according to the hon. Members for Battersea and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), and according to all the others who think like them? Not a bit of it. The poll tax is a wonderful tax and is not at all unfair. They choke on it, but they will vote for its abolition.

        221
        Was the poll tax virtually uncollectable, as the Prime Minister said? Of course not, says the hon. Member for Battersea: if only everyone was as virtuous as Wandsworth council, there would be no problem. The poll tax may be abolished by clause 100 in language——
        Mr. Bill Walker rose——
        Mr. Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He must give way.
        Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman has only just asked. I will complete the point first. To give the hon. Member for Tayside, North credit, he was looking at me rather than at his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. I watched the hon. Member for Battersea closely because I expected him to want to intervene earlier. He took an awfully long time to summon his thoughts, to get his wits together and to decide that he wanted to intervene. I am sure that he will establish once and for all his undying allegiance to the poll tax. If he cannot quite do that, I have no doubt that he will explain why, despite that undying allegiance, he proposes to vote for the abolition of the poll tax. Once he has explained that, I have no doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North will explain likewise. I give way to the hon. Member for Battersea.
        Mr. Bowis: It took a long time coming. We were and are content with the community charge in Wandsworth for this year and next year—zero and zero—but, alas, that has not been the case in many areas in which our nation is ruled by Labour councils which have imposed such high charges that it has been impossible for people to put up with them. In the interests of my fellow man, I am prepared to sacrifice my own personal interest and comfort.
        What does the hon. Gentleman mean about collectability? If there is a zero charge, it is not too difficult to collect. Has the hon. Gentleman not yet worked out the mathematics of that?
        Mr. Gould: I am not sure that anyone will be persuaded by that bit of sophistry. I was not aware of the point on which the hon. Gentleman seems to rely, which is that no Conservative-controlled authorities or Conservative voters are unhappy about the poll tax. That comes as something of a surprise and it is a good instance of history being rewritten. Let us see whether the hon. Member for Tayside, North can be any more persuasive. Let us give him his chance now.
        Mr. Bill Walker: We had some enjoyable exchanges in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will know that I do not apologise to him or to anyone else for the fact that I believe that the poll tax in principle was right. I believe that the level at which it was brought in and the level that it achieved latterly were the reasons why it had problems. If the Government had accepted earlier the proposals suggested by me and by others—which they did latterly—about transferring some of the local charge to value added tax, there would have been no difficulty in sustaining the position on the community charge.
        Mr. Gould: No doubt each Conservative Member will make peace with his or her conscience. Each will have his or her own little excuse, unconvincing though it may be, for abandoning the principle to which he or she so strongly adhered. We must conclude that no Conservative Member has the courage of his convictions. No Conservative
        222
        Member will vote against the abolition of the poll tax on the ground that he adheres to the principle that he has so bravely espoused.
        What was most significant about the brief intervention by the hon. Member for Tayside, North and the one point that I found convincing was his assertion that he would offer no apology to me or to anyone else. That is regarded in the country as the most unforgivable arrogance by the Conservative party. Having created such havoc, such misery and such disrespect for the law, having undermined local government, having obstructed civil rights and having spent £14 billion of taxpayers' money, the Conservatives have the arrogance to say that they will offer no apology.
        Mr. David Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to apologise to electors in Labour areas for their levels of spending? Whether under rates, poll tax or council tax, they have imposed and will impose a great burden. Will the hon. Gentleman apologise for the failure of Labour authorities to collect rates or community charge, which has imposed a further burden, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out? Finally, will he apologise for the Labour party's failure to put in place any proposals for capping authorities that exceed those burdens?
        Mr. Gould: I agree that it was the size of the poll tax bills which brought people on to the streets and which caused law-abiding citizens to be prepared to defy the law. The size of the bills meant that Conservative voters threatened to revolt and that Conservative councillors refused the whip. That was all true in Conservative-controlled areas. That was the reality of the poll tax, and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) deludes himself if he prefers to forget that piece of inconvenient history.
        Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Gould: Yes, but I will not give way to every tin-pot intervention.
        Mr. Mans: Despite that comment, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He suggested that some of my hon. Friends were abandoning principles to which they had adhered for many years. Will he confirm that he has not abandoned any principles to which he has adhered?
        Mr. Gould: I am in the very comfortable position of being able to give the hon. Gentleman exactly that assurance—[Interruption.] Oh yes. My position in principle is well known and I adhere to it.
        Let us establish why some Conservative Members can reconcile with their consciences the fact that they will vote for the abolition of the poll tax. There are several reasons. They know that, despite the brave words of clause 100, the poll tax will live on. The bills will arrive again at the end of March next year. Just imagine the outrage and the anger of the millions of people who have been persuaded by the bravura performances of the Secretary of State and by the assurances given by the Prime Minister, including his statement that the poll tax had been abolished. They were inclined, silly people, to believe Ministers' statements. Imagine their anger and outrage when the bills arrive again at the end of March next year.

        223
        Imagine the despair of local government, although it was under no illusions. Local government will be faced yet again with the problem of collecting what the Prime Minister glibly announced some months ago was a virtually uncollectable tax of whose fairness the people could not be persuaded. Imagine the problems that local government now faces. How is local government to grapple with the problem?
        I suspect that Conservative Members take comfort from the fact that the poll tax lives on, and they may take further comfort from the expert advice from so many quarters that the Government's timetable for abolishing the poll tax by 1 April 1993 will be extremely difficult to achieve. Conservative Members have the giddy prospect—how it must warm the cockles of their hearts—that the poll tax will survive for yet another year and perhaps even until 1994. They can salve their consciences by saying, "Yes, we are voting for a clause tonight, but of course nothing will really happen for at least a year or two."
        Even if Conservative Members were compelled to face the reality that one way or another their beloved poll tax is due to go sooner or later—sooner if we have a Labour Government and later if we have a Tory Government—at least they can again delude themselves with the idea that, if only they can win a general election and implement the Bill, the poll tax will live on.
        The 50 per cent. personal or head tax element of the council tax preserves the poll tax with all its mean features intact. The unfairness of the poll tax—the very problem that did for the poll tax, or so we are told by the Government—survives with the council tax. The complexity of the poll tax is also preserved. I would argue, as would many others, that the complexity of the council tax is likely to outstrip even that of the poll tax. As a direct consequence of the complexity of the council tax, the cost of administering it is fearful to imagine. Yet undoubtedly Conservative Members will gladly support the council tax because it will prove to be yet another burden for hated local government.
        Another feature that the council tax will have in common with the poll tax is the register. We are told—although with less assurance tonight—that technically and lawfully there can be no register. But it is equally accepted that it might be necessary to have a list, and that if there is not a list local authorities might have to rely on the electoral register. So all the objections to the poll tax on civil rights grounds will survive.
        Then there is the question of uncollectability—the other shot below the water that holed the poll tax. The council tax will also be uncollectable. Surely no one disputes that 7 million inquiries will have to be made to find out which are the single-person households. Indeed, more than 7 million inquiries will have to be made. Some 33 million inquiries will have to be made to find out which of those 33 million households are the 7 million single-person households. The information will have to be kept on record and updated day by day as people move from one address to another, change their status and so on. Uncollectability—my heavens, we have seen nothing yet. The council tax will be a monument to uncollectability. Undoubtedly, that too pleases the diehard supporters of the poll tax.
        224
        All the problems of the poll tax will remain and will be compounded by a set of new problems connected with an entirely new and untried property tax. The council tax will use an entirely new valuation basis—capital values. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) rightly described the mechanism for carrying out valuations as a Mickey-Mouse process which will cost about £2 per valuation. I always tell my friends to remember the next time that they are charged a large sum for a valuation to remember that it could be done for £2.
        The valuation process will provoke a huge number of appeals just as all the other administrative problems of introducing the council tax come to fruition. The valuation process will depend on a banding system. It will do great damage to fairness between one region and another and one council tax payer and another. It is rightly feared and regretted by many Conservative Members who, unfortunately, did not have the courage to express their opinions in these debates.
        When we put together the elements of the council tax, we find that the poll tax not merely lives on but lives on with even more horrific problems attached to it. I genuinely think—this is not an attempt at a debating point—that we face a disaster of even greater than poll tax proportions. We have evidence that that is the case. Conservative Members could scarcely bear to contemplate what was being done in their name. At one point during Report yesterday there was literally not one Back-Bench Member on the Conservative Benches. For a period this afternoon just two Conservative Back-Bench Members were present.
        The Conservative party is introducing the legislation and Conservative Members had some obligation, however rudimentary, to Parliament and their constituents to understand a measure which their votes would force through the House. The truth is that Conservative Members chose to block their ears and close their eyes. They sleepwalked through the Bill. They refused to try to understand the disaster that was in preparation.
        Conservative Members were culpable on the poll tax. Their mistake and their blind support produced that disaster. Even the Prime Minister sought refuge in the excuse that the measure had been bounced through. That was a pretty pathetic excuse from a member of the Cabinet. But it is now a pathetic excuse for all those Conservative Members who chose not to listen to the arguments and to pretend that this time, unlike last time, they could accept ministerial assurances that everything would be all right on the night. Their excuses ring hollow in the ears of millions of people who have been damaged by the poll tax.
        Those excuses will not be listened to a second time. In all seriousness, Conservative Members have failed the House. They have failed in their duty and they have failed their constituents. It will be only justice if their constituents take their revenge.
        8.45 pm
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on taking the Bill through Third Reading. There is a clear cleavage tonight, irrespective of where we stood on the community charge, to which I shall refer later. On one side we are offered a council tax which is a mixture of a property tax and a head tax. On the other side we are offered a return to a system

        225
        called fair rates. We do not know what is offered to us under the fair rates system. I have no doubt how the majority of the electorate in my constituency would vote, if they were given that choice. They do not want to return to a property system whereby large families who need larger houses and older people who want to keep their houses so that their children and grandchildren can visit them are penalised.
        Some form of local government Bill has been introduced almost every year. For eight months I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment. This is yet another Bill. I am concerned that we should get it right in the long run, or put on the record where improvements can still be made either before or after a general election. But the last thing that we want is a rating system, which is what the Labour party wants.
        In my view, the community charge was right in principle but was too high. I said that in February 1988. Three years later value added tax was increased and the community charge was reduced by £140. If we had left it at that, the community charge would have remained. But that is history and we must take up from where we are now.
        I am still worried about the unfairness of the council tax to people in London and the south-east and areas where property prices are high. The Government have accepted the principle that there should be separate sets of bands for Wales and for Scotland, presumably because the prices of property are different there. However, the greatest variation in property prices is between the south of England and the north of England. People may say that it is difficult to know where to draw the line, but a line has been drawn down the Welsh marshes somewhere and along Hadrian's wall or some other such boundary.
        The difference between property prices in the north and the south-east of England is not small. In London and the south-east property prices are 45 per cent. above the average. In the north property prices are 25 per cent. below the average. That is not a small difference. There is a great gulf between one and the other. Only 1 per cent. of properties in London and the south-east will be in the bottom band. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), 83 per cent. of properties will be in the top three bands. In the north few properties—only 4 per cent.—will be in the top three bands. In Greater London as a whole 31 per cent. of properties will be in the top three bands. It is a pity that the Government did not take on board then—I trust that they will do so at some time in the future—the fact that the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association has drawn up its own set of bands, which has made the situation clearer.
        If the Department of the Environment contacts the Department of Health, it will find that four bands of property apply to doctors buying their surgeries, so the Government do not even need to use the London Boroughs Association scheme. It says here, "Department of Health"; is that not correct?
        Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, it is.
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: The Department of Health lists four regions of the country. I believe that it would make that list available to the Department of the Environment. The list starts with a factor of 97 for Cleveland, 106 for Avon, 116 for Buckingham and 130 for Harrow and Brent.
        226
        The Department of Health has already worked out the differences, so we need not send people around the country; we merely need to bicycle from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Health. I sometimes wonder whether one Department knows what another is doing, but I must not raise such questions tonight.
        Many people will be shocked that we have not increased the single person's discount from 25 to 331 per cent. or to 50 per cent. I read in the newspapers that that was being negotiated. Presumably the Treasury put a stop to it. I only hope that when the recession ends and taxes pour in we shall be able to table an amendment to do that. In Brent it means that, according to my figures, 92 per cent. of single people will lose out an average of £131 each, which is quite a lot of money. In Brent, 18 per cent. of doubles will lose out and the remaining 82 per cent. will gain an average of £44.
        In Brent, North, according to my figures, after the 25 per cent. discount 94 per cent. of single people will lose out and 24 per cent. of doubles. I wished to put that on record because, with all taxes or changes in taxation, those people who are better off as a result will say "Thank you very much" and forget about it and the others who do not benefit will remember and will look to the ballot box, although I trust that that will not happen in this case.
        The present recession in London and the south-east is different from any recession since 1929. From 1979 to 1981 the recession affected the north and the midlands, but now it is affecting service industries here. Sainsbury recently revealed that London is the only area where sales of food have decreased.
        It is not merely a question of the price of property, because we must take travel into account. Repairs to cars cost twice as much in London as outside. If one drives a long way to have one's car serviced one can save money, but it costs money to drive it there.
        House repossessions must also be considered. Figures published yesterday show that the two greatest increases in unemployment were in London and the south-east—this year it has increased by 43·6 per cent. in Greater London and by 56·4 per cent. in the south-east.
        Mr. Wilkinson: It has increased by more than 100 per cent. in my constituency.
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who spoke on this subject last night, says that unemployment has increased by 100 per cent. in his constituency.
        The Government must bear in mind the fact that we are debating Third Reading and that Conservative Members of Parliament would much prefer the Bill to anything that will be offered by the Labour party at any time. There is no doubt about that. It is not a case of salving our consciences; it is a plain fact.
        However, at some stage, in another place or later on—whatever we say now, there will be another local government Bill next year—when the recession ends and more money is available, for goodness sake will the Government do something for London and the south-east and other high-priced property areas and do something about banding and single persons' discounts? Let them not wait three years this time. Let it be done then.
        Tonight I shall vote with the Government, because I do not want the return of a total rating system. I should have

        227
        preferred the community charge to remain, but it has gone and I accept that. We have got the Bill to Third Reading and hon. Members who served in Committee have done quite well, but we must remember regional banding and an increase in the personal discount if the measure is to become popular rather than merely being a palliative.
        8.54 pm
        Mr. Bellotti: When the Secretary of State introduced the debate on Third Reading, we were entertained to a speech commensurate with an after-dinner speech, which is where the Secretary of State spent most of the time while the Committee was considering details of the Bill. That gave the Minister of State a difficult task. A little more than 12 months ago he said:
        "Taxes on people's homes are unfair. Property values bear little relation to people's ability to pay."
        From that standpoint it was a difficult task for the Secretary of State to pilot the Bill through Committee and on to Report and Third Reading. On occasions, scrutiny of the Bill was almost non-existent.
        The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) has demonstrated two key areas which the Committee did not consider in the necessary detail: banding and discounts. If the Committee and the House, on Report, had had the opportunity to explore those in detail, there would have been a great deal of support for his point of view.
        Perhaps the Government do not believe that council tax bills will ever be brought into being in this form in 1993. Perhaps that is why they did not deem it necessary to go into detail in Committee. However, we must seriously consider the possibility that the Bill will be brought into being. At this late hour I want to join those hon. Members who would appeal for some rethinking.
        The misery, chaos and cost caused by the poll tax, which so many hon. Members from both sides of the House have shared during these debates, will continue with the council tax, unless we are careful. The council tax is not fair and will not be efficient.
        First, it is not fair. Surely it is wrong that the richest people, living in mansions, will pay only three times what the poorest people in the smallest flats will be asked to pay. That differential is not enough. Surely there are not enough bands.
        That will put the burden on to the least well-off and protect the rich. If there were more bands, the burden would be spread more fairly.
        The bands will mean that those on low and average incomes in high property value areas will face the largest bills. Those are the very people in London and the south-east to whom many hon. Members have referred in Committee and during this debate.
        People living in tied property will face bills quite out of proportion to their incomes, especially if the property is in the inner city. That will affect ministers of religion, tenant farmers in rural areas, and people who rent and gain no benefit from the capital value of the property that they occupy. Private tenants lost heavily when the poll tax was introduced and stand to lose heavily again under the council tax.
        The tax will also create a great deal of resentment. The Government propose to exempt students, but not all students will pay nothing. As we demonstrated in
        228
        Committee and on Third Reading, many students who live in multi-occupancy properties will be forced by landlords to contribute directly or indirectly to the cost of the property tax. The landlord will not just pay the council tax without passing it on to those occupying the property.
        We have received professional advice from many quarters to the effect that the council tax will not be in place. I am pleased to say that, since I have had responsibility for local government finance for my party, the professionals whom I have encouraged to help me in my task have been extremely helpful. For example, the Magistrates Association says:
        "The deep concern felt by the magistracy in respect of their involvement in the liability order stage of enforcement of the community charge…is…now regretfully repeated in respect of the proposed council tax."
        That organisation's views have been made well known to Ministers:
        "We have put forward our views to Ministers on many occasions and our concerns that the procedure brings the magistracy into disrepute."
        Other professional bodies say that the council tax is wrong and gives them cause for concern. Surveyors who have been asked to value property have said that. For example, Mr. James Allen of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland says:
        "We greatly fear that the Bill as it now stands will result in an unworkable tax. This will be clearly against the public interest."
        He goes on:
        "The RICS is particularly concerned at the failure to legislate for a credible system of appeals."
        The Government ignore all the professional advice at their peril.
        The valuation process is imprecise. On Monday morning of this week the first radio programme I heard, at 7.30, was on Radio Sussex. The interviewer went out with a Mr. Dixon of Enever, estate agents in Brighton, which has been awarded a contract to value 30,000 homes in Brighton. While we are still debating the valuation process and trying to influence the Minister, the Government might have shown a little courtesy by not awarding contracts until after Third Reading.
        In that radio programme, the interviewer went round with the estate agent and asked, in effect, "How would you value this property?" The agent replied, "This is a block of flats. I am not able to enter any of the flats. I shall assume that they are all roughly the same size and put them all in band B." They proceeded down the road and the interviewer said, "We are now outside a large detached house. How would you value that?" Mr. Dixon replied, "I would say that this property is in the top band or the one next to it. I shall put it into the band next to the top because that will help to reduce the number of appeals that might come forward."
        The programme continued in that vein and it was fascinating. I thought for a moment that I was listening to a BBC comedy, but it was, in reality, a serious attempt to explain to listeners how the valuation process would work. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that it was possible for valuations to be done for £2 per property. In the radio programme, it was suggested that an agent who knew the area well would not even need to leave his office to value property. Could there be a more ludicrous proposition for valuing property?
        Clause 5 gives power to the Secretary of State to continue to cap local authorities and alter their budgets. That capping aspect received little attention in Committee

        229
        and on Report, although it is an extremely serious matter. Those powers relate to a local authority's SSA. Hon. Members have demonstrated many times that the whole SSA system has brought local government finance into disrepute.
        Eastbourne borough council sent a letter to the Department of the Environment referring to its SSA and asking for details of additional costs. Before the powers in clause 5 are implemented. the Government should be honest and answer such questions. The letter simply asked for details of the costs of implementing the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Food Safety Act 1990, short-term leases and the code and guidance on homelessness. The Government must demonstrate that questions such as those will be answered before the capping powers are implemented.
        In Committee, the Government were unable to give answers. At this stage of the Bill, it is possible for me to give the answers that the Government gave to Eastbourne borough council. The Department of the Environment responded as follows:
        "It is the Department's practice to make an estimate of the cost to local authorities of new policy initiatives which are introduced. That estimate is one of the factors which Ministers take into account when deciding what provisions to make each year for total local authority spending".
        Thus far in the letter there would be no objection to the powers taken, but it continues:
        "However, that level of provision is not determined simply by adding up a list of estimated costs for existing services and new initiatives. Ministers take into account a number of broad factors such as the scope for efficiency savings and the removal of wasteful expenditure, and what the country can afford generally. The annual settlement represents Ministers' overall judgment, taken in the light of these various factors; it is not constructed by making separate provision for specific items."
        So the Government are taking powers to cap local authorities and restrict their budgets, but not taking into account the additional responsibilities which they intend to give local authorities. It is ludicrous that the Bill will place powers on local authorities without the Government estimating the costs involved.
        I am grateful to the Minister of State for agreeing, an hour or so ago, to meet my colleagues in Eastbourne. I hope that he will be prepared to meet colleagues throughout the country to discuss how those powers may affect local people.
        I wish to discuss a matter that arose on Report, which we were unable to consider properly in Committee—the effect of discounts. I invited the Minister of State to explain, when he wound up on Report, why the 25 per cent. discount should not be increased to 40 per cent. I gave a series of statistics, one of which was Government based, from three authorities, illustrating why the discount should be 40 per cent. It is because the average income for a single-person household is 60 per cent. of the average income for a two-person household. Although I asked the Minister of State to deal with that issue in his response on Report, he singularly failed to do so. Will the Minister who replies to Third Reading reply to that important point? Opposition Members are aware of the fact that, given an opportunity to support an amendment that we tabled on Report to increase the discount from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent., a reasonable number of Conservative Back Benchers would do so. If the Government want to argue for a 25 per cent. discount, they must be prepared to give justifiable reasons for doing so. Not to deal with the issue simply
        230
        because they are aware that several Conservative Back Benchers and Opposition Members hold a different view is irresponsible.
        The Government do not intend to implement the council tax proposals in their entirety. I predict that they will be substantially amended first. At Committee stage the Government took every opportunity to dodge key issues such as banding and discounts and they do the House a disservice by continuing in that vein.
        9.9 pm
        Sir Michael Neubert: After the engaging and entertaining clash of Titans at the outset of the debate and two contributions by veteran protagonists, I rise more modestly to regret that the Bill should receive a Third Reading with clauses 17 and 83 unamended and intact. My interest in the Bill arises from my role as parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders. As the clauses deal with the completion of new dwellings, the connection is obvious and topical.
        The housing market is currently grappling with the effects of recession, the latest development of which is the growing number of repossessions and repossessed houses being sold at auction at knock-down prices. That, in turn, creates surplus capacity in the market, reduces the need for new building and puts many smaller firms represented in the federation up against the wall. Although the prospects are much brighter, particularly as a result of yesterday's announcement of £7·5 billion next year for housing, some dark winter months lie ahead. That £7·5 billion is exactly the amount raised by tobacco tax, a curious illustration of the principle of quid pro quo.
        I shall talk on one point of principle. The principle asserted is that no new housing should attract a charge until it is occupied. The relief of six months that has been granted may seem generous, but it certainly is not in today's circumstances, where we have a sluggish market with houses regrettably remaining unsold for perhaps years rather than months. A builder cannot even let a property that he has built for sale without forfeiting his rights to reclaim VAT, so he is called on to pay tax on a property from which he derives no personal income or residential benefit. The property may receive some services such as street lighting or police protection, but it is a small proportion of the full benefits that a council tax payer can expect to enjoy once he occupies the property.
        In the present desperate state of the market it is most unwelcome and unreasonable for the builder, especially the small builder, to have to meet that extra cost. Therefore, I am astonished at the attitude of the Labour party as expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on clause 83, when he said in Committee that the provision would
        "fulfil an important function by stopping builders leaving small parts of buildings unfinished in order to avoid local taxation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 November 1991; c. 501.]
        The idea that builders are deliberately trying to prevent houses from being sold is simply absurd. The average small builder has to provide money up front, purchase the land, order materials and pay the wages, so needs to have a regular turnover of build and sell to survive. Where else can he get his money? He has to borrow from banks which, with today's high interest rates, obviously puts him under tremendous pressure.
        Mr. Maxton: That same argument could be advanced for people who, as a result of their jobs, have had to move house, cannot sell their existing house, on which they have a mortgage, and also have a bridging loan to buy their new property. After six months they will have to pay 50 per cent. of the tax on the house that is left empty. Why should a builder be exempt from paying that tax when someone else in the same position is not?
        Sir Michael Neubert: As I shall explain, we are dealing with one of the nation's most vital industries, the construction industry. An individual has his own responsibilities and can make his own judgment; a builder has to build and sell houses to make his livelihood and to survive. He must be there ready to build houses when there is an economic upturn and a demand for more houses. That is the difference between the individual and the small builder who is in business.
        The provision's origin goes back to the bad old days of the Wilson years and the notorious scandal of Centre Point. There is all the difference in the world between a wealthy property speculator who leaves a London landmark empty for years, confident in the knowledge that in a rising market he will eventually recover his extended costs, and today's depressed housing market in which small builders literally have to fight to survive. I am astonished that the Labour party does not recognise the plight of the small business man.
        It is unfair to penalise small businesses when they are already hard pressed. I ask the Minister to introduce a provision temporarily to waive the application of this clause in the circumstances. That would enable the Minister by statutory instrument and at his discretion to alter the position if he felt that that was genuinely needed. This small but significant impost on builders gravely irks them.
        A further question not discussed in Committee concerns sheltered housing complexes where traditionally and typically there are a number of units with common facilities such as a communal dining room and the all-important presence of a warden. Until that warden is in place and the communal facilities become available, no one takes up occupation of the units, but they might be in different stages of construction and would probably be charged under the council tax proposals.
        So much for the principle; the practice I will leave for another occasion when there is more time. I acknowledge that this is a small matter, but what I have said represents a cry from the heart of one of the most important industries in this country—the construction industry, which feels the first effects of a recession, bears the brunt of it and needs to recover to encourage an upturn throughout the economy. My right hon. Friends are planning a package of proposals which we are told will be announced tomorrow. When doing so they might consider this as one of a small number of measures which might help to stimulate and sustain the housing market at this difficult time.
        The British sense of fair play dictates that we do not hit a man when he is down. Builders feel that they deserve special consideration at this time. I intend to emulate them by sitting down myself—and hoping to rise again.
        9.16 pm
        Mrs. Fyfe: I was amazed to hear the Secretary of State complain about the lack of Opposition Members in the Chamber. The sheer brass neck of people like him never ceases to surprise me. He did not bother to defend the council tax in Committee. Tonight, after offering us the sort of speech which is the delight of Tory party conferences—it was the sort aimed at impressing them but which makes no impact here—he was off again. His contribution struck me as about as substantial as the petals on a poppy—one brief shake by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and the petals fell off, and the right hon. Gentleman had departed again.
        Conservative Members have a nerve saying that we hit the vulnerable members of the community and attack the least privileged. They are the people who brought in the poll tax in the first place, and who brought in the heartless social security laws and much else besides. They should examine their own record of the past 13 years.
        Now the Conservatives want us to congratulate them on ending the poll tax. Not a word of apology or repentance have they uttered, not an expression of regret to the people of Scotland who had the poll tax foisted on them a year before England and Wales.
        I do not blame individuals for changing their minds about Government policy; we are all entitled to change our views in the light of experience. But when someone changes his mind he can reasonably be expected to explain what caused that change of mind and to apologise for any harm that he may have done. An enormous amount of harm was done by the poll tax, yet not a word of apology or explanation have we heard from the Secretary of State or any of his colleagues.
        It may not be suspicious when one person changes his mind, but the virtual unanimity throughout the Tory party is certainly suspect. It is as if its members had a collective mind—with one or two exceptions who have consistently stuck to their point of view. There is no sincerity in that change of mind or repentance for the harm done.
        In his time, the Secretary of State attacked the poll tax, pointing out correctly that it was wrong that a duke and a dustman should pay the same. Astonishingly, we heard not a word tonight in defence of the main point of the council tax—band H will pay only three times what band A pays. If the Secretary of State were here now, I would ask him whether he was not embarrassed to send himself, a wealthy man, a bill for a mere three times what the occupants of modest dwellings will pay anywhere in England.
        Government Members talk about rising unemployment in the south-east. As a Member for a constituency with a continuing high level of unemployment, I sympathise with the plight of people thrown into unemployment in London and the south-east. In Scotland, we have seen the effects on our own constituents. We know from our own history what it is like, and we sympathise with the plight of these people. But I will never forget how uninterested those Tory Members were in our plight or how they created unemployment as a weapon in their struggle against inflation and told us that it was a price worth paying. I shall never forget that as long as I live.
        The council tax will not be welcomed in the country. At best it will get a grudging acceptance, in the way that people prefer a decayed tooth to one with an abscess. The Government are not bringing in a just and fair tax to

        233
        replace the poll tax: they are merely bringing in one that they hope will allay the fears of Tory Members in marginal seats. They have refused to listen to the people, particularly the people in Scotland. They have changed their mind only because they feared the people's verdict if they stuck to the poll tax. Now they are hoping that the people have very short memories. I think that they will find that the people have not.
        9.22 pm
        Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Barking, which I think is a very suitable seat for him to hold, and I thought that it was one of the greatest pieces of hypocrisy that I had ever heard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dagenham."] Dagenham? Well, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was barking anyway. The contribution of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) was even more barking.
        I find it extraordinary that the Labour party stood in the 1974 election, the 1979 election and the 1983 election on a platform to introduce this tax, and now Labour Members are against it. I find it amazingly hypocritical that they should be expressing its difficulties and complications when it was merely got out by the civil servants from the red file and handed to the Secretary of State for the Environment as a replacement for what I think was a sensible tax—a standard tax for each citizen for a licence to use local authority services—which came to be known as the poll tax.
        I say again that nobody objected. Nobody objects to a standard price for a television set, or a motor car, or house insurance, or a loaf of bread or anything else. So what is wrong with a standard price to be paid by each citizen for local authority services? We should remember too that many people do not enjoy or use these services.
        I come back to the hypocrisy of the Opposition. If inability to pay is the basis of their complaints about the community charge, why are they so interested in the concept that, if the value of one's home, which one may have owned for two years, or 10 years, or 70 years, and which may be in Dagenham, or Barking, or London, or Scotland, or Stornoway, or anywhere else, happens to alter, one should be charged on the assumption that one is rich thereby, because one's home is worth more? One cannot get rid of one's home. One can no more get rid of one's home than one can take off one's clothes in the Chamber of the House of Commons. [Interruption.] It is the modesty of Opposition Members and their ugliness that prevents them from doing this. It is important that people should not be taxed for beloved local authority services on the basis of a capital asset which they cannot realise, the value of which is assessed by some accountant and over which they have no control.
        Unfortunately. on Report, we did not reach part II, which applies to Scotland. One of the characteristics of the Bill is that it uses algebraic formulae. I am sure that Opposition Members have studied algebra. That is demonstrated by their grasp and illustration of the benefits of comprehensive education—that is, those who did not go to public school. But I have never met anyone who uses algebra, and the Bill is algebraic.
        I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister one or two simple questions. Clause 72(2) says:
        "In this Part, 'dwelling'…means any lands and heritages".
        234
        Clause 73(4) refers to "any lands and heritages". The Scottish National Farmers Union will be interested to know whether that means that land and farm buildings will be taxed. I should like my hon. Friend to ensure that the absurd Labour party proposals to do so are not part of the Bill's intention.
        Mr. George Howarth: Where is the algebra in that?
        Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: There is plenty of algebra. Clause 78 has the formula A/D. Hon. Members should try it. D equals the number of days in the year. There is also the leap year. It is important that my hon. Friend the Minister should deal with that point.
        There is another matter which I do not understand and with which I should like my hon. Friend to deal. This is a most complicated piece of legislation to introduce a simple concept. It talks about "resident owners". A resident owner is an owner in residence. This is a day-by-day Bill. For three and a half days in the week, I am resident in a house in London of which I am an owner, and for three and a half days in the week I am resident in my house in Scotland of which I am an owner. When I am not there, it is a single-person residence, and when I am here, I am in a single-person residence.
        I want the Minister to study that carefully, because the Bill is subject to all sorts of orders and preparations. The Secretary of State can make the day longer or shorter and houses and residences different. I want to know what that means. I want to know whether it means that, if I am not resident in the house that I own, that day, even if it continues as the day that it started as—[Interruption.] The Bill says that the day shall be presumed to continue as it started. Very well. I want to know whether, if on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday I am not resident in my Scottish house and it becomes a single-person dwelling, account will be taken of that fact for the purpose of calculating what I have to pay.
        I have never seen legislation drafted worse than this, more complicated, or more open to doubt. However, one thing about it is certain: it is the legislation on which Labour Members fought the last three elections, and is what they wanted—but now they are against it. That shows that Labour Members are hypocrites.
        I want the Minister to explain to me simply, because I am a simple person—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and cannot understand this, what is meant by references to resident occupation and day-by-day occupation, and to the other matters that I raised. Although many concepts are capable of variation by Secretaries of State—perhaps including, God help us, but many centuries after I am dead, Labour Secretaries of State—it is important that my hon. Friend the Minister should spell it out that farm land is not included in the description "lands and heritages" and the meaning of the references to residence and daily residence.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Dave Nellist: The Bill seeks to abolish the poll tax in 15 months' time and to introduce a deeply flawed property-based replacement. As was predicted, the poll tax perished under the weight of those who did not pay it. Even the Prime Minister admitted to Tory Back Benchers shortly after his election as party leader that the tax was unenforceable.

        235
        Even since then, the problem has grown much worse. On 4 December, the Government admitted that, although by 30 September last year 47 per cent. of the poll tax due in shire counties was collected, by the same date this year the figure was down to 40 per cent. In metropolitan districts, it fell from 44 per cent. to 38 per cent.; in outer-London boroughs, from 44 per cent. to 36 per cent.; and in inner-London boroughs, from 34 per cent. to 28 per cent. I understand that collection in Scotland has fallen from 31 per cent. to 26 per cent. Clearly the poll tax has become more difficult to implement and to enforce as time has gone by.
        The Audit Commission acknowledged that in its evidence to the Government earlier this year, when it advised them not to pursue small amounts—such as the 20 per cent. payments on which there was substantial debate earlier. In its further evidence of a fortnight ago, the commission said that district auditors throughout the country recognised that
        "Collection seems more difficult in relatively deprived areas and areas with a large number of charge payers on benefit."
        Strathclyde estimates that 70 per cent. of all defaulters are those who are liable for 20 per cent. payments. The tragedy is—as I told the House last Thursday—that, according to the Glasgow Evening Times, civil war broke out over poindings in the Springburn district of Glasgow, which is one of the poorest boroughs in western Europe. The Bill promotes and extends for another 15 months the mayhem of trying to impose on poor people throughout the country those same enforcement procedures.
        I tried to exorcise from the Bill poindings, the use of bailiffs, distraint in England and Wales, and imprisonment. Unfortunately, the relevant clauses of the Bill were not reached on Report.
        Clause 100 abolishes the poll tax, but not for 15 months, so it is not dead and buried. It will stay to haunt the Government right up to the general election. They think that the poll tax has gone away, but I have statistics from the Home Office showing that, to 3 September, 8,023,621 had been summonsed over the poll tax. When I ask Ministers how that compares with the last five years of rate collection, they tell me that the statistics were never collected. I know why they were not collected. A total of 23,500 hours of court time were involved; 195,845 people turned up in court to explain why they could not afford to pay their poll tax.
        Under the poll tax legislation—and for a further year under the provisions of this Bill—the vast majority are being forced to choose between paying for food, fuel and clothing for their children, and going into debt to pay their poll tax. Millions have chosen not to go into debt.
        Matters will get worse. Enforcement will be impossible, and all the options will drift away like sand. We have heard about attachment of earnings and attachment of benefits. In its advice to district auditors, the Audit Commission said that only 15 per cent. of those who had been sent requests for information with liability orders gave local authorities that information. Tens of thousands are suffering deductions from their benefits, but, when it comes to committal proceedings, the Audit Commission notes:
        "There have been examples where the police are reluctant to act."
        236
        That will not improve the Government's position in the weeks and the months ahead.
        I tabled an amendment to delete schedules 4, 7 and 8. It was selected, but, unfortunately, we did not reach it on Report. I wanted to get rid of the enforcement procedures that seek to imprison people who cannot pay the poll tax—the mediaeval barbarity of imprisonment for civil debt.
        I have often given the House individual examples. I have often asked Ministers—including the one who will wind up today's debate—why the Bill perpetuates the difference between the law in Scotland and that in England and Wales. In the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, the Government abolished imprisonment for civil debt; in England and Wales, 55 local authorities have sought to imprison some 4,000 people, of whom 156 have been sentenced and 115 have served time.
        We were told that that would never happen to people who could not afford to pay the poll tax, but, under the Bill, it will continue to happen for at least another 15 months. In Bristol, 69-year-old pensioner Tony Whitfield was given a 60-day sentence. In Stroud, Maria Jones—who was eight months pregnant—offered to pay £5 a week out of her £42-a-week benefit; she was given a two-month sentence. In Basildon, a 54-year-old grandmother of eight, Sylvia McGilvray, was given a 90-day sentence. In Thanet, Ruby Haddow, a mother of three with no income, was sentenced to 14 days.
        Last week, 70-year-old Iris Robbins, whose only income was a state pension, was sentenced to 14 days in Holloway prison. In Tunbridge Wells, Dora Coull, a pensioner and grandmother, was sentenced to a term in Holloway. In Portsmouth, David Shute—a father of five who had been made redundant—received a 28-day sentence. In Caerphilly, 79-year-old Tommy Hopkins, an ex-miner, and County Councillor Ray Davies received sentences. In Bradford, Steve Kershaw received a 14-day sentence, although he was receiving invalidity benefit; and, in Knowsley, 73-year-old Bill Jones—a diabetic with one leg, confined to a wheelchair—was sentenced to a term in Walton prison, along with my hon. Friend and comrade the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields).
        Ron Cassidy, from Northumberland, was put in Durham maximum security prison for 90 days, although he owed only £62: he was given a day's sentence for every 69p that he owed. The Bill will ensure that those enforcement procedures are continued for another 15 months.
        Mr. Barry Porter: Good.
        Mr. Nellist: The hon. Gentleman may say, "Good"; but already 31 unemployed people, three people in receipt of invalidity benefit and 15 pensioners have been put away because they could not pay the poll tax. The council tax legislation will continue those enforcement procedures.
        This Bill should be defeated tonight. The Government ought to have introduced 100 per cent. rebates immediately, and restored the level of rate support grant that existed in 1979, when the Conservative Government were first elected after a period of Labour rule. They ought to have reduced the level of local taxation, whatever version they chose to apply.
        The Bill's immediate task, however, should be to halt the prosecution of millions of people—many of them pensioners, many receiving invalidity benefit and many with no income of any kind. I know that the Minister will

        237
        refuse to do it, but an amnesty should have been declared. I warn the House that an amnesty will have to be declared. As somebody once said,
        "'twere well
        It were done quickly."
        9.39 pm
        Mr. John Marshall: It is always interesting to speak after the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). The only trouble is that there will be few more opportunities to do so. When he calls for an amnesty for law breakers, it is a condemnation of what he and other hon. Members have done. It is wrong that law makers should ever become law breakers. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East is part of a campaign that could be summarised as follows: can pay, won't pay. Both the hon. Gentleman and his friends could easily have paid the community charge. They chose not to do so. They chose to rob their local authorities of much-needed cash.
        This has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) claimed that he is a model of consistency. I remind him that in 1983 and 1987 the Labour party campaigned for one-sided nuclear disarmament. I remind him, too, that as late as 1989 the Labour leader of the European Parliament was an opponent of British membership of the Community. The Labour party never has been consistent and never will be.
        Last night the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) spoke about the impact of the council tax upon Barnet. When he was asked what the impact of his proposals would be upon Barnet, he offered this memorable sentence:
        "One simply cannot pluck figures out of the air."—[Official Report, 16 December 1991: Vol. 33, c. 95.]
        He was willing to shed crocodile tears but he was unwilling to tell the people of Barnet what his proposals would mean for them. The reason is that the Labour party has never cared a tinker's cuss for the ratepayers, council tax payers or community charge payers of Barnet. It regards the people of Barnet and of other London boroughs as people to be exploited by very high taxes and very high charges. The people about whom he spoke yesterday are those upon whom he would seek to impose a 59 per cent. tax in the first Labour Budget.
        My point regarding the impact of the council tax on London and Barnet is that 85 per cent. of future expenditure by local authorities will be financed by Government grant. It is essential that the level of Government grant should reflect the needs of London and London's commitments rather than the number of houses in London in the top two bands.
        On Second Reading I asked the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to look at the London Regional Transport anomaly in so far as it affected the outer London boroughs. I told him that it would be a touchstone of his sincerity, in that it would show whether he was committed to the needs of Barnet and, indeed, of Enfield. My hon. Friend showed that he had dealt with that anomaly when he said that the rate support grant would cover 1992–93. He was fair to the people of Barnet. As my hon. Friend has stood by the people of outer London, it would be wrong of me if I did not stand by him tonight. He stood by us; it would be churlish of us not to support him this evening.
        A choice faces the people of Barnet and outer London. Do they support the Liberal party's scheme, whose figures
        238
        are so suspect that the boffin behind it decided to resign? Do they support the Labour party's scheme, where the figures are so horrific that the hon. Member for Brightside said that he could not pluck them out of the air and publicise them? He knew that they were so horrible that they would lose the Labour party votes at the next election. Or should the people of Barnet and outer London support the scheme of my right hon. and hon. Friends? I do not claim that the council tax is perfect, but it is preferable to the alternatives that have been put forward by the Opposition parties.
        9.44 pm
        Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall deal not with the comments of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), but with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East is an honourable friend. I have great respect for someone who has the courage of his convictions. The House owes him a debt for standing up for them.
        I am a reluctant law breaker—[Interruption.] Goldilocks on the Government Front Bench should listen; it is not really pantomime time. The poindings and warrant sales in Scotland will continue, although we sought to remove that provision from the Bill. Three million warrants have been issued. It has been alleged that people in the Scottish National party and others precipitated a great wave of law breaking in Scotland, but the figures show that the momentum will continue as long as the poll tax legislation remains on the statute book.
        I wish to tell the House what happens under poinding. My local authority had several options. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and others to suggest that local authorities do not have options. A local authority has various means available to it to get people to pay under diligence. My local authority tried to arrest bank accounts and to have poinding. Having lost cases in the sheriff courts, and because it had the resources to do so, it appealed. That probably cost £30,000, such was the tenacity of that Labour council.
        I have pleaded here with Labour Members, and some honourable exceptions have stood up and been counted on this issue. Let us not kid ourselves that resentment about the poll tax does not continue, even though clause 100 abolishes it. If this situation continues, people will not respect the law.
        It is all very well for the Prime Minister and others to say that if one is a law maker, one cannot be a law breaker, but what did the Prime Minister do at Maastricht? He opted out. The difference here is that these folk cannot opt out of the strictures of the poll tax. They cannot use the big battalion. They have to defend themselves from the actions of sheriff officers and so on. People in Scotland will continue to oppose the poll tax as long as the Government try, through local authorities, to raise local revenue by such an unfair means.
        9.47 pm
        Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and those of my hon. Friends who served night after night, on clause after clause, in Committee—not, like Banquo's ghost, viewing it from the gallery occasionally just after 10 o'clock, but every night looking at the detail of the Bill, understanding

        239
        it in a way that we would have been delighted to explain to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) had we had the opportunity.
        I apologise to the Disney Corporation for having called this tax a Mickey-Mouse valuation system. The difference between Mickey Mouse and this system is that Mickey Mouse brings pleasure to millions of children and great benefit to the world as a whole, whereas the Bill brings misery and unfairness to millions of people.
        I apologise to the makers of KitKat for the comparison which I made in terms of the cheapest valuation. At least KitKats are nourishing and provide value for money—which 20p valuations on properties certainly do not.
        We have a banding system which is nonsense. We have a valuation process which is cheap and nasty. We also have a regional banding disparity. The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) would have done better to contribute to the debate on that matter last night than on Third Reading, when it is all past and gone.
        The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) asked what our proposals would mean in the borough of Barnet. Instead of an average of £617—the Government's figure for properties in Barnet—our proposals would mean an average of £456. That would be a clear saving, even in a borough where nearly 50 per cent. of households will be in the highest bands. I hope that he will return to his borough and tell the people exactly what the Government's proposals will mean. They will not mean fairness for those in inner or outer London or for those living elsewhere in the south-east—they will mean deliberate discrimination and a refusal to protect people whose properties are falling in price although their property valuation will be based on the figures for last April. In other words, their properties will he in a higher band than the price of their property warrants 12 months after the given date for the valuation process.
        The process is nonsense. It means valuations based on last April's figures, although property prices in London and the south-east are judged to have dropped by 10 per cent. this year alone. It is an absolute outrage and if Conservative hon. Members with constituencies in London and the south-east were representing their constituents properly, they would have said so. The people who cost us as a nation £14 billion in implementing the poll tax are also pushing through this legislation on a guillotine motion. They are the people who refused to listen to the argument about the unfairness of a discount which rewards a millionaire and which can reduce the amount that someone pays merely because he lives alone to an amount below that to be paid by a couple who happen to live in a much cheaper house and in the band below.
        The system will cause disquiet and unfairness. People outside the House would learn that if the Conservatives were to win the general election, but they will not win because people will hear of the way in which their properties will be valued and learn about the in-flight valuation. They will see a hot air balloon floating over their gardens and taking photographs. They will ring the local police and ask, "Is this the new head of MI5, or am I being supervised by Big Brother?" The answer will be, "Of course you are. We are checking to see whether there is an extension on the back of your house. Please put the
        240
        number of your house in big letters on your back lawn or on your roof so we can be sure we don't get the wrong house." There will be in-flight, Mickey-Mouse valuations and discounts which will cost £780 million to implement.
        Only one amendment was accepted in Committee and it attached to the allowance of councillors any tax due under the new council tax proposals. We proposed it and it will wipe out the whole of the Secretary of State's speeech at this year's party conference. His spech predicated that after 1993 councillors would not be able to vote unless they paid their tax. Our amendment ensures that they will have paid their tax and will have a right to vote, so we have wiped out his vitriolic nonsense—the great Tarzan speech which brought the conference to its feet and which was the restoration of the prodigal son. That was what it was all about. It was nonsense and we knew it, but the BBC dutifully reported it, although it has not reported the passage of the Bill.
        The final throw is fairness. Is the tax fair? In one of his three contributions to the debate, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross summed it up yesterday when he recalled his childhood. He said:
        "Nanny would say, 'Life is not fair, laddie.'"—[Official Report, 16 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 50]
        Some of us believed that we got rid of nanny last November, but no, here she is again. Nanny is watching us all and nanny said that the Britain of the 1990s would be unfair and the Secretary of State—whether he likes it or not—is carrying out nanny's wishes.
        The tax is unfair and unworkable and it will be rejected by the British people because it will never be implemented. It will be rejected as the Government will be rejected at the general election. Our fair rates proposals will bring equity and justice and will be implemented as soon as possible after the general election.
        9.54 pm
        Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was his usual good-humoured self, as he was throughout the Committee, although I thought that at one point he was in danger of being carried away by the heat of his own rhetoric, just like a hot air balloon.
        We heard an excellent speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who rightly condemned Labour's proposals for a rating system. I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) that the council tax will not apply to farm land. I will study his other points with great care and interest.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) made some detailed points. I will try to get to them, but I hope that he will excuse me if I do not manage to reach them in the time available. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), in a splendid speech, reminded the House that law makers cannot be law breakers.
        I had heard before much of the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), although not always in the same order. He was supported by the massed and serried ranks of the Labour party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Did you count them?"] Yes, I can count up to that number. I refer to two of them—the hon. Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I must record that the hon. Lady was a most assiduous member of the Committee. I do not wish to be

        241
        churlish, but I read in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times that she does not yet have an office. I am sure that that had nothing to do with her attendance and I hope that the Labour Whips have noted the point.
        The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) reminded us of the fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition. He rightly referred to the whole question of the control of local authority expenditure. The hon. Member for Dagenham said in Committee:
        "we…propose to double the tax base under the control of local authorities by restoring to their control the setting of the business rate".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 November 1991: c. 9.]
        There has never been an announcement that means so much bad news for Scottish business rate payers and for Scottish companies. By the next financial year, the Government will have provided £330 million for Scottish business to move towards a level playing field on business rates. In one move, the Labour party will take away that advantage to Scottish business.
        In Committee, the Labour party confirmed that it will have no controls over local authority expenditure. That is without precedent, at least in Scotland. No Government in Scotland since 1929 have taken that view. It was not the view taken by the Labour Government of 1945–50 or by the previous Labour Government.
        The message that has come through is absolutely clear. It is the message that the policies of the Lambeths, the Liverpools and the Lothians of the land can be applied everywhere with no controls on behalf of the taxpayer, of the business rate payer or of the council tax payer. That was Labour's message throughout the Committee stage. Its message to local government is, "Spend comrades, spend comrades. spend comrades."
        The Labour party proposes a "fair rates" system. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said that the fair rates tax system would be introduced on 1 April 1993, and that in the first instance it would be——
        Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Stewart: No, because I do not have time.
        The hon. Gentleman said that the system would be the old rating system, but that it would be amended thereafter, and he also said that that was the only way in which the system could be introduced. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no way in which the hon. Member for Dagenham can introduce the system south of the border.
        Mr. Maxton: Why?
        Mr. Stewart: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. His system will be on the basis of a revaluation in 1985. It cannot be done in England.
        I commend the Bill to the House. It is a reasonable and practical Bill based on pragmatism and fairness. The Labour party wants to retreat to the rates. In its eagerness for an envy tax, it has abdicated its responsibility for responsible local government.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 237.

        Division No. 31]

        [10 pm

        AYES

        Adley, Robert

        Alexander, Richard

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        242

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Evennett, David

        Amess, David

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Amos, Alan

        Fallon, Michael

        Arbuthnot, James

        Farr, Sir John

        Arnold, Sir Thomas

        Favell, Tony

        Ashby, David

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Field. Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Atkins, Robert

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Atkinson, David

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Forman, Nigel

        Baldry, Tony

        Forsyth. Michael (Stirling)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Forth, Eric

        Batiste, Spencer

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Bellingham, Henry

        Franks, Cecil

        Bendall, Vivian

        Freeman, Roger

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        French, Douglas

        Benyon, W.

        Fry, Peter

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Gale, Roger

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Gill, Christopher

        Body. Sir Richard

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Glyn. Dr Sir Alan

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Boswell, Tim

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Bottom ley. Peter

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Gorst, John

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Bowis. John

        Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Gregory. Conal

        Brazier, Julian

        Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E)

        Bright, Graham

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Grist. Ian

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

        Ground, Patrick

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Grylls, Michael

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Hague, William

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Burns, Simon

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Burt, Alistair

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Butterfill. John

        Hannam, John

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

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

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hargreaves. Ken (Hyndburn)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Harris, David

        Cash, William

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hayes, Jerry

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hay ward, Robert

        Chope, Christopher

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Churchill, Mr

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Clark. Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hill. James

        Colvin, Michael

        Hind, Kenneth

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Cormack, Patrick

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

        Couchman, James

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Cran, James

        Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Davis. David (Boothferry)

        Hunt, Rt Hon David

        Day, Stephen

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Devlin, Tim

        Irvine, Michael

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Irving, Sir Charles

        Dicks, Terry

        Jack, Michael

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Jackson, Robert

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Janman, Tim

        Dover, Den

        Jessel, Toby

        Dunn, Bob

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Dykes. Hugh

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Eggar, Tim

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Key, Robert

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Kilfedder, James

        243

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Portillo, Michael

        Knapman, Roger

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Price, Sir David

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Knowles, Michael

        Rathbone, Tim

        Knox, David

        Redwood, John

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Rhodes James, Sir Robert

        Latham, Michael

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Rost, Peter

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Rowe, Andrew

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Lord, Michael

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Maclean, David

        Shelton, Sir William

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Shersby, Michael

        Madel, David

        Sims, Roger

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Malins, Humfrey

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Mans, Keith

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Maples, John

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Marland, Paul

        Speed, Keith

        Marlow, Tony

        Speller, Tony

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Squire, Robin

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Mates, Michael

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Steen, Anthony

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Stern, Michael

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Stevens, Lewis

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Stokes, Sir John

        Mills, Iain

        Sumberg, David

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Summerson, Hugo

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Moate, Roger

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Thorne, Neil

        Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Moss, Malcolm

        Thurnham, Peter

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Mudd, David

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Neale, Sir Gerrard

        Tracey, Richard

        Needham, Richard

        Tredinnick, David

        Nelson, Anthony

        Trippier, David

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Trotter, Neville

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Viggers, Peter

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Norris, Steve

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Walden, George

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Page, Richard

        Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

        Paice, James

        Waller, Gary

        Patnick, Irvine

        Walters, Sir Dennis

        Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

        Ward, John

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Warren, Kenneth

        Pawsey, James

        Watts, John

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Wells, Bowen

        244

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Woodcock, Dr. Mike

        Whitney, Ray

        Yeo, Tim

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Wilshire, David

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wolfson, Mark

        Mr. David Lightbown and

        Wood, Timothy

        Mr. John M. Taylor.

        NOES

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

        Edwards, Huw

        Allen, Graham

        Enright, Derek

        Alton, David

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Anderson, Donald

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Fatchett, Derek

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Faulds, Andrew

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Ashton, Joe

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

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Fisher, Mark

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Flannery, Martin

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Flynn, Paul

        Barron, Kevin

        Foster, Derek

        Battle, John

        Foulkes, George

        Beckett, Margaret

        Fraser, John

        Beith, A. J.

        Fyfe, Maria

        Bell, Stuart

        Galbraith, Sam

        Bellotti, David

        Galloway, George

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

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

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Benton, Joseph

        George, Bruce

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Blair, Tony

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Blunkett, David

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Boateng, Paul

        Gordon, Mildred

        Boyes, Roland

        Gould, Bryan

        Bradley, Keith

        Graham, Thomas

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Hardy, Peter

        Caborn, Richard

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Callaghan, Jim

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Henderson, Doug

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

        Canavan, Dennis

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Home Robertson, John

        Carr, Michael

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cartwright, John

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Howells, Geraint

        Clelland, David

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Hoyle, Doug

        Cohen, Harry

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Corbett, Robin

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Ingram, Adam

        Cousins, Jim

        Janner, Greville

        Cox, Tom

        Johnston, Sir Russell

        Crowther, Stan

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Cryer, Bob

        Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

        Cummings, John

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Kennedy, Charles

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Dalyell, Tam

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Darling, Alistair

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Kumar, Dr. Ashok

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Lambie, David

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

        Lamond, James

        Dewar, Donald

        Leighton, Ron

        Dixon, Don

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Dobson, Frank

        Lewis, Terry

        Douglas, Dick

        Litherland, Robert

        Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

        Livingstone, Ken

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Livsey, Richard

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Eadie, Alexander

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Eastham, Ken

        McAllion, John

        245

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        McFall, John

        Rogers, Allan

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Rooker, Jeff

        McKelvey, William

        Rooney, Terence

        McLeish, Henry

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Maclennan, Robert

        Rowlands, Ted

        McMaster, Gordon

        Ruddock, Joan

        McNamara, Kevin

        Salmond, Alex

        McWilliam, John

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Madden, Max

        Sheerman. Barry

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Marek, Dr John

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        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)

        Meacher, Michael

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

        Meale, Alan

        Snape, Peter

        Michael, Alun

        Soley, Clive

        Michie. Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Steel. Rt Hon Sir David

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Stott, Roger

        Morley, Elliot

        Strang, Gavin

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Straw, Jack

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Mullin, Chris

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Murphy, Paul

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Nellist, Dave

        Turner, Dennis

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Vaz, Keith

        O'Brien, William

        Wallace, James

        O'Hara. Edward

        Walley, Joan

        O'Neill, Martin

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Parry, Robert

        Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

        Patchett, Terry

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        Pendry, Tom

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Pike, Peter L.

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Prescott, John

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Wilson, Brian

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Winnick, David

        Radice, Giles

        Worthington, Tony

        Randall. Stuart

        Wray, Jimmy

        Redmond, Martin

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Reid, Dr John

        Mr. Frank Haynes and

        Richardson, Jo

        Mr. Eric Illsley.

        Robertson, George

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed.

        Ordered,
        That Mr. Alan Williams be added to the Select Committee on European Legislation.—[Mr. Chapman.]

        PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
        Ordered,
        That Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Denzil Davies be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Chapman.]

      PETITION

        Greenwich Park
        10.15 pm
        Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I wish to present a petition, signed by more than 4,000 residents of and visitors to Greenwich who are very concerned about the proposed privatisation of the gardening and horticultural work of Greenwich park. I share their concern.
        Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State not to proceed with the contracting out of the services supporting the Royal Park.
        And your Petitioners, as in duty hound, will ever pray. etc.
        To lie upon the Table.

        Sheltered Housing
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
        10.17 pm
        Sir Marcus Fox: This debate may be wider than the Minister anticipates. If so, I am sure that he will be primed with the right answers. The debate is about specific problems relating to the provision of sheltered housing in both the public and private sectors. I must declare an interest because I am a non-executive director of McCarthy and Stone, which is probably No. 1 in the private sector. To balance that, my wife has been on the board of the Bradford and Northern Housing Association for more years than I have been a non-executive director of that company, so my family can truly speak for both sides of the industry.
        Because of the recession, which, I hope, we shall soon see the end of, the housing market is suffering. I am concerned not just about sheltered housing but about the whole problem of low-cost housing. Water companies are not the most popular companies in the country. I do not wish to quote the Prime Minister in this debate, but when certain salary increases were given to the chairmen of the privatised water authorities, he was somewhat critical, because they are not exactly on the bread line. The infrastructure charges, in particular, are causing enormous anguish to the construction industry, which is always the last to come out of a recession. Confidence needs to be restored and positive help is needed.
        May I point to a direction in which such help could be given? I do not suggest that section 79 of the Water Act 1989 was wrong. Indeed, the great success of privatisation has been freeing the water industry from Treasury control, enabling it to operate in the market and raise the financial resources to invest in whatever is needed to enhance pollution control in line with EC regulations. Much of what was provided by the 1989 Act was welcomed, but, in one respect, we seem to have gone too far.
        Section 79 of the Act provided for infrastructure charges to be paid for all new domestic connections to water and sewerage services which range from £370 per house in parts of the north-east to more than £2,000 per house in parts of the Wessex water district. That may not seem to be too penal, but I shall widen the debate because it is about sheltered housing. If we consider housing associations providing accommodation with 40 units, that makes a total of about £80,000 in addition to what they would normally have paid. The same applies in all sorts of other spheres. Someone with a small house in that district will face exactly the same charge.
        The relevant clause was introduced in the House after the Bill had completed its Committee stage, and was finally agreed to by the House on 3 July 1989 as part of a package of 460 amendments from the other place guillotined in two short sittings of this House. It was a major amendment, but received no proper consideration or debate in this House.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), who is knowledgeable on housing, recently wrote in Building magazine that the episode represented a
        "shameful failure of Parliament to scrutinise the proposed arrangements properly."
        My hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton and for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) went to see the Minister
        248
        for the Environment and Countryside to put the case. It was argued by the water industry that the charges were required due to the excessive load imposed on the system by new development, particularly new housebuilding. In summary, their argument was that existing consumers were cross-subsidising the purchase of new houses and sheltered schemes, and house builders were not making an adequate contribution to the costs that they imposed.
        Having re-examined all those facts prior to and following the passage of the 1989 Act, I am satisfied that that is a substantial misrepresentation of the true position. Under the Water Act 1948, the Public Health Act 1936 and the Water Act 1973, the developers have made substantial capital contributions to many large and small housing and other development schemes, either through the requisitioning formula in those pieces of legislation or as a result of negotiated agreements with the former water authorities. Those contributions helped to offset the reduced Treasury funding of the water industry after 1974. It can be argued that new development, far from paying its way, contributed substantially, even prior to privatisation, to improvements in the system. Payments continue to be made under the terms of the earlier agreements. The Bill, when published in 1988, contained extended formulas for the requisitioning of water and sewerage services. Those provided for payments for additional items.
        All that is unbelievable in terms of the negotiations that took place between the parties involved. Having followed the brief carefully, I find it unbelievable that, having determined that the agreements represented a fair balance between those involved—consumers, developers and their customers—a bombshell should fall on housebuilders on 11 May 1989, when they were called to meet the Minister and were told that there was to be a new clause introducing a tax on new houses.
        The infrastructure charge does not relate to any specific supply of service to any particular development site. It is a payment for the benefit of the community as a whole, based on cost spread over a company's operational district. We in the industry have been making this complaint for some time. The Director General of Water Services has accurately summarised it in the following terms:
        "When a customer pays his infrastructure charge, he cannot identify what item he has contributed to, nor can he verify that the works generally described as being covered by his infrastructure charge do not overlap with one of the other charges he has paid, or something that a different customer has paid."
        It is argued that this charge is intended to pay for works beyond those covered by the extended powers.
        All this highlights the injustice to house builders. It is obvious that much of what was neglected before is now recognised in the charges that are levied. With all this in mind, the Director General of Water Services said in the 1990 annual report that he had reservations about whether the infrastructure charges are the most suitable way of recovering costs and extending water and sewerage systems. That was a significant comment by the official appointed by Ministers to monitor and review the operations of the Act and to regulate the newly privatised industry.
        The end of last week saw the publication of the document "Paying for water: the way ahead" by Ofwat. It concludes under the heading "Capital charges":
        "In particular, infrastructure charges, introduced at privatisation, have aroused criticism"—

        249
        that is an understatement.
        "I remain concerned that the level of infrastructure charges, and the variation in charges between companies, is hard to justify…I believe that in many cases the current level of infrastructure charges represent a cross-subsidy from new customers to customers generally."
        The profits of the industry. at £1 billion, are about 12 per cent. higher than Government expectations and the director general is saying that something is wrong. He is absolutely right. The house building industry is suffering from the worst recession in 40 years while the profits of the water industry are excessive. There are great problems in all areas of the trade, not only in the private sector. It is nonsensical that the Housing Corporation should subsidise housing associations and take taxpayers' money to swell the profits of the water companies.
        This request has been made before and resisted, but I ask Ministers to consider it once again. We need to restimulate the economy and the house building industry by reducing its costs. I urge the Minister to ask the director general to look again at these arrangements. He can do that now; he does not have to wait until 1994 for the quinquennial review. The director general intervened earlier this year on profits, price rises and dividends. The voluntary restraints were agreed by the water companies, which admit that they comprehensively outmanoeuvred the Government when negotiating the privatisation regime in 1989.
        Everyone understands that these charges are not right. Something must be done about them. Something can be done, and I appeal to the Minister to note carefully what I have said.
        10.27 pm
        Mr. Steve Norris rose——
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and of the Minister to speak?
        Hon. Members: Aye.
        Mr. Norris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on securing this debate and I am grateful to him for the chance to speak briefly.
        I declare my interest as chairman of Haven Services Ltd., a private sector manager of sheltered housing, probably second in the market behind the company with which my hon. Friend is associated.
        The whole purpose of sheltered housing is to allow people who become more and more dependent in their later years to trade down the capital value of their properties and convert their capital assets into smaller properties and into an income stream to pay for the increasing care needs of later life.
        On that basis, while special pleading is not appropriate, it is clearly right that we should seek a regime which allows such accommodation to be built economically, whether in the public or in the private sector. It is also clearly inappropriate that we should have a regime of charging here which disadvantages in many cases the potential owners of small, modest properties such as sheltered housing. There is only one way in which such very large connection fees are recovered. Our experience is straightforward: they are simply passed on to the eventual purchaser. There is no other route.
        In the circumstances, I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will bear in mind the fact that water charges
        250
        generally will in the future—I understand this from the report that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley quoted—be based on the council tax banding which we discussed earlier this evening. It might be appropriate for connection charges, too, to be related to some degree, within an individual water authority's area, to the aggregate of the council hand value available to the water authority in a way that would thus reflect the actual value of the properties, whether in the public or in the private sector.
        10.31 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) raises a serious issue and the level of concern is evidenced by the fact that a number of my hon. Friends have stayed for this Adjournment debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who intervened, for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), who have been present throughout most of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley recounted, provision for these charges was introduced as a Government amendment to the Water Bill in another place. The proposal for the charges was first raised in Committee on the Bill, when it was put to the Government that the existing system of funding new infrastructure to serve new development was both confused and unfair to existing customers. That is a dilemma to which we shall return again and again—the difference between existing customers and new customers.
        Before the introduction of the charges, new infrastructure capacity needed to serve new customers—such as treatment works and reservoirs—was largely met from charges to existing customers. In some instances, mostly in the case of major development proposals, new infrastructure capacity was funded through planning agreements, whereby developers would make a contribution towards the cost as a part of their proposal. This approach to the provision of new infrastructure capacity meant that existing customers subsidised new customers and planning applications hinged on complicated legal agreements, the negotiation of which unnecessarily complicated and delayed the planning process.
        To overcome these obvious anomalies in the provision of new infrastructure capacity, it was proposed that a simple scheme of charges for each new connection to domestic mains water and sewerage be introduced. The advantages of such a system lie in the simplicity of its operation: developers would know in advance the cost of their proposals; it would take away the element of uncertainty in planning consideration; and it would place the burden of the provision of new infrastructure on those who would be served by it rather than on customers generally who would gain no direct benefit from its provision.
        We saw the merit of these arguments and agreed to provide for infrastructure charges as a Government amendment to the Water Bill. In May 1989 we announced our intention and consulted the house building industry on the details of the operation of the system, which was included in the conditions of appointment of each of the water and sewerage companies.

        251
        I think that my hon. Friend, while he has a number of good points, is less than fair when he says that when in due course the Water Bill became an Act this was a sudden bombshell landed on development companies. They were consulted fully and throughout.
        As part of the process, limits were set for each of the companies on the charge which would be payable for each connection. Those limits were based on the detailed analysis of companies' forward investment programmes which were being undertaken as part of the K setting process. That applied limits on companies' general charges increases through the formula represented as RPI + K.
        Again, I resist any suggestion that in making those connection charges there has been any element of profiteering by the water companies. Either they charge for new connections or they charge existing customers. That is the dilemma that we have to meet.
        The process of K setting, involving detailed scrutiny of companies' investment programmes by independent engineering consultants, enabled us to ensure that infrastructure charges specifically excluded the cost of the general upkeep, improvement and repair of the existing system. Those costs continue to he met by charges to customers generally.
        There has been some comment on the costs being incurred because water companies are insisting on each dwelling within a development of flats being supplied separately, so attracting a charge for each dwelling. It was the intention that a charge be made for each dwelling and that was made clear when the amendment was presented. In calculating the initial charge each individual connection was included regardless of the demand each would impose on the overall services.
        Following representations from many people, the Director General of Water Services undertook a review and agreed a licence amendment with the industry, linking the level of payment to the demand by reference to the facilities provided by the development. That is not cast in tablets of stone. There has been movement by the director general. The level of infrastructure charge to a development of flats under that arrangement is unlikely to differ very much whether it is based on a charge for each flat or on the overall demand scale introduced by the amendment.
        Under the terms of the Water Industry Act companies can insist upon a separate service pipe for each connection. That provision exists for good reason—to protect supplies to customers. It has been represented to us that, in some instances, that action could impose a considerable cost burden in supplying water and sewerage to new developments and in those circumstances there is potential for dispute between the companies and the parties. The director general has said that he would like a power to consider and rule on such disputes. That we are considering in the context of the new disputes power contained in the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill which, I am glad to say, completed its Committee stage today.
        I appreciate that the introduction of the new charges came at a difficult time for the house building industry. We recognised that at the time and delayed the introduction of the charges until April 1990, nearly a year later. Additionally, specific provision was made for circum
        252
        stances in which existing development proposals were already the subject of planning agreements to contribute towards infrastructure costs, to ensure that those were taken into account. However, we recognise that there will inevitably be circumstances where development proposals were already under way and where the introduction of the charges will have led to increased costs. We recognise also that, in the present market, developers may face difficulty in absorbing or passing on such costs. Ultimately we would expect the cost to be reflected in the price that developers pay for land, just as with other development costs.
        As my hon. Friends will be aware, we were asked by the house building industry to consider transitional relief for developers, in particular a moratorium on the charges in respect of development land held as "stock in trade" land. That request was given careful consideration, but we concluded that for practical reasons a moratorium could not he justified. We recognise that the infrastructure charges system may not be perfect—I believe that all right hon. and hon. Members agree with that—and that it may require adjustment to achieve the right balance between charges to new and to existing customers. Whatever happens, someone will have to pay—and if that is not done by new customers, it will be done by existing ones. However, we believe that the system's inherent advantages far outweigh its disadvantages.
        In the long term, a wider system of "impact charges" could, if properly calculated, complement the planning system by encouraging development towards areas where there is unused infrastructure capacity rather than just provide for the funding of infrastructure for new development—but perhaps that matter is for consideration on a future occasion.
        For the present, the conditions of appointment that govern the application and levels of infrastructure charges are the responsibility of the director general. As part of his recent review of future charging methods, the director general has also been considering whether a thoroughgoing review of infrastructure charges might be appropriate—and whether there is scope for changing the basis of the charges, in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley would like. The director general concluded that, at present, such a change would not be possible in advance of a periodic review of the industry's overall charging framework, which he proposes to carry out in 1994.
        The provisions of companies' conditions of appointment prescribe the circumstances in which the director general may review their charges. He is already proposing a review at the earliest opportunity. It is not possible for the levels of infrastructure charge and their relationship to charges to customers generally to be considered independently of that review.
        The present levels and operation of the infrastructure charges system have been calculated by reference to the cost of the provision of new infrastructure, to serve new development over the period to the year 2000. It would not be possible for the companies to meet the cost of that requirement in addition to their existing commitments.
        While I understand the desire to institute a review at the earliest opportunity—I will certainly draw the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Epping Forest to the attention of the Director General for Water Services—the infrastructure charges are inextricably linked to the level of charges to customers generally.

        253
        All water and sewerage companies are undertaking programmes of work to improve river and bathing water quality, repair and renew aging mains and sewers, and meet new standards for drinking water quality. We would not be thanked for returning to the system whereby existing customers were asked to subsidise new customers as well, and therefore we must be extremely careful not to rush any changes to the present charges system without careful consideration of the impact that they may have on other customers.
        I assure my hon. Friends that the director general will continue to monitor the way in which companies apply charges in practice. Recently, he wrote to the companies about the need for common sense and flexibility in the application of charges. He cited in particular cases where sites that previously included connections are being redeveloped.
        Companies are required to give a credit in respect of any previous connections. Where the redevelopment may attract a multiple of the standard charge to reflect demand, the director general suggests that there is nothing to prevent them from similarly taking account of the demand that probably existed before.
        Companies have flexibility in implementing charges and are not required by the conditions of their appointment to tie themselves without question to the terms of the infrastructure charges system laid down therein.
        254
        My hon. Friends have raised an important matter, but one that ultimately comes down to this question: how do we strike the right balance between existing customers and new customers? The Government listened to a number of representations during the Committee stage of what is now the Water Act 1989 and sought to act on what seemed at that time to be a general consensus. They consulted broadly those concerned and presented measures that commanded the House's support. The implementation of those measures is now a matter for the Director General of Water Services.
        The director general is, I think, aware of the concerns that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and others. I shall ensure that he is fully aware of the anxieties that have been reinforced and echoed this evening; but it is not easy to strike a balance between existing and new customers, particularly against the current background in the housing and development markets.
        I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that we and the director general seek at all times to find the fairest possible balance in ensuring that new infrastructure capacity comes on stream and is costed fairly between existing customers and the new customers who will benefit from it.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Cornelis Johanna BM 204
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to pay compensation to the owners of Cornelis Johanna BM 204 for the defective test carried out by his Department in 1977; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Matters relating to the surveys of this vessel under the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975, including the test carried out in 1977, have been referred to the Treasury solicitor for advice.

  Metropolitan Passenger Transport Authorities
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has met representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss the case for restoring the precepting status of the six metropolitan passenger transport authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I met a delegation from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 1 July to discuss this.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will restore the precepting powers to the six metropolitan passenger transport authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am considering the representations which I have received on this subject.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from(a)

  Number of trains delayed over 30 minutes

  Number of trains cancelled

  (percentage)

  (percentage)

  1990–91

  1990–91 (to 31 October 1991)

  1990–91

  1991–92 (to 31 October 1991)

  Region

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  WCML

  4,947

  (7·7)

  2,776

  (7·9)

  2,513

  (3·9)

  523

  (1·5)

  MML

  619

  (2·8)

  259

  (2·1)

  878

  (3·9)

  153

  (1·2)

  CROSS COUNTRY

  3,118

  (8·1)

  1,341

  (6·4)

  711

  (1·8)

  364

  (1·7)

  GWML

  1,316

  (2·8)

  578

  (2·2)

  1,081

  (2·3)

  535

  (2·0)

  GATWICK EXPRESS

  301

  (0·7)

  149

  (0·6)

  1,438

  (3·3)

  1,592

  (6·5)

  ECML

  3,268

  (9·2)

  1,384

  (6·6)

  904

  (2·5)

  424

  (2·0)

  ANGLIA

  960

  (5·9)

  310

  (3·6)

  616

  (3·8)

  119

  (1·4)

  The Department does not hold data on the date and cause of delays and cancellations. These are management matters for British Rail.
  94
  the six metropolitan passenger transport authorities and (b) others about their change in status from precepting to levying authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received a number of representations from the metropolitan county passenger transport authorities, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and Members with constituency interests in PTA areas.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has made any assessment of the likely effect of seismic disturbance on the operation of the channel tunnel; and what discussions have taken place with the channel tunnel safety authority on this subject.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that Eurotunnel is currently carrying out a programme of studies, which has been agreed by a group of seismic experts appointed by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority and Eurotunnel, to satisfy the safety authority that the Eurotunnel design criterion for the tunnel affords an appropriate level of assurance against seismic risk. The studies are examining whether passengers can be evacuated safely and within a reasonable period in the event of an earthquake equivalent to the most serious ever known in the area. These studies should be complete by February 1992.

  InterCity (Faults)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for InterCity(a) the number of faults which resulted in delays of 30 minutes or more and (b) the number of cancellations in each of the last two years, broken down by service area, date and cause where available.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that there have been the following delays and cancellations on InterCity services:

THE ARTS

  Exhibition, Upper Waiting Hall
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to an exhibition by the Yorkshire mining museum, entitled "Out of the Pits", to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.
  95
  Mr. Renton
  Yes. I am glad to sponsor the "Out of the Pits" exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Service College
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what surveys have been made of the cost effectiveness of the Civil Service college.

  Mr. Renton
  This is an operational matter for the Civil Service college, and I have asked the chief executive to reply directly to the hon. Member.

  Disabled Staff
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list, in percentage terms, the number of disabled people employed in each Department of State.

  Mr. Renton
  Information is collected centrally only on the employment in the civil service of people registered as disabled. There are more who have chosen not to register.

  The percentage of people registered as disabled employed in each Department of State at 1 June 1990, the latest date for which complete figures are available, was:

  Per cent.

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1·4

  Cabinet Office

  1·0

  Crown Estate Office

  4·4

  Crown Prosecution Service

  0·6

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  1·3

  Defence

  0·9

  Education and Science

  2·6

  Employment Group

  3·2

  Energy

  1·1

  Environment

  0·9

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  1·5

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  0·3

  Health

  0·6

  Home Office

  0·3

  Inland Revenue

  1·6

  Land Registry

  4·2

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  1·43

  National Investment Loans Office

  4·7

  National Savings

  2·8

  Office of Population Census Surveys

  2·1

  Ordnance Survey

  0·8

  Overseas Development Administration

  1·4

  Paymaster General's Office

  3·9

  Property Service Agency

  1·2

  Scottish Office

  1·2

  Scottish Prison Service

  0·1

  Social Security

  1·7

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  1·7

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  1·0

  Trade and Industry

  1·2

  Transport

  1·2

  Welsh Office

  1·4

  There are also over 400 people working in Departments and agencies under the Department of Employment's sheltered placement scheme.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what trials, experiments or other modes of operation which would deviate from normal operational 96
  practice are included in the proposal by Nuclear Electric to restart one of the reactors at Trawsfynydd power station for a period of six months; and what revision to the temperature of operation of each of the reactor core, fuel, coolant gas and reactor presure vessel shell is included in the proposed operations;

  (2) if he will make a statement about his current assessment of the frequency probability of failure incidents in the reactor pressure vessels deployed at each of the Magnox nuclear power stations;

  (3) what effect delays in the reactor pressure vessel surveying programme at Trawsfynydd and other Magnox nuclear power stations have had on the timing of Nuclear Electric's preparation and submission of a revised safety case to the nuclear installations inspectorate;

  (4) on what date Nuclear Electric submitted a revised nuclear safety case for the continued operation of each of the Magnox power stations to the nuclear installations inspectorate; and what materials data, determined from the recent inspections of the reactor pressure vessel at Trawsfynydd and other Magnox nuclear power stations, are included in the revised safety case;

  (5) if he will make a statement on the progress of the reactor pressure vessel inspection and surveying programmes currently under way at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station; and if physical obstacles encountered during these inspections have now been overcome.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The details of any operational changes proposed in the revised safety case for a return to power at Trawsfynydd are a matter for Nuclear Electric plc. The assessment of the safety case is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate. The NII will not consent to the restart of the station until it is convinced that it is safe to do so.

  In the light of developments at Trawsfynydd, NE has reviewed the position at its four other Magnox stations with steel pressure vessels, and following certain operational changes the NII has agreed to their continued operation up to the end of 1991. Full safety cases to enable the stations to operate beyond the end of the year were submitted to the NII on II September and are currently under consideration. I understand that the NII propose's to make an announcement by the end of this month.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will make a statement on details of the temperature excursion that occurred in reactor I at Bradwell nuclear power station on 17 June 1991; what caused the increase in temperature; and whether he has been informed of any disciplinary action by Nuclear Electric as a result of this incident;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the full report of the Nuclear Electric board of inquiry into the temperature excursion incident at Bradwell nuclear power station on 17 June 1991, and the report of the nuclear installations inspectorate; and if he will also place in the Library details of any equipment modifications and revisions to management procedures that have been implemented as a result of the incident.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand from the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate that, during the return to service of Bradwell's reactor 1 on 17 June 1991, it was observed that the gas temperature limit in a small area of the reactor core was exceeded by 30 deg C. The temperature deviation was readily brought
  97
  back within limits by control rod insertion. This incident has been classified at level 2 on the international nuclear event scale—that is, a technical incident or anomaly not directly affecting plant safety.

  I am advised by Nuclear Electric plc that incident inquiries are undertaken on a confidential basis in order to encourage the maximum disclosure of information. The details of such investigations are not, therefore, published. The conclusions and actions arising are, however, provided to the regulatory authorities.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list, by year for the last four years and for the current year to date, the tonnages of coal imported into the United Kingdom, showing in his answer(a) the port the coal was unloaded at and (b) the country of origin of the coal.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Breakdowns of coal imports by port of entry, and by country of origin, for the periods requested, are as follows:

  Thousand tonnes

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  19913

  Port of entry

  Immingham

  669

  999

  1,268

  2,182

  2,482

  London (including Tilbury)

  538

  743

  782

  2,104

  2,395

  Middlesbrough

  2,501

  2,570

  2,812

  2,385

  2,328

  Port Talbot

  1,958

  1,997

  2,610

  2,885

  2,259

  Medway

  556

  565

  652

  855

  1,930

  Greenock

  1,216

  1,164

  1,162

  1,027

  1,081

  Liverpool

  65

  31

  286

  948

  1,080

  Cardiff

  222

  294

  229

  410

  435

  Swansea

  —

  92

  134

  162

  377

  Hull

  19

  1

  44

  152

  364

  Belfast

  172

  192

  182

  332

  326

  Others

  1,865

  3,036

  1,975

  1,340

  1,284

  Total

  9,781

  11,685

  12,137

  14,783

  16,341

  Country of origin

  United States of America1

  2,890

  4,073

  4,874

  6,176

  6,817

  Australia1

  3,459

  3,416

  2,676

  3,044

  3,924

  Colombia1

  319

  574

  874

  1,506

  2,059

  USSR

  89

  375

  181

  592

  730

  Canada

  362

  553

  729

  986

  592

  South Africa

  188

  276

  346

  356

  526

  Poland

  1,083

  1,270

  1,055

  1,043

  431

  China

  146

  319

  450

  69

  289

  Belgium

  192

  122

  78

  60

  219

  Germany2

  261

  191

  288

  250

  188

  Venezuela

  —

  92

  86

  169

  159

  Others1

  790

  424

  501

  532

  407

  Total

  9,781

  11,685

  12,137

  14,783

  16,341

  1 Some imports previously recorded by Customs and Excise as originating in the Netherlands have been re-allocated to the other countries indicated or, where revised country of origin data is not available, included in the residual entry, "Others". This re-allocution has been carried out for 1991 and estimates of such imports previously classified to the Netherlands have been included for 1990. Figures for earlier years have not been re-allocated to individual countries.

  2 Includes imports previously recorded separately for the German Democratic Republic.

  3 January to October.

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.

  Non-fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what sum was received by Nuclear Electric from the non-fossil fuel levy and from the electricity supply industry in the first six months of 1991–92 and in the year 1990–91;

  (2) what proportion of (a)the income received by Nuclear Electric and (b)the cost of providing electricity by Nuclear Electric in 1990–91 was provided from the non-fossil fuel levy;

  (3) what was the total value of the non-fossil fuel levy in the first six months of 1991–92 and in the full year 1990–91.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Office of Electricity Regulation estimates that total receipts for the fossil fuel levy in 1990–91 were £1,175 million. OFFER's estimate of receipts for 1991–92 will be published in due course. Levy receipts are shared between the companies which have contracts under the qualifying arrangements for the various non-fossil fuel obligation orders, in accordance with the terms of those contracts. The details of those contracts, and hence the share of the levy due to individual companies, are commercially confidential.

  Offshore Oil Wells
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the number of(a) United Kingdom offshore oil wells currently in production and (b) the number which were in production 10 years ago.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The number of wells in the United Kingdom continental shelf from which oil was produced during October 1991 was 634. The corresponding figure for October 1981 was 286.

  Magnox Nuclear Stations
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the life expectancy of the Magnox stations currently operated by Nuclear Electric.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The lifetimes of Nuclear Electric's Magnox stations are a commercial matter for the company. On 9 November 1989, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House at column 1176 that it should be possible, subject to the views of the nuclear installations inspectorate, for the lifetime of at least some of the Magnox stations to be extended. It remains the Government's policy that capital approval will be given for such projects if a suitable safety and economic case can be made.

  EC Competence
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement outlining the areas of his responsibility in which the EC will have competence following the implementation of agreements at Maastricht.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The agreements reached at Maastricht will not extend the competence of the EC in areas directly related to energy.

  Solar Energy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to encourage research and development into and the manufacture of commercial photovoltaic cell-based solar energy devices in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department is undertaking a two-year programme to assess the potential and opportunities for photovoltaic electricity generation in the United Kingdom, to identify any barriers to its use and to seek methods to overcome them.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Passes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members have(a) one full researcher pass, (b) more than one full researcher pass, (c) a place on the waiting list for a researcher pass and (d) a place on the waiting list and are Front Bench spokespersons.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The latest Pass Office records show that:

  (a) 168 hon. Members have one full researcher's pass;

  (b) 2 hon. Members have two full researcher's passes;

  (c) 11 hon. Members are on the waiting list for a full researcher's pass;

  (d) 4 Front Bench spokespersons are on the waiting list for a full researcher's pass
  58 Members have places on the Research Assistant's
  list which are currently not filled.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dogs
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of incidents which have occurred in which dogs suspected to have been covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 have actually been found to be or to be likely to be cross-breeds and therefore excluded from the provisions of the Act.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which creates criminal offences relating to dogs that are dangerously out of control in a public place, already applies to any dog, whether or not it is a cross-breed.

  The fact that a dog is a cross-breed of one of those types of fighting dog specially controlled by section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not mean that it is necessarily excluded from those controls. Section 1 currently applies to any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentino and fib Braziliero. A cross-breed of any of these types of dog is also subject to the special controls of section 1 if it has the characteristics of these types of dogs. Ultimately it will be for the courts to decide in each case whether a particular dog is of the type covered by section 1 of the Act. In any proceedings where it is alleged by the prosecution that a dog is one to which section 1 applies, the onus is on the accused to prove the contrary.

  Central records are not kept of incidents in which dogs are involved but which do not result in prosecutions. Statistics for prosecutions under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are not yet available, but they will not, in any case, specify whether the dog involved was alleged to have been a cross-breed.

  Thorn Cross
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders were transferred from Hewell Grange to the young offenders institution at Thorn Cross during September 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Twenty-six.

  RSPCA (Exhibition)
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 23 March to Friday 27 March 1992.

  Maastricht
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement outlining the areas of his responsibility in which the EC will have competence following the implementation of agreements at Maastricht.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Community already has competence in relation to freedom of movement and residence of Community nationals and under the single market provisions of the treaty of Rome to aspects of certain other of my responsibilities, including some aspects of transborder data flow and the illicit drugs trade. Implementation of the Maastricht agreement will add the common list of countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the community's external borders; measures related to a uniform format for visas; measures on civil protection; and aspects of drug dependence.

  LEAs (Funding)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the allocation to local education authorities for 1992–93 of section 11 funding.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We hope to announce the allocation to education authorities and others very shortly.

  Animal Experiments
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce any further appointments to the Animal Procedures Committee.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am pleased to be able to announce the appointment to the Animal Procedures Committee with effect from 1 January 1992 of Dr. A. J. Suckling, chief scientific officer of the RSPCA. I am grateful to Dr. Suckling for agreeing to serve on this committee.

  Mr. George Capelo
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter sent to him on 21 August 1991 by the hon. Member for East Lothian concerning Mr. George Capelo.
  101
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  An investigation is continuing into Mr. Capelo's complaint about delays at immigration control at Edinburgh and Heathrow airports. The investigation is now nearing completion and I will write to the hon. Member with the outcome early in the new year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Britain has any plans to withdraw landing rights from the airline of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no such plans.

  Croatia and Slovenia
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on the alleged massacre of civilians at Dalj on 1 August 1991, Lovinac on 13 August 1991, Banija on 16 August 1991, and near Podrayska Slatina on 13 September 1991.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are investigating these incidents, and I shall report as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of civilian and Red Cross ambulances that have been destroyed by the action of Serbian forces in Croatia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no reliable information on the number of ambulances destroyed by the Serbian forces in Croatia.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of civilians who have been killed during the fighting in Croatia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Conflicting claims and an absence of reliable independent sources mean that it is difficult to give precise figures for casualties in Croatia. Most estimates fall between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on the number of hospitals, churches and cultural monuments which have been damaged or destroyed by federal army action in Croatia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no reliable figures for the number of hospitals, churches and cultural monuments damaged or destroyed by Yugoslav federal army action in Croatia.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of Red Cross medical personnel missing in Croatia; and what does he know of their fate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 13 December 1991, no ICRC personnel were missing in Croatia. We have no reliable information on the number of local Croatian Red Cross personnel missing.
  102
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Yugoslavian authorities about the repeated shelling of Dubrovnik.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have publicly and strongly condemned the Yugoslav federal army's aggression against Dubrovnik, a city of no military significance. And at our initiative, a group of ambassadors have made strong representations to the Ministry of Defence in Belgrade.

  EC Social Action
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the President of the European Commission concerning the facilities available within the Commission to foster multilateral agreements covering the provisions of the social chapter in the Netherlands Government draft of the proposed treaty of European union prepared for signature at the Maastricht summit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  None. This issue remains to be discussed.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the provisions governing the competence of the European Court of Justice in considering the non-adherence of the United Kingdom to the social chapter of the proposed EC treaty at Maastricht.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The ECJ has jurisdiction to interpret the treaty as it stands, not to rule on its validity.

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [pursuant to his answer, 2 December 1991]: The United Kingdom ratified the United Nations convention on the rights of the child on 16 December 1991. Progress is being made towards extending ratification to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and dependent territories.

  A copy of the instrument of ratification has been placed in the Library of the House.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Judges (Kenya)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what terms and conditions the United Kingdom Government support the employment of judges in Kenya; on what criteria judges are seconded to that country; and on what criteria judges seconded to serve in Kenya are reappointed or removed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Judges working in Kenya under the British aid programme—there are three at the present time
  103
  —are employed by the Government of Kenya on contract. They are not seconded. The Government of Kenya pays the salaries of judges employed under these arrangements and the ODA pays salary supplements and certain other benefits. Decisions to reappoint or terminate the appointments of judges are normally made following consultations between the Government of Kenya and Her Majesty's Government and taking account of a wide range of considerations.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authorities Credit Management Advisory Board
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what communication his Department has received about the Local Authorities Credit Management Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department has received three inquiries from companies asking for confirmation of the bona fides of Local Authorities Credit Management Advisory Board.

  The companies from whom the inquiries were received had responded to an advertisement in the Financial Times in September and were considering entering into contracts with LACMAB for the collection of debt owed to local authorities. These contracts involved them placing £250,000 on deposit with LACMAB for six months.

  According to these companies, LACMAB had claimed to be known to my Department, and to be working under its auspices. Any such claim would be untrue. This organisation is not known to my Department, and has not carried out any work under its auspices. My officials also ascertained that the organisation had not previously been known to the Association of County Councils, Association of District Councils, Association of Metropolitan Authorities, Audit Commission or Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. We have informed the firms from whom inquiries have been received accordingly.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to achieve stabilisation of carbon dioxide emissions; what estimates he has of the contributions of the transport and energy sectors to the reduction in emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200) set out the Government's strategy for achieving our conditional target of returning Britain's CO, emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2005. The first year report (Cm 1655) showed how the first set of measures is being put into practice. Action is being taken across all sectors of the economy taking into account the relative cost-effectiveness of measures in different sectors and other wider costs and benefits.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to issue final planning policy guidance on the disposal of playing fields.
  104
  Mr. Heseltine
  We have already done so, in planning policy guidance note 17, "Sport and Recreation", published in September this year.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce a statutory obligation for local authorities to provide housing for those covered by community care programmes.

  Mr. Yeo
  Social services authorities will be responsible for community care assessments. Section 46(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1991 requires them to consult other agencies, including housing authorities, when drawing up their community care plans to meet the needs of their area. At the same time, housing authorities should consult social services authorities in preparing their own housing investment strategies each year. When making assessments for community care, social services authorities will be expected to involve the housing authority whenever an individual's assessment indicates a possible housing need. Those who are homeless and considered vulnerable would be protected under part III of the Housing Act 1985.

  It does not follow that everyone who is assessed under the new community care arrangements will be in need of housing. There will be a majority who will be able to go on living in their existing homes with suitable domiciliary care or, perhaps, custom adaptations. Local authorities are able to award mandatory disabled facilities grants for essential adaptations where an applicant qualifies for help under the test of resources. Discretionary grants may also be available for other adaptations, including minor works assistance for the elderly.

  We see no reason, therefore, to take new statutory powers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives from Anchor housing association to discuss the development of sheltered housing schemes.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend has had no contact with Anchor housing association on this subject.

  Planning Applications
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory provisions that relate to control of repetitious and vexatious planning applications.

  Sir George Young
  Section 70A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, inserted by section 17 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, gives local planning authorities the power to turn away planning applications if within the previous two years the Secretary of State has refused a substantially similar proposal on appeal or following call-in, and there has been no significant change in any material consideration.

  EC Meetings
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council held on 12 to 13 December.
  105
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all meetings he and his officials have had with his counterparts in European Community countries over the past six weeks; and if he will set out the issues discussed and decisions taken at each meeting.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and I represented the United Kingdom at a joint session of the Environment and Energy Councils on 13 December to discuss the Commission's recent communication on a Community strategy to limit carbon dioxide emissions and to improve energy efficiency. Conclusions were agreed which recognised the need for a strategy at Community level based on a wide-ranging package of Community and national measures. It was agreed that national programmes should be formulated for limiting CO2 emissions. It was also agreed that specific measures at Community level and a move to higher energy pricing through the use of fiscal instruments were likely to be needed. The Council invited the Commission to put forward formal proposals for measures arising from the Community strategy, including any necessary proposals for Communitywide taxations, taking into account the further studies needed and the conclusions of separate discussions by Finance Ministers.

  These conclusions are a positive step Toward in the process of agreeing a coherent and coordinated approach across the Community to limiting CO2 emissions, as part of the global efforts to tackle the threat of climate change. At the same time, they clearly recognise the need for further analytical work before a decision on the questions of energy/carbon taxation can be reached. The United Kingdom will be participating in this further analysis.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council on 12 December.

  The Council agreed a regulation setting up a Communitywide eco-labelling scheme. The scheme will provide consumers with authoritative guidance as to which products are less damaging to the environment than alternatives on the basis of an assessment of their impact over the whole of their life cycle. The scheme will be voluntary. The United Kingdom has played a leading role in the development of this scheme, and in the design of the logo which will be awarded to products meeting Community criteria. Work will now begin on defining criteria for an initial tranche of 10 to 12 product groups, with a view to the scheme being launched next autumn.

  After several years of discussion, the Council finally agreed the directive to protect habitats and wild flora and fauna. The directive will establish a network of special areas of conservation for rare, endangered and vulnerable species and habitats across the Community. The network will be known as Natura 2000 and will consist of sites of international importance on the Community scale. The directive also enshrines the Berne convention into the Community's legal framework. This important measure represents a major step forward for nature conservation in the Community.

  A regulation establishing a new Community fund for the environment (LIFE) was agreed. This brings together several existing funds and also incorporates a number of new areas for Community support. The projects which could benefit from Community assistance include nature protection measures under the habitats directive,
  106
  development of clean technologies, measures to protect the marine environment, and environmental education, training and information initiatives.

  The Council agreed a new regulation amending regulation 1734/88/EEC concerning exports and imports of certain dangerous chemicals. This will introduce the prior informed consent procedure into European Community law. It enables importing countries to decide whether or not to allow the import of an internationally agreed list of dangerous chemicals. Exporters in the Community will be prohibited from supplying these if the receiving country withholds consent. Risks to human health and the environment from chemicals in third-world countries should be reduced by this measure.

  The Council adopted a common position on a regulation which provides for the collection and evaluation of data on existing chemical substances and, if necessary, proposals for control action. The regulation is complementary to the recently revised notification scheme for new chemical substances.

  In the course of a discussion on the implementation and enforcement of Community legislation, there was a favourable response to ideas put forward by the United Kingdom for a Community environment inspectorate. These envisaged an audit-type inspectorate charged with ensuring that enforcement agencies within the member states were applying EC legislation effectively and consistently. It would report its findings to the Commission who would remain responsible for any necessary follow-up action. The Commission expressed its support in principle for the United Kingdom initiative and undertook to bring forward proposals next year.

  Council conclusions on a common approach to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development next year were agreed. These set out the results which EC countries hope to achieve at UNCED and address in particular the financial, technological, legal and institutional issues on the UNCED agenda. EC Environment and Development Ministers will continue their preparations for UNCED at a joint Council in February.

  The Council formally adopted directives against hazardous waste and on the protection of water against pollution by nitrate from agricultural sources which were agreed in principle earlier this year.

  The Council also discussed the proposed regulation on the movement of waste, and new proposals on the sulphur content of gasoil and on trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna.

  The United Kingdom drew the Council's attention to new scientific evidence on the rate of depletion of the ozone layer and called for new measures to bring forward still further the deadlines agreed last year for phasing out the use of ozone-depleting substances.

  Municipal Bonds
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to extending the right of local authorities to raise long-term capital finance by means of issuing municipal bonds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Local authorities are already able to raise long-term capital finance by issuing bonds. We are not currently contemplating any change in authorities' powers in this field.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received since March 1991 on the issue of the capital financing arrangements of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The many representations received on various capital finance issues could be listed only at disproportionate cost. All are considered carefully, and legislative changes made when necessary.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assumptions he has made, in his revenue support grant announcement, regarding the level of permitted borrowing, by individual block allocation, in 1992–93 to finance capital programmes; what were the equivalent figures in the current year; and what is the basis of his assumption that the charges in 1992–93 will fall by 11 per cent.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 9 December 1991]: The estimated borrowing limits assumed for the 1992–93 RSG consultation announcement and those used for the 1991–92 settlement are shown in the table.

  The standard spending assessment element for debt charges proposed for 1992–93 is based on a number of factors. One of the most important of these is expected interest rates for which a fall has been assumed from II percent. used in the 1991–92 settlement to 10 per cent. being proposed for 1992–93.

  Annual capital guidelines and supplementary credit approvals

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Annual capital guidelines:

  Education

  516·2

  276·6

  PSS

  98·0

  106·0

  Home Office

  21·7

  22·6

  Transport

  389·7

  497·3

  Housing (non-HRA)

  404·5

  318·5

  Other services

  261·7

  278·4

  Total annual capital guidelines

  1,691·7

  1,499·4

  Less receipts taken into account

  473·9

  375·0

  Total basic credit approvals

  1,217·8

  1,124·4

  Plus supplementary credit approvals

  Education

  4·8

  42·1

  PSS

  18·0

  60·0

  Home Office

  49·5

  80·6

  Transport

  102·4

  131·7

  Other services

  68·9

  71·3

  Total supplementary credit approvals

  243·6

  385·8

  Total credit approvals (the sum of BCAs and SCAs)

  1,461·4

  1,510·2

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the future of local authorities' capital financing arrangements in his review of local government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The outcome of the review of local government has not led to any proposals for changes in the existing arrangements for capital financing of local authorities.

  Local Authorities (Financial Difficulties)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards central funding of local authorities which have financial difficulties due to(a) the collapse of BCCI, (b) late rating appeals and (c) interest rate swaps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The local authorities affected by such financial difficulties should expect to resolve them for themselves, rather than expect funds from central Government, but the Government will always consider on their merits any proposals which affected local authorities may make.

  Planning Proposals (Polls)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 for calling a community poll concerning a planning proposal affecting that community have been used in England and Wales; and if he will list those occasions and the costs of each poll.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Shared Housing Ownership
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what recent representations he has received from housing associations about the shared ownership value limits imposed by the Housing Corporation;

  (2) what provision is made by the shared ownership value limits imposed by the Housing Corporation in order to take account of the variation of average property prices within large conurbations, rural areas, and compact market towns within the same region.

  Mr. Key
  Representations have recently been received from Templar Housing Society Ltd. and Manchester and District Housing Association Ltd. Value limits are normally pitched at a slightly higher level than the average prices being paid in the regions by first-time buyers, in order to allow for some variation of prices within regions. In addition, value limits may be exceeded by up to 10 per cent. in certain rural areas and in towns which are growth areas for employment. The Housing Corporation is currently considering revised cost control arrangements for shared ownership.

  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the net value of transfers—gross transfers minus reverse transfers from housing revenue accounts to general funds—from local authority general funds to their housing revenue accounts for each calendar year since 1980 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 November, at column 97.

  Environment Protection Act
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish the regulations and code of practice on the duty of care under section 34 of the Environment Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.
  109
  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, has today laid before Parliament the code of practice and the regulations made under section 34 (duty of care) of the Environment Protection Act. An associated circular will be issued to local authorities.

  The duty of care will come into force on 1 April 1992. From that date, every business in Britain will be responsible for taking measures to ensure that their waste goes only to authorised, responsible destinations, whether that is for recycling or for disposal. Anyone who fails to take care of their waste will be guilty of a criminal offence.

  The regulations, code of practice and circular have been further improved and clarified in the light of the many comments received. The code of practice offers practical advice for all those subject to the duty.

  I believe that this measure will be widely welcomed by responsible industry, as well as by all who care about what happens to waste. It must be right for the producers and holders of waste to take responsibility and account for where they send their waste. This should go a long way towards cutting off at source the supplies of waste that are now heedlessly and illegally dumped.

  This is a great advance in the legal control of waste.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Textile and Clothing Industry
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made in the GATT Uruguay round of trade negotiations towards international harmonisation of tariffs on textiles and clothing and the reduction of other trade barriers facing United Kingdom exports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 12 December 1991]: There has been some support from participants in the GATT Uruguay round for the international harmonisation of textile and clothing tariffs (i.e. maximum levels would be agreed for each type of product). The European Community continues to press for agreement. We are aware of the textile and clothing industry's concerns about other trade barriers facing United Kingdom exports and these have been drawn to the attention of the European Commission, which continues to work for their elimination.

  British Petroleum
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to BP—The Way Forward to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Leigh
  Yes. Arrangements have been made for such an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall to take place from Monday 3 to Friday 7 February 1992.

  Trading Standards and Environmental Health
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if British officials listed as trading standards officers and environmental health officers will be able to participate in the European Community action plan for the exchange of officials engaged in the enforcement of Community legislation required to build the single market,110
  as set out in Official Journal C229 of 20 November; and what information he has on the record of the United Kingdom and other EC member states on the enforcement of European Community legislation as they relate to trading standards and environmental health matters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Commission's proposal for an action plan for the exchange of national officials between member state administrations engaged in the enforcement of single market legislation has only just been presented to the Council. The proposal will now be the subject of discussion in the Council and the Parliament. It is too early to say what the final shape of the proposal will be. A pilot project for the scheme earlier this year involved a British trading standards officer in an exchange visit to France. There is insufficient evidence at present to produce a meaningful comparison of the performance of member states on enforcement.

  Maxwell Companies (Pension Funds)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he received any representations before 5 November 1991 from the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation about the pension funds of any companies of which the late Robert Maxwell was a director.

  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  Telecommunication Companies
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply of 9 December,Official Report, column 281, if he will take steps to ensure that his consultation with other Departments is completed in time for a response to be sent to the Council on Tribunals concerning their potential interest in the disputes procedure of telecommunications companies as covered by the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill prior to the Report stage of that Bill in this House.

  Mr. Redwood
  Consultation between Departments and the regulators has been carried out as a matter of urgency, and information has already been passed to the Council on Tribunals.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply of 9 December,Official Report, column 281, if he will indicate the nature of the potential interest in the disputes procedure of telecommunications companies as covered by the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill that has been expressed by the Council on Tribunals.

  Mr. Redwood
  In its approach to the Department, the Council on Tribunals expressed potential interest in clauses which conferred new functions on the directors general in relation to dispute resolution. Clauses 1 and 5 to 7 inclusive have been mentioned for telecommunications. The council wishes to consider whether any formal procedures to hold oral hearings, similar to those held by tribunals under the Council's supervision, are likely to be established by the directors general. I would emphasise that it is dispute procedures set up by the regulators in which the Council has expressed interest, not procedures of the utilities they monitor.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply of 9 December,Official

  111
  Report,column 281, if he will publish the response his Department has sent to the Council on Tribunals concerning their potential interest in the disputes procedures of telecommunications companies as covered by the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill.

  Mr. Redwood
  Correspondence and discussions are continuing between the Council on Tribunals, the Department and the regulators. It is not appropriate to publish this ongoing consultation. I made a statement to Standing Committee on the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill on 17 December about the issues involved.

  Shipbuilding
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which shipyards participated in the study to compare build costs in Europe and the far east, undertaken for the European Commission by TECNECON, giving the figures by country for each ship type examined.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 December 1991]: The TECNECON study for the European Commission covered 12 ship types. Twenty-one shipyards from member states participated in the provision of cost data. Details are as follows:

  Ship type

  Shipyard/ Country

  VLCC (280,000 dwt) (double skin)

  Harland and Wolff (United Kingdom)

  Odense (Denmark)

  HDW (Germany)

  Suezmax tanker (140,000 dwt) (double skin)

  Harland and Wolff (United Kingdom)

  Solisner-Estalieros Navais SA (Portugal)

  Odense (Denmark)

  Astilleros Espanoles (Spain)

  Fincantieri (Italy)

  Aframax tanker (85,000 dwt) (double skin)

  Fincantieri (Italy)

  B & W (Denmark)

  Astilleros Espanoles (Spain)

  Product tanker (40,000 dwt)

  Kvaerner Govan (United Kingdom)

  B & W (Denmark)

  Astilleros Espanoles (Spain)

  Cape bulker (150,000 dwt)

  Fincantieri (Italy)

  Harland and Wolff (United Kingdom)

  Odense (Denmark)

  Large container (3,500 TEU)

  Bremer Vulkan (Germany)

  HDW (Germany)

  Odense (Denmark)

  Small container (1,700 TEU) (geared)

  HDW (Germany)

  Bremer Vulkan (Germany)

  Chantiers de l'Atlantique (France)

  Odense (Denmark)

  Verolme (Netherlands)

  Chemical carrier (3,000 dwt)

  Sietas (Germany)

  Verolme (Netherlands)

  Aarhus (Denmark)

  Cochrane (United Kingdom)

  LPG carrier (18,000 cm)

  Odense (Denmark)

  Kvaerner Govan (United Kingdom)

  Meyer (Germany)

  Reefer (600,000 ft3)

  Bremer Vulkan (Germany)

  Astilleros Espanoles (Spain)

  Boelwerf NV (Belgium)

  Van der Giessen (Netherlands)

  Kvaerner Govan (United Kingdom)

  Danyard (Denmark)

  112

  Ship type

  Shipyard/Country

  Ferry (2,000 passengers) (600 cars)

  Chantier de l'Atlantique (France)

  Bremer Vulkan (Germany)

  Boelwerf NV (Belgium)

  Van der Giessen (Netherlands)

  Fincantieri (Italy)

  Astilleros Espanoles (Spain)

  Tug (4,000 bhp)

  Dunston (United Kingdom)

  Damen (Netherlands)

  Aarhus (Denmark)

  Chantiers Naval De Rupelmonde (Belgium)

  Cost data submitted by individual shipyards are commercially confidential.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations his Department has had with United Kingdom shipbuilders on the level of aid for EC shipbuilding for 1992 under the terms of the EC seventh shipbuilding directive.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 December 1991]: I met representatives of the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association, at their request, on 26 November to discuss a number of issues including the 1992 levels of aid for shipbuilding within the European Community.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's position on the level of state aid for shipbuilding for 1992 under the terms of the seventh EC shipbuilding directive.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 December 1991]: The Government's position on state aid for shipbuilding remains unchanged. We are in favour of the multilateral phasing out of subsidies.

  The European Commission is expected to announce shortly its aid ceilings for 1992 under the seventh directive on aid to shipbuilding. Our own levels will be decided in the light of the announcement and will come into effect on 1 January 1992. Details will be given to the House in due course.

  Welsh Consumer Council
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what salary is paid to the chair of the Welsh Consumer Council.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 13 December 1991]: The appointment of chair of the WCC attracts a salary of £4,420 per annum, plus, as a member of the National Consumer Council, an additional £4,420 per annum, both of which are subject to tax and national insurance.

  British Steel
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had on proposals or decisions to close existing capacity in British Steel in Great Britain.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: Any such proposals or decisions are a matter for the board of British Steel. My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Steel from time to time, but their discussions are confidential.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the
  113 f
  effect British Steel's investment plans overseas will have on capacity in specific areas of production in Britain with regard to general steels.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: None. Such matters are for the board of British Steel and the industry itself.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on British Steel's plans with regard to existing capacity utilisation over the next 12 months and for continuing production at(a) Scunthorpe, (b) Ravenscraig, (c) Dalzell and (d) Llanwern.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: Such information as British Steel have published in its annual reports. Investment has continued at Llanwern, where a new hot dip galvanising line was commissioned last year. British Steel is considering investment in a new plate mill facility at Teeside, which would replace in due course the existing plate mills at Dalzell and Scunthorpe, but no final decision has yet been taken. Production of steel will continue at Ravenscraig until at least 1994, subject to economic and commercial conditions and the demand for steel slab.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had from the international information centre on special needs education; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend received a letter from the international information centre on special needs education on 4 December 1991. The letter is receiving consideration within the Department and a reply will be sent as soon as possible.

  EC Competence
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement outlining the areas of his responsibility in which the EC will have competence following the implementation of agreements at Maastricht.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Following the agreement reached at Maastricht last week, the European Community will have a role in contributing to the development of quality education by encouraging co-operation between member states and if necessary by supporting and supplementing their action.

  Action by the Community is to be aimed at: developing the European dimension in education; the teaching and dissemination of languages; promoting co-operation between education establishments; developing exchanges of information and experience; encouraging the development of youth exchanges; and encouraging the development of distance education.

  The Community is required by the agreement fully to respect the responsibility of the member states for the content of teaching and the organisation of educational systems, and their cultural and linguistic diversity.
  114
  The Community's existing competence in relation to vocational training is clarified. Again the Community is required to respect the responsibility of member states for the content and organisation of vocational training.

  The measures available to the Community in relation to education and vocational training expressly exclude any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the member states.

  The European Community will gain no new competence in those areas of scientific research under DES responsibility. The Community's existing competence allows it to undertake certain actions which will strengthen the scientific and technological basis of European industry and encourage it to become more competitive at international level.

  Primary Education
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if the three-person inquiry team on primary education will be visiting any primary schools in the course of its inquiry;

  (2) what terms of reference have been given to the three-person inquiry team into primary education.

  Mr. Fallon
  The terms of reference for the report on primary education, commissioned by my right hon. and learned Friend, are"Taking into account available evidence about the delivery of education in primary schools, to make recommendations about curriculum organisation, teaching methods and classroom practice appropriate for the successful implementation of the National Curriculum, particularly at Key Stage 2."
  In writing the report, Professor Alexander, Chief Inspector Mr. Rose and Mr. Woodhead will draw on their extensive knowledge of primary education and the national curriculum, including visits to primary schools in connection with their normal responsibilities.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will visit schools in Ealing to discuss the level of resources required next year to implement the national curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I have no present plans to visit schools in Ealing.

  In addition to the standing spending assessment, the Government are supporting expenditure through grants for education support and training on the national curriculum of some £170 million in 1991–92.

  Schools Budget (Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex)
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will itemise, with costings, those elements of the education budgets of (separately) Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex, which constitute, in the most recent year for which information is available(a) each LEA's general schools budget, (b) each LEA's potential schools budget, (c) each LEA's real schools budget (as proposed by the Association of County Councils), (d) each LEA's aggregate schools budget and (e) that part of each LEA's budget which is attributable to services provided from the annual maintenance grant of a grant-maintained school.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information we have is as follows, taken from the LEAs' section 42 budget statements for 1991–92:
  115

  Norfolk LEA

  Suffolk LEA

  Essex LEA

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  General schools budget1

  206,948

  185,231

  431,033

  Potential schools budget2

  177,015

  152,305

  372,734

  Aggregated schools budget3

  149,344

  133,358

  317,119

  GM-relevant costs4

  182,665

  151,542

  369,221

  1 The general schools budget (GSB) of a local education authority is the amount appropriated by the authority for meeting expenditure in respect of all schools covered by a scheme for the local management of schools (LMS), ie all county and voluntary schools.

  2 The potential schools budget (PSB) consists of a part of the general schools budget (GSB)—ie the GSB less expenditure on certain excepted items: capital expenditure; expenditure supported by central government grants; and expenditure on school meals, home to school transport and transitional exceptions (eg cleaning and grounds

  116
  maintenance).

  3 The aggregated schools budget (ASB) is that part of an authority's GSB which is allocated according to a formula to individual LEA schools, ie the amount which the schools themselves decide how to spend, once they have delegated powers and responsibilities under LMS.

  4The GM-relevant costs constitute the total budget in respect of the LEA's maintained schools which corresponds to the total annual maintenance grant AMG) of grant-maintained (GM) schools, ie the GSB less expenditure on items for which provision is made outside the AMG of GM schools, those items being: central Government specific grants; capital expenditure; and expenditure on home to school transport, education welfare officers and psychologists, pupil support, statemented pupils and special units.

  The "real schools budget" is a construct suggested in a report by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte for the Association of County Councils. The Department does not have the information to calculate it.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Municipal Bonds
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to extending the right of local authorities to raise long-term capital finance by means of municipal bonds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Local authorities are already able to raise long-term capital finance by issuing bonds. We are not currently contemplating any change in authorities' powers in this field.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the maximum salary payable to the chief executive of each of his Department's executive agencies, including performance-related element, and the length of time of the chief executive's contract in each case.

  Mr. Maples
  Following is the information requested for each of the five executive agencies concerned in respect of 1991–92.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  The chief executive has standard terms and conditions for a grade 2. All increases in pay are performance related. The grade 2 pay range from 1 December 1991 is £60,100 to £70,400.

  Royal Mint

  The chief executive's maximum salary, including bonus, payable in respect of the agency's performance is £66,000. The appointment is for five years starting from January 1988.

  Central Office of Information

  The chief executive has additional responsibilities as head of profession for the Government information service and is paid as a grade 3. The grade 3 range in London from 1 December 1991 is £51,300 to £59,000. All pay increases are performance-related. The performance element in respect of his duties as chief executive is under discussion. His appointment is for a three-year term starting from 5 April 1990.

  Valuation Office

  The chief executive is a grade 2 and his maximum salary, including individual bonus, payable in respect of the agency's performance is £69,465. He has been appointed for a period ending no later than 31 March 1994.

  Central Statistical Office

  The salary from 1 December 1991 of the director (chief executive), is £77,500, the standard rate of pay at grade lA level. It is intended that, following Sir Jack Hibbert's retirement at the end of February 1992, his successor will be appointed for a period of five years.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the quality of service performance indicators adopted by each of his Department's executive agencies since their establishment; and separately identify those quality of service performance indicators already operative prior to agency status.
  118
  Mr. Maples
  Following is the information for each of the five executive agencies concerned.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  1991 Target

  Per cent.

  Print orders delivered to time

  Vital

  100·0

  Overall

  95·0

  Print orders delivered without fault

  100·0

  Print production jobs delivered to time

  Basic

  100·0

  Overall

  95·0

  Print production jobs delivered without fault

  100·0

  Stock catalogue items

  92 per cent, of customer orders despatched within five working days of receipt

  95 per cent, of items despatched first time from existing stocks

  Publications—Mail, EDI and telephone orders (Publications centre)

  85 per cent, of customer orders despatched within four working days of receipt

  95 per cent, within five working days of receipt

  Prior to agency status, the following quality of service performance indicators were operative.

  1987–88 Target

  Per cent.

  Print orders delivered to time

  Vital

  95·0

  Overall

  90·0

  Print orders delivered without fault

  100·0

  Print production jobs delivered to time

  90·0

  Print production jobs delivered without fault

  100·0

  Stock catalogue items

  Time taken between receipt of customer order and despatch of goods—80 per cent, within one week

  Publications ordered by post—6 days average

  Royal Mint

  The Royal Mint's published financial target covering the three-year period 1990–91 to 1992–93 is to achieve a 12·5 per cent. current cost return on net assets. Other targets are commercially sensitive and details are not published.

  Central Office of Information

  to deliver all work in accordance with client specification; and

  to deliver all work on time.

  The COI had no formal quality of service targets before it became an executive agency on 5 April 1990.

  Valuation Office

  timeliness (percentage of work completed to external and internal time limits)

  valuation accuracy (percentage of valuations settled within plus 10 per cent. of initial valuation when facts settled).

  Both indicators were first introduced, following pilot studies, in April 1991, before establishment as an agency on 30 September 1991. Targets for 1991–92 are, respectively, 82 per cent. and 80 per cent.
  119
  Central Statistical Office

  The Central Statistical Office was established as an executive agency on 19 November 1991. The current quality of service targets for the CSO are included in annex E of its agency framework document, copies of which have been placed in the Library. None of the targets relating to quality of service were in force prior to the CSO's establishment as an executive agency.

  Volunteer Drivers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his proposals for taxation on volunteer drivers' mileage allowance.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) on 12 December at column 480.

  Business and the Environment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has met, or has plans to meet, representatives of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment; if he plans to meet representatives of any other environmental groups between the present time and March 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  At present, I have no plans to meet representatives of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment. In the run-up to the Budget, my Treasury colleagues and I meet a wide range of groups. Environmental issues are discussed.

  Rent-free Periods (VAT)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the decision of Customs and Excise to treat rent-free periods as benefit subject to value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is long-standing Customs policy that rent-free periods are outside the scope of VAT unless services are performed in return by the tenant for the landlord. As this is uncommon, in practice only a few cases will lead to VAT being charged.

  Taxation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the occasions on which announcements of proposals for abolishing or reducing taxes have been made other than on Budget day since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  Since 1979, no specific proposals for abolishing central Government taxes or reducing tax rates have been announced other than on Budget day or during the passage of the Finance Bill.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much have total privatisation proceeds been since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  Total privatisation proceeds from May 1979 to end 1990–91 are about £33·5 billion.

  Direct Taxation
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the consultative document on proposals to implement the three direct tax measures adopted by the Economic and Finance Council in July 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  On 23 July 1990, the Economic and Finance Council adopted three proposals to remove possible tax obstacles to Communitywide business activity and cross-border expansion. The measures are the mergers directive, to defer certain tax charges that could otherwise arise on a cross-border merger or demerger; the parents/subsidiaries directive, to eliminate the double taxation of dividends and abolish withholding taxes on them when they are paid to a parent company in another member state; and the arbitration convention, to set up a mechanism to resolve transfer pricing disputes between taxing authorities in different member states.

  In the Government's view, these are issues on which there should be full consultation before implementing legislation is brought forward. Accordingly, the Inland Revenue is today issuing a consultative document including draft clauses. Comments on the consultative document and draft legislation are invited by 14 February 1992. We shall carefully consider all comments and representations which are made before introducing the necessary legislative provisions at the earliest opportunity. I have placed copies of the document, including the draft clauses, in the Library.

  Public Services Survey
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, columns 508–9, if he will publish the details requested of him when he announces the date and arrangements of the opinion survey, or at the point it commences, whichever is the earlier.

  Mr. Maude
  Details of the survey will be announced in due course.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the margin between Public Works Loan Board interest rates and the Government gilt rates.

  Mr. Maples
  The Public Works Loan Board lending rates for quota loans are set so that they are close to but below the rates at which local authorities can borrow on the market. The rates are calculated by adding a margin of½ to 1 per cent. depending on maturity to the per yield curve Government gilts. The formula for calculating the per yield curve was described in the February 1990 issue of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much inward investment into the United Kingdom has been made by the other EC countries for each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The available information on the inward direct investment into the United Kingdom by other
  121
  member countries of the European Community between 1987 and 1989 is given in table 2.4 of "Business Monitor MA4" (1989 overseas transactions) published by the Central Statistical Office, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be able to provide up-to-date figures on the same basis as those provided to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East in his answer of 8 January 1990,Official Report, columns 558–64, revising his figures to include an estimate of the effects of the introduction of the community charge; and what estimate he has made to date of the effect on the tax burden of the introduction of the community charge.

  Income tax, NICs and indirect tax payments at multiples oj average earnings, 1990–91

  Multiples of Average Earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  23·83

  42·97

  62·10

  100·89

  162·13

  284·61

  407·09

  529·57

  774·53

  1,141·97

  2,366·77

  NICs

  10·56

  17·45

  24·34

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  Total income tax and NICs

  34·39

  60·42

  86·44

  129·17

  190·41

  312·89

  435·37

  557·85

  802·81

  1,170·25

  2,395·05

  VAT

  —

  11·17

  14·97

  23·26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  17·01

  21·18

  30·29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  8·48

  8·97

  9·95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  97·08

  131·56

  192·67

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax

  15·6

  18·7

  20·3

  22·0

  26·5

  31·0

  33·2

  34·6

  36·1

  37·3

  38·6

  NICs

  6·9

  7·6

  7·9

  6·2

  4·6

  3·1

  2·3

  1·8

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  Total income tax and NICs

  22·5

  26·3

  28·2

  28·1

  31·1

  34·1

  35·5

  36·4

  37·5

  38·2

  39·1

  VAT

  —

  4·9

  4·9

  5·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·4

  6·9

  6·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  3·7

  2·9

  2·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  42·3

  43·0

  41·9

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  15·56

  34·70

  53·83

  92·11

  148·90

  271·38

  393·86

  516·34

  761·30

  1128·74

  2,353·54

  NICs

  10·56

  17·45

  24·34

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  Total income tax and NICs

  26·12

  52·15

  78·17

  120·39

  177·18

  299·66

  422·14

  544·62

  789·58

  1,157·02

  2,381·82

  VAT

  —

  10·25

  14·39

  23·46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18·91

  23·10

  32·29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  14·65

  15·04

  15·82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  95·96

  130·70

  191·96

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax

  10·2

  15·1

  17·6

  20·1

  24·3

  29·5

  32·2

  33·7

  35·5

  36·9

  38·4

  NICs

  6·9

  7·6

  7·9

  6·2

  4·6

  3·1

  2·3

  1·8

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  Total income tax and NICs

  17·1

  22·7

  25·5

  26·2

  28·9

  32·6

  34·5

  35·6

  36·8

  37·8

  38·9

  VAT

  —

  4·5

  4·7

  5·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·2

  7·5

  7·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  6·4

  4·9

  3·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  41·8

  42·7

  41·8

  Married, both working

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  1·11

  20·25

  39·39

  77·66

  115·94

  201·82

  311·03

  433·51

  678·47

  1,045·91

  2,270·71

  NICs

  7·34

  14·23

  21·12

  34·90

  47·11

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  Total income tax and NICs

  8·45

  34·48

  60·51

  112·56

  163·05

  258·38

  367·59

  490·07

  735·03

  1,102·47

  2,327·27

  VAT

  —

  11·66

  16·15

  25·12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  21·83

  25·56

  33·03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  15·01

  15·13

  15·36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  82·98

  117·35

  186·06

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax

  0·7

  8·8

  12·9

  16·9

  18·9

  22·0

  25·4

  28·3

  31·7

  34·2

  37·1

  NICs

  4·8

  6·2

  6·9

  7·6

  7·7

  6·2

  4·6

  3·7

  2·6

  1·8

  0·9

  Total income tax and NICs

  5·5

  15·0

  19·8

  24·5

  26·6

  28·1

  30·0

  32·0

  34·3

  36·0

  38·0

  122
  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 9 December 1991]: Updated figures for 1990–91, including estimates of community charge payments in 1990–91, are given on a basis similar to that provided to the hon. Member in his answer of 8 January 1990, at columns 559–64. No figures of the impact of the community charge in 1991–92 can be provided until the 1991 family expenditure survey is published.

  The latest estimates for 1991–92 for direct taxes and indirect taxes excluding the community charge were given in the reply to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 20 November 1991, at columns 174–76.
  123

  Multiples of Average Earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  VAT

  —

  5·1

  5·3

  5·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9·5

  8·3

  7·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  6·5

  4·9

  3·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  36·1

  38·3

  40·5

  Married, 2 children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  1·06

  20·20

  39·33

  77·61

  134·40

  256·88

  379·36

  501·84

  746·80

  1,114·24

  2,339·04

  NICs

  10·56

  17·45

  24·34

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  Total income tax and NICs

  11·62

  37·65

  63·67

  105·89

  162·68

  285·16

  407·64

  530·12

  775·08

  1,142·52

  2,367·32

  VAT

  —

  9·98

  14·67

  24·95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18·40

  21·72

  29·01

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  14·13

  14·68

  15·79

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  80·16

  114·74

  175·64

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax

  0·7

  8·8

  12·8

  16·9

  21·9

  28·0

  31·0

  32·8

  34·8

  36·4

  38·2

  NICs

  6·9

  7·6

  7·9

  6·2

  4·6

  3·1

  2·3

  1·8

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  Total income tax and NICs

  7·6

  16·4

  20·8

  23·1

  26·6

  31·0

  33·3

  34·6

  36·2

  37·3

  38·7

  VAT

  —

  4·3

  4·8

  5·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·0

  7·1

  6·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  6·2

  4·8

  3·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  34·9

  37·5

  38·2

  Notes:1 Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2 Since 1990–91, husbands and wives have been taxed independently. Previously the tax liability of couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons with earlier years, the table therefore shows income tax and national insurance contributions paid by a married couple as a proportion of their joint income, assuming, as in the earlier years, that where both partners are earners, the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.

  3 In order to provide comparability with 1978–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowance, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couple with two children.

  4 Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are estimated to be £306·20 per week in 1990–91.

  5 The estimates of indirect taxes apart from the community charge are based on equations derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey, uprated to later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. They are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with the same composition and similar incomes and estimated payments of VAT and other indirect taxes are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range, the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years.

  6 Estimates of the burden of the community charge have been derived from the 1990 family expenditure survey. All respondents were assumed to pay the charge to which they were liable. The calculations include water charges in order to put the estimates on a comparable basis to the estimates for earlier years. Community charge payments are net of transitional relief and community charge benefit. Since community charge payments vary widely between households with similar incomes, the estimated charge payments are only approximate.

  UN Economic Commission for Europe
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department routinely reviews the work conducted and reports produced by the United Nation's Economic Commission for Europe.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: The papers and reports of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe are received by my Department. They are one of the many sources of information used to keep abreast of developments in Europe, particularly in the former centrally planned economies.

  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers would be affected by the restriction of all tax allowances and reliefs except the single person's allowance to the basic rate, giving the numbers who have gross incomes of(a) less than £30,000, (b) £25,000, (c) £20,000, (d) earnings below the higher rate threshold and (e) earnings below the national insurance upper earnings limit.
  124
  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: Latest estimates for 1991–92 are as follows:

  Restriction of allowances1and reliefs to the basic rate

  Number of taxpaying individuals affected

  Thousands

  (a) Total income under £30,000

  290

  (b) Total income under £25,000

  0

  (c) Total income under £20,000

  0

  (d) Total earned income2 under £26,9953

  200

  (e) Total earned income2 under £20,2804"

  100

  1Except for the basic personal allowance.

  2Includes income from employment, self employment and occupational pensions.

  3The sum of the basic rate limit and the level of the basic personal allowance for those under 65.

  4National Insurance upper earnings limit.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Andrew Miller
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Prime Minister when his office answered or proposes to answer the letter from Mr. Andrew Miller, Flat 2–2,2049 Paisley road west, Glasgow.
  125
  The Prime Minister
  There is no record of my office having received Mr. Miller's letter.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Manchester city council about the location of the proposed European central bank; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The leader of Manchester city council wrote to me on 29 November in connection with Manchester's proposed bid to host the European central bank and its precursor, the European Monetary Institute. I will send the right hon. Member a copy of my reply.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out all the provisions of the social charter which have been agreed by the other members of the Community.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the explanatory memorandum on the social charter, which was submitted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 24 November 1989. A copy of the explanatory memorandum and the text of the social charter are available in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Businesses (East Midlands)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the net change month on month in the number of businesses in(a) Amber Valley, (b) Derbyshire and (c) the east midlands in the latest month for which figures are available and two previous months.

  Mr. Forth
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people were disqualified for unemployment benefit under each paragraph of section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 in the area covered by the Newport, Gwent, unemployment benefit office, in the latest month for which information can be obtained; in how many cases disqualification was imposed for the maximum period of 26 weeks; and whether he will arrange for records of the lengths of disqualifications to be kept on a routine basis in future.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what form of contribution he now envisages towards the costs of establishing a new headquarters for the South Glamorgan training and enterprise council to 126
  which he referred in his answer of 28 February 1991,Official Report, column 571; in what financial year that contribution will take place; what level it will be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  A contribution towards the cost of the new South Glamorgan TEC headquarters continues to be part of the Department's expenditure plans for 1991–92.

  Adaptations to premises at Waterfront 2000 in Cardiff commenced in November this year and occupancy is anticipated towards the end of January 1992. The Department's contribution towards the cost of adaptation work is likely to be around £280,000.

  Prince of Wales Youth Business Trust
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Prince of Wales Youth Business Trust to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 24 to Friday 28 February 1992.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his answers of 18 November,Official Report, columns 50–51, concerning Coventry unemployment and the numbers of vacancies, he will review his policy of referring hon. Members' questions about labour market statistics to the Library.

  Mr. Jackson
  No. The decision to refer questioners to the NOMIS database, which can be accessed on line by the House of Commons Library staff, follows the established principle of referring to published sources. It is good resource management to refer to information which is publicly available when the effort has already been made to provide an easily accessible, up-to-date and accurate computer database.

HEALTH

  Infant and Maternal Mortality
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state(a) the infant mortality rate, (b) the maternal mortality rate and (c) the perinatal and neonatal death rates for each of the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 in the United Kingdom, each other country of the EC and the WHO European region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Complete data are not available in the form requested. The latest data from the WHO European regional office indicator presentation system are shown in the tables, together with any later estimates from other sources.

  Caution should be used in interpreting international rates, particularly those relating to perinatal mortality, due to differences in ascertainment between countries.
  127

  Infant mortality rates in the United Kingdom, EEC countries and countries in the WHO European Region

  Area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  United Kingdom

  9·0

  8·4

  7·9

  Other EEC countries

  Belgium 1986 9·7

  9·11

  8·71

  —

  Denmark

  7·6

  8·01

  —

  France

  7·8

  7·51

  —

  German Federal Republic

  7·5

  7·4

  —

  Greece

  11·0

  9·71

  —

  Irish Republic

  8·9

  7·51

  —

  Italy

  9·2

  8·31

  —

  Luxembourg

  7·6

  8·6

  —

  Netherlands

  6·8

  6·81

  —

  Portugal

  13·1

  12·2

  —

  Spain 1986 9·2

  8·11

  8·41

  —

  Others in WHO European Region

  Austria

  8·1

  8·3

  —

  Bulgaria

  13·6

  14·4

  —

  Czechoslovakia

  11·9

  11·3

  —

  Finland

  6·1

  5·81

  —

  German Democratic Republic

  8·1

  7·6

  —

  Hungary

  15·8

  15·7

  —

  Iceland

  6·2

  5·3

  —

  Israel 1987 11·1

  10·01

  N/A

  —

  Malta

  9·2

  10·6

  —

  Norway

  8·3

  N/A

  —

  Poland

  16·2

  16·0

  —

  Romania

  25·3

  26·9

  —

  Sweden 1987 6·1

  5·81

  6·01

  —

  Switzerland

  6·8

  7·3

  —

  Yugoslavia

  24·5

  23·71

  —

  Notes:Deaths under 1 year per 1,000 live births.

  Data, except for United Kingdom, from WHO European Regional Office Indicator Presentation System.

  1Provisional from other sources.

  Maternal mortality in the United Kingdom, EEC countries and countries in the WHO European Region.

  Area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  United Kingdom

  6·3

  7·7

  17·8

  Other EEC countries

  Belgium 1986 3·4

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Denmark

  3·4

  n/a

  —

  France

  9·3

  n/a

  —

  German Federal Republic

  8·9

  5·3

  —

  Greece

  5·6

  n/a

  —

  Irish Republic

  1·8

  n/a

  —

  Italy

  7·6

  n/a

  —

  Luxembourg

  0·0

  0·0

  —

  Netherlands

  9·6

  n/a

  —

  Portugal

  6·6

  10·1

  —

  Spain 1986 5·5

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Others in WHO European Region

  Austria

  5·7

  7·9

  —

  Bulgaria

  9·4

  18·7

  —

  Czechoslovakia

  13·0

  9·6

  —

  Finland

  11·1

  n/a

  —

  German Democratic Republic

  14·8

  11·6

  —

  Hungary

  16·9

  15·4

  —

  Iceland

  0·0

  0·0

  —

  Israel 1987 3·0

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Malta

  0·0

  0·0

  —

  Norway

  3·5

  n/a

  —

  Poland

  11·6

  10·7

  —

  Romania 1984 148·8

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Sweden 1987 4·8

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Switzerland

  10·0

  3·7

  —

  Yugoslavia

  16·3

  n/a

  —

  Deaths attributed to complications of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium per 100,000 live births.
  128
  Data, except for United Kingdom, from WHO European Regional Office Indicator Presentation System.

  1Provisional from other sources.

  Perinatal mortality rates in the United Kingdom, EEC countries and countries in the WHO European Region.

  Area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  United Kingdom

  8·8

  8·3

  18·1

  Other EEC countries

  Belgium 1986 10·4

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Denmark

  7·4

  n/a

  —

  France

  9·2

  8·9

  —

  German Federal Republic 1986 7·6

  16·5

  16·4

  —

  Greece

  12·9

  112·1

  —

  Irish Republic 1987 10·3

  111·3

  19·9

  —

  Italy

  12·0

  111·0

  —

  Luxembourg

  18·1

  27·1

  —

  Netherlands

  9·2

  19·6

  —

  Portugal

  15·2

  14·6

  —

  Spain 1986 10·6

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Others in WHO European Region

  Austria

  7·4

  n/a

  —

  Bulgaria 1986 11·8

  110·9

  10·6

  —

  Czechoslovakia 1985 12·7

  n/a

  9·6

  —

  Finland

  8·4

  n/a

  —

  German Democratic Republic

  18·8

  n/a

  —

  Hungary 1986 18·3

  115·8

  14·6

  —

  Iceland

  20·8

  14·3

  —

  Israel

  110·3

  n/a

  —

  Malta

  13·8

  15·9

  —

  Norway 1987 7·9

  18·2

  n/a

  —

  Poland

  14·7

  n/a

  —

  Romania 1985 112·4

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Sweden 1986 7·5

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Switzerland 1986 7·7

  17·2

  n/a

  —

  Yugoslavia

  16·4

  n/a

  —

  Notes:

  Deaths 0–6 days + stillbirths per 1,000 total births.

  Data, except for United Kingdom from WHO European Regional Office Indicator Presentation System.

  1 Provisional from other sources.

  Neonatal mortality rates in the United Kingdom, EEC countries and countries in the WHO European region

  Area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  United Kingdom

  4·9

  4·7

  14·5

  Other EEC countries

  Belgium 1986 5·2

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Denmark

  4·6

  14·7

  —

  France

  4·1

  13·8

  —

  German Federal Republic

  4·0

  14·0

  —

  Greece 1987 8·5

  18·1

  16·6

  —

  Irish Republic 1987 4·3

  15·3

  14·3

  —

  Italy 1986 7·9

  17·5

  16·5

  —

  Luxembourg

  4·3

  16·4

  —

  Netherlands

  4·6

  14·6

  —

  Portugal

  8·6

  18·1

  —

  Spain 1985 5·9

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Others in WHO European region

  Austria

  4·7

  14·9

  —

  Bulgaria 1987 7·9

  17·4

  n/a

  —

  Czechoslovakia

  8·1

  17·8

  —

  Finland 1987 4·2

  13·9

  n/a

  —

  German Democratic Republic

  15·0

  n/a

  —

  Hungary

  11·8

  n/a

  —

  Iceland

  4·1

  n/a

  —

  Israel

  16·5

  n/a

  —

  Malta

  6·3

  n/a

  —

  Norway 1987 4·7

  14·5

  n/a

  —

  Poland

  11·6

  111·5

  —

  Romania 1984 8·8

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Sweden 1987 3·8

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  129

  Area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Switzerland

  4·2

  14·4

  —

  Yugoslavia

  13·5

  n/a

  —

  Notes:Deaths under 28 days per 1,000 live births.

  Data, except for United Kingdom, from WHO European Regional Office Indicator Presentation System.

  1 Provisional from other sources.

  Oral Tobacco
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, prior to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's attendance at the EC Health Ministers Council in November, he commissioned an independent review of the scientific evidence offered by the European Commission in support of its proposed ban on oral tobacco.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We receive independent advice on the health hazards posed by oral snuff from the Committee on Carcinogenicity, an independent advisory committee to the Department of Health.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the published scientific evidence studied by his Department in support of the EC directive banning oral tobacco, before the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attended the EC Health Ministers Council in November.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The list of published scientific evidence is extensive. I will therefore send my hon. Friend a copy of the list and place a copy in the Library.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to reinstate free sight tests for(a) all age groups and (b) elderly people.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have made provision for vulnerable members of the community such as children, adults on low incomes and those with certain special needs to continue to be entitled to free sight tests but we believe that those who can afford to pay should do so.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the continued imposition of a charge for NHS sight tests.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of representations. There is no charge for NHS sight tests: they continue to be available free to the most vulnerable groups in the community, accounting for approximately 40 per cent. of the population. There are no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the numbers of people over pensionable age who presented themselves for sight tests in each year since 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Baby Deaths (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the results of the epidemiological survey into the causes of brain damage to babies at Doncaster royal 130
  infirmary will be complete; with what other areas and hospitals it is being compared; and if copies of the findings will be sent to the Doncaster Members of Parliament and the Doncaster community health council.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Trent regional health authority has appointed two experts from outside the region to determine whether or not the occurrence of brain damaged births within the Doncaster district is comparable with other districts, and if necessary in the light of findings to make any recommendations. I understand that the study should be completed by March 1992. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, the chairman of Trent regional health authority, for details.

  Dysentry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by month for the last 12 months the number of cases of dysentry that have been confirmed in the United Kingdom, the locations of the outbreaks and the cause of the outbreaks.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the year 1991 to week 49, there have been community outbreaks of dysentry in the following towns and cities in England and Wales: Grimsby; Manchester; Leeds; Bradford; Hull; Scunthorpe; Halifax; Huddersfield; Cardiff; Bristol; Darlington; Easington; Carmarthen; Haverfordwest; Gainsborough; Sheffield; Doncaster; Birmingham.

  The PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre has received 9,006 reports of isolations of shigella sonnei, the main causative organisms for dysentry in this country, from laboratories in England and Wales in 1991. They are as listed in the table, with weeks 49 to 52 of 1990 included to complete a 12-month period.

  Weeks

  Total

  1990

  49–52

  314

  1991

  1–4

  367

  5–8

  237

  9–12

  417

  13–16

  707

  17–20

  821

  21–24

  806

  25–28

  905

  29–32

  947

  33–36

  449

  37–40

  504

  41–44

  970

  45–48

  1,471

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when registration of premises used for food business will be a statutory requirement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991 have been laid before Parliament. The objective of these regulations is to ensure that local authorities responsible for the enforcement of food
  131
  legislation have information about the food businesses operating in their area so that they can target their enforcement resources to those which represent the highest risk to health. The regulations take effect on 1 February 1992. Existing businesses must register with their local authority by 30 April 1992. There will be a national publicity campaign to alert the owners of food businesses to the new requirements.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any statistical data relating to the above-average deaths from hypothermia and related conditions during or arising from the severe cold weather in the first half of February 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys analysis of the excess deaths in February 1991 shows that there were a total of 15 deaths where hypothermia was mentioned as a cause of death.

  Carers
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will outline the services available for carers now supporting elderly and disabled people in the community.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provision of practical support for carers is the second of the key objectives identified in the White Paper "Caring for People". In meeting carers' needs, health and local authorities should consult carers about their wishes and needs, and ensure that services are available. The King's Fund's recent publication "Focus on Carers", a copy of which will be placed in the Library, funded by the Department, outlines the kinds of services which can be made available to support carers. It is for health and local authorities to decide what services should be provided in their areas depending upon local needs and circumstances.

  NHS (Non-British Patients)
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of national health service expenditure is spent on treating non-British subjects who are bona-fide reciprocal arrangement patients;

  (2) what proportion of national health service annual expenditure is spent on patients who are not British subjects and whose country of origin has no reciprocal arrangements.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The possession of British nationality is not of itself a requirement for free NHS hospital treatment. Anyone not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom has to pay for NHS hospital treatment unless he or she is covered by one of a number of specific exemptions, including reciprocal arrangements.

  Comprehensive information is not collected centrally on the cost to the NHS of treatment to patients exempted from charges.

  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those countries which enjoy reciprocal arrangements whereby production of a national health service number is not necessary but where free treatment is available in the United Kingdom on production of an ID card of country of origin.
  132
  Mr. Dorrell
  The territories are as follows: Anguilla, Australia, Austria. Belgium, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Channel Islands, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Falkland Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Irish Republic, Isle of Man, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Montserrat, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, St. Helena, Spain, Sweden, Turks and Caicos Islands, USSR and Yugoslavia.

  NHS (Patients' Numbers)
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients using national health service doctors' surgeries or receiving national health service treatment are asked to give their national health service number.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Cranage Hall Hospital
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice he has given to Mersey regional health authority about the possible establishment of a village community for mentally handicapped patients on the site of the Cranage Hall hospital; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will give details of the progress which has been made towards the closure, disposal and subsequent use of the Cranage Hall hospital and its grounds.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department does not offer advice about the future of specific hospitals. The future of services at Cranage Hall hospital is a matter for Crewe health authority.

  NHS Numbers
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new national health service numbers have been issued over the last three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national health service central register, which is part of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, controls the issue of national health service numbers in England and Wales.

  For births in England and Wales, the registrars of births and deaths issue a national health service number, on behalf of the national health service central register, as part of the process of the legal registration of the birth.

  Numbers issued this way over the last three years are:

  Midyear to mid year

  Number (000s)

  1988–89

  687·4

  1989–90

  691·6

  1990–91

  706·7

  Additionally, the national health service central register issues, centrally, national health service numbers where the allocation of a number is necessary in all circumstances other than birth. Examples are the allocation of numbers to immigrants and provision of a number in adoption cases but allocation can occur whenever a patient registers with a general practitioner without providing a number and the patient cannot be positively traced on the central register. The number of allocations have been:

  133

  Year

  Number (000s)

  1989

  153·2

  1990

  135·1

  1991

  1362·6

  1 The high number of allocations this year is a consequence of resolving queries during computerisation of the central register and a return to pre-1991 levels is expected in the future.

  (£ million)

  New construction and improvement

  Structural maintenance including bridge repair

  Other highway maintenance including lighting and road safely

  Total

  1980–81

  50·1

  66·2

  116·3

  1981–82

  48·0

  86·7

  134·8

  1982–83

  65·8

  78·6

  144·3

  1983–84

  58·2

  87·4

  145·7

  1984–85

  54·9

  88·2

  143·1

  1985–86

  64·6

  89·1

  153·7

  1986–87

  66·9

  97·3

  164·2

  1987–88

  78·5

  109·6

  188·0

  1988–89

  63·4

  115·7

  179·0

  1989–90

  73·3

  47·5

  77·1

  197·8

  1990–911

  78·3

  58·8

  75·1

  212·2

  1991–921

  97·4

  65·5

  76·8

  239·7

  Figures do not necessarily acid up because of rounding.

  Separate figures for structural and current maintenance were not collected before 1989–90.

  1 Provisional figures.

  Schools Budget
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide, on a basis consistent with the answer of 14 October 1991,Official Report, columns 68–73, a list of local

  Extent of LEAs delegation to schools in 1991–92

  Local Education Authority

  PSB Delegated to Schools

  PSB not Delegated per pupil in

  Central Administration as proportion of PSB

  Schools with Delegated Budgets in

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  (£)

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  West Glamorgan

  84·30

  85·16

  284

  1·8

  2·1

  14

  South Glamorgan

  83·96

  85·49

  270

  3·2

  3·4

  32

  Dyfed

  83·36

  80·65

  285

  4·0

  3·9

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  82·60

  81·58

  313

  4·9

  5·0

  39

  Clwyd

  82·50

  81·90

  300

  4·8

  5·0

  74

  Powys

  82·19

  82·07

  336

  4·5

  4·0

  100

  Gwynedd

  82·18

  82·48

  328

  5·5

  5·2

  37

  Gwent

  81·79

  81·71

  320

  3·9

  3·9

  52

  National Averages

  82·90

  82·59

  301

  4·0

  4·0

  38

  Notes:1 It should be noted that the figures are not readily comparable across LEAs because of variations in the treatment of items of expenditure in relation to the General Schools Budget (GSB) from which the PSB is derived.

  2 The PSB consists of the GSB less expenditure on certain excepted items: capital expenditure; expenditure supported by central government grants; and expenditure on school meals, home to school transport and transitional exceptions such as grounds maintenance. From 1993 LEAs are required to delegate a minimum of 85 per cent. of PSB to schools.

  3 The 1990–91 details are taken from the outturn budget statements for 1990–91 where they are available.

  4 Pupil numbers have been taken from the latest statistical information available to the Department ie, the September 1991 STATS 1 forms.

  5 The percentages stated may differ from the percentages calculated by individual LEAs because of the effects of rounding.

  Housing Statistics Land Sales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest available estimate of the number of houses in multiple occupation in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is not available.

WALES

  Highways
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will show total expenditure by all Welsh local highway authorities from 1980–81 to 1991–92 on(a) new construction and improvement, (b) structural maintenance and (c) current maintenance.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Expenditure since 1980 is as follows:

  education authorities in rank order by the proportion of the potentiel schools budget held back in 1991–92 showing in each case the proportion held back in 1990–91.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information in the table:

  Land Scales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much land has been sold in the last few years by his Department giving the acreage and the estimated receipts.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In the last three financial years up to 31 March 1991, 177·4 acres of land were sold by my
  135
  Department amounting to estimated receipts of £9,697,000. In addition the Forestry Commission sold 8,057 acres of forest land and 2,119 acres of non-forest land on behalf of my Department. The receipts for the forest land amounted to £5,269,000. Records of receipts for non-forest land are not kept separately by country and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales from what time signs on the M4 in the area of Newport indicated the closure on Sunday 8 December of the Severn bridge and the M4; and at what time the signs were switched off.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Signs in the Gwent police area indicating a bridge closure were set at 20:48 hours. The incident was dealt with and the messages displayed on the signs were removed at 23:17 hours, when it was considered safe to allow traffic to resume using the crossing.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what alternative route was signposted for drivers during the closure of Severn bridge and part of the M4 on Sunday 8 December; and why the chosen route was recommended.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  During the closure of the Severn bridge, traffic was diverted along the A449, A40, M50 and M5 roads. This is the recognised and pre-arranged diversionary route.

  A low bridge at the Gloucestershire village of Newnham makes the A48 road unsuitable as a diversionary route, although there is little doubt that drivers of light vehicles such as cars and motorcycles who had knowledge of this route, chose to use it.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet health board chairmen to discuss(a) hospital trusts and (b) finance.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend last met district health authority chairmen on 20 November and intends to meet them again on 25 March 1992.

  Cockles
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to prevent overfishing of the foreshore cocklebeds.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The gathering of cockles is, where appropriate, regulated through byelaws made by sea fisheries committees.

  University of Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish target student intake figures for each constituent college in the university of Wales in each year from the current year until 1998; and state in each case what proportion of the intake is estimated to come from schools within Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are no target intake figures set centrally for universities. The number of students in the 136
  constituent colleges of the university of Wales being funded by the Universities Funding Council in 1991–92 are:

  Number

  Aberystwyth

  3,485

  Bangor

  2,882

  Cardiff

  7,148

  St. David's Lampeter

  812

  Swansea

  4,235

  College of Medicine

  980

  For the years from 1993–94, subject to parliamentary approval of the Further and Higher Education Bill, funding of higher education institutions in Wales will be the responsibility of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. No assumption is made centrally about the proportion of entrants to the university of Wales that come from schools within Wales.

  Lesser Horseshoe Bats
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will produce guidelines for local planning authorities in Wales so as to enable them to ensure the survival of roosts of lesser horseshoe bats; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 gives special protection to horseshoe bats. Guidance on the operation of these controls is contained in Welsh Office Circular 38/82 (DOE24/82), Welsh Office Circular 52/87 (DOE27/87) and in the joint Welsh Office/DOE booklet "Planning—a Householders Guide".

  Welsh Water plc
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had and proposes to have with the Director General of OFWAT concerning the diversification proposals of Welsh Water plc with the public electricity supply industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The diversification proposals of Welsh Water plc are a matter for the company and its shareholders. The Water Industry Act 1991 and the licence appointing water and sewerage companies protects the core business, in this case Dwr Cymru Cyfymgedig, and the interests of customers. The Director General of Water Services has amended the licence to ensure sufficent information is available to allow him to protect the interests of customers.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Director General of OFWAT concerning the commercial value and content of the consultancy work placed by Welsh Water plc with the LEK Partnership since Mr. lain Evans became a non-executive director of Welsh Water.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None. This is a matter for the company and its shareholders.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning the
  137
  units of administrative headquarters work for that authority which are to be relocated to the new headquarters building at the Roath basin, Cardiff; if those units unclude the artifical limb and appliance service, currently based at Rookwood hospital, Llandarf, Cardiff and the National Blood Transfusion Service currently co-located with the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, Llantrisant road, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A full option appraisal was prepared by the authority, which considered various alternatives for its relocation. The appraisal concluded that neither the artifical limb and appliance service nor the National Blood Transfusion Service should be housed in the proposed new accommodation due to the nature of the services they provide and the nature of the building in Roath basin.

  River Ely
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority regarding the deterioration in the water condition of the lower reaches and estuary of the River Ely; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The National Rivers Authority has a carefully planned strategy to improve the quality of the River Ely including the rebuilding of the sewage treatment works serving Tonyrefail, the construction of a new trunk sewer from Rhiwsaeson sewage treatment works to improve the quality of the River Clun, which flows into the Ely, and the transfer of the effluent from the Cogan outfall to the proposed new sewage treatment works at Lavernock. The strategy is being vigorously pursued by the authority. A number of benefits have already accrued and there should be further major improvements in the next three to five years. My right hon. Friend sees no need to consult the authority's chairman in these circumstances.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total increase in spending by the national health service in Wales in each year since 1979 after adjustment for the health costs deflator.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In order to show the dramatic difference between the funding of the NHS under a Labour Government and under this administration I have taken the opportunity to provide the information requested by the hon. Gentleman for each year since 1974. He will note the marked improvement under this Government compared with the period 1974–79.

  Year

  NHS gross expenditure adjusted for changes in input unit costs1

  NHS gross expenditure adjusted by the GDP deflator

  £ million

  £ million

  (1990–91 prices)

  (1991–92 prices)

  1974–75

  1,106

  1,024

  1975–76

  1,153

  1,095

  1976–77

  1,146

  1,084

  1977–78

  1,189

  1,077

  1978–79

  1,235

  1,115

  1979–80

  1,204

  1,118

  1980–81

  1,223

  1,216

  1981–82

  1,284

  1,263

  138

  Year

  NHS gross expenditure adjusted for changes in input unit costs1

  NHS gross expenditure adjusted by the GDP deflator

  £ million

  £ million

  (1990–91 prices)

  (1991–92 prices)

  1982–83

  1,330

  1,301

  1983–84

  1,346

  1,320

  1984–85

  1,371

  1,360

  1985–86

  1,390

  1,375

  1986–87

  1,407

  1,432

  1987–88

  1,446

  1,506

  1988–89

  1,471

  1,571

  1989–90

  1,489

  1,598

  1990–91

  1,544

  1,652

  1991–92

  2—

  31,781

  Notes:

  1 Calculated against service inflation reflecting pay and price movements in English authorities.

  2 Index for 1991–92 is not available as estimates are not made until after the financial year has ended.

  3 Current provision.

  Changes in input volumes are an inadequate guide to the level of services the NHS can be expected to achieve since they do not reflect the continuing success of NHS management in increasing the efficiency with which it uses resources.

  The final column therefore gives expenditure in real terms after adjustment by the GDP deflator.

  Tenovus Cancer Research Centre
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had regarding the future funding and research activities of the Tenovus cancer research centre at the University hospital of Wales, Heath, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To date I have received no official representations regarding the future funding and research activities of the Tenovus institute for cancer research located at the University hospital.

  Smoking
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take as a result of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales report, "Implementation of Non-Smoking Policies in Hospitals in Wales 1987–89."

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My officials have today issued revised guidance to the NHS in Wales. Most patients and staff do not smoke and they are therefore entitled to a smoke-free environment. There should be a progressive move to no smoking by staff and patients, except in limited segregated smoking areas, to take effect by the end of 1993.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of hepatitis B have occurred within each health board area during each of the last five years; and what fatalities have resulted therefrom.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:
  139

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Area unknown

  Total

  1986

  6

  2

  1

  1

  3

  13

  1987

  4

  2

  —

  1

  —

  7

  1988

  2

  1

  —

  2

  —

  5

  1989

  3

  2

  —

  3

  —

  8

  1990

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  TOTAL 1986–90

  17

  7

  1

  9

  3

  37

  There was one fatality in the Western board in 1987 and one in the Eastern board in 1989.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what progress is being made in promoting an immunisation programme against hepatitis B in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what groups have been identified as at risk from hepatitis B; and if he can provide figures, as a percentage of each group, for those who have been immunised.

  Mr. Hanley
  Government policy is that only certain groups and individuals at high risk of contracting the disease should be immunised because of the low incidence of hepatitis B infection in the United Kingdom.

  Details of the groups and individuals for whom vaccination against hepatitis B should be considered are given in paragraphs 13.3.5 to 13.3.7 of the United Kingdom Health Departments' 1990 handbook on "Immunisation against Infectious Disease," a copy of which has been placed in the Library. As those at high risk are identified and immunised locally by occupational health physicians or family doctors immunisation figures are not maintained centrally.

  AIDS
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the year-by-year number of deaths from AIDS in each health board area.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of persons with AIDS who are known to have died each year in Northern Ireland is given in the table. In line with the procedure followed in reports under the AIDS (Control) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and to safeguard confidentiality, actual figures in the range of one to nine reported in individual health board areas are not published.

  Number

  1985

  1

  1986

  —

  1987

  1

  1988

  1

  1989

  7

  1990

  9

  11991

  4

  1To 30 November.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are presently known to have tested HIV positive in each health board area; and how many of these have developed AIDS.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows.
  140

  Cases diagnosed

  Board area

  HIV

  AIDS

  Eastern

  53

  15

  Northern

  10

  111

  Southern

  15

  Western

  13

  1In line with the procedure followed in reports under the AIDS (Control) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and to safeguard individual confidentiality actual figures in the range of one to nine in individual board areas are not published.

  HIV
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if all nursing, medical and auxiliary staff in hospitals, general practices and on-district duties are formally notified when they are dealing with HIV positive patients.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is the responsibility of health and social services boards to ensure that an assessment is made of the risk of HIV infection to staff from their patients and, with due regard to confidentiality, to inform those who need to know of the potential danger.

  Swimming Lessons
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many primary schools in each of the education and library board areas which were participating in swimming instruction programmes before the introduction of the local management of schools system of funding have now ceased to do so; and if he will give numbers for each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cross-border Terrorism
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has had specific discussions at meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference about Republican terrorist incidents with a cross-frontier element which have occurred in Northern Ireland since 1 January 1990; and whether he has had any commitment from the Irish Republic that further security measures are to be put in place.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Discussions on security matters form a major part of the business of all Anglo-Irish Conference meetings. Both Governments have been constant in their determination to achieve the greatest possible security co-operation. Progress has been made in a number of areas, including joint threat assessment, liaison structures,
  141
  technical co-operation and communications. The commitment of both Governments to improving the effectiveness of cross-border co-operation remains unswerving.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Republican terrorist incidents which have occurred in Northern Ireland since I January 1990 are estimated to have had a cross-frontier element; and if he will give details.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It would not be appropriate to disclose detailed information held by the Royal Ulster Constabulary about incidents in which charges may be brought.

  Castlereagh (Ill-treatment Allegations)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much of the compensation paid for alleged ill-treatment in Castlereagh holding centre since June 1989 to clients represented by solicitors Madden and Finucane, was made by way of out-of-court settlements; how many of these complaints were substantiated by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much compensation has been paid for alleged ill-treatment in Castlereagh holding centre since June 1989 to individuals other than clients represented by solicitors Madden and Finucane; what proportion was made by way of out-of-court settlements; how many of these complaints were substantiated by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about compensation payments is not available in the form requested. Compensation claims against the Chief Constable and complaints against individual members of the RUC are handled separately. Persons claiming compensation do not necessarily allege misconduct by individual officers and records held by the RUC and the police authority do not show whether these persons have also made complaints; nor do their records, or those of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, show whether complainants are also seeking compensation. The commission, however, in its annual reports, provides information on complaints made by persons arrested under the emergency legislation. From the period 1 January 1989 to 30 September 1991, it dealt with 1,065 such cases of complaint. In 788 cases, the complainant failed to co-operate with the investigating officer, 31 cases were withdrawn and 245 were regarded as unsubstantiated because of insufficient evidence. The commission considered one case to have been substantiated, and the officer concerned was subsequently found not guilty of a disciplinary offence.

  Terrorist Murders
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the number of terrorist murders for the period 15 November 1984 to 14 November 1985 and for each succeeding comparable period until 14 November 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of 469 murders, believed to be terrorist-related, were committed during the period 15 November 1984 to 14 November 1991.

  The figures for each successive 12-month period are as follows:
  142

  Number

  1984–85

  43

  1985–86

  58

  1986–87

  80

  1987–88

  82

  1988–89

  54

  1989–90

  70

  1990–91

  82

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will detail the percentage of murders in each of the last six years which are attributable to(a) republican terror groups and (b) Loyalist terror groups.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Set out in the table are the percentage of murders believed to have been carried out by republican and loyalist groups.

  Republican groups

  Loyalist groups

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1985

  89

  11

  1986

  75

  25

  1987

  79

  21

  1988

  74

  26

  1989

  68

  32

  1990

  71

  29

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that any licence issued under section 4 of the Badgers Act 1991 should(a) be to a named individual, (b) refer to a specific badger sett, (c) specify the circumstances under which sett interference may occur and (d) be for a limited period of time.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 12 December at col.550.

  Vegetarian Diets
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research projects his Ministry is funding into the nutritional aspects of vegetarian diets, giving the amount spent on each project, the establishment where the work is being carried out, and when the project is due to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department is funding one project on nutritional aspects of vegetarian diets. The project is entitled "The Effects of Vegetarian Diet on Hormone Levels and Risks of Osteoporosis". The research is being done in the Department of Chemical Pathology at University College London and the Middlesex School of Medicine. The project will be completed on 17 February 1993 at a cost of £150,000. It is aimed at studying the effects of a vegetarian diet on bone density in women aged 30–55 years. The data gained overall will be of importance to the Department in its responsibility for giving dietary advice to population groups who may be at risk of developing disease.
  143
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what scientific evidence he has of(a) nutritional or (b) other deficiencies of' a diet which contains no meat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  This Ministry is committed to the promotion of healthy eating. This is based on a balanced diet, which normally contains a proper proportion of meat. Those who do not eat meat need to take extra care that their diet contains enough of all the nutrients for health. Meat is a particularly rich source of B vitamins and well absorbed minerals, including iron. People habitually consuming diets which contain little or no meat may need higher iron intakes and thus diet selection needs to be made with much more care. Adolescent girls who avoid meat may be particularly at risk of iron deficiency.

  Irradiated Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his current policy in respect of seeking an exemption under the EC rules for food labelling for irradiated ingredients: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am fully committed to providing consumers with information on food labels to enable them to choose between foods which have been irradiated and those which have not. Rules for the labelling of all foods and listed food ingredients which have been irradiated have already been agreed by the EC. Further proposals on food irradiation currently before the Council of Ministers include more detailed rules on the labelling of irradiated ingredients. I am seeking to ensure that the further requirements on ingredient declarations are as comprehensive as practicable.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severe Hardship
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long it takes to process a claim by an under 18-year-old for income support on grounds of severe hardship.

  Mr. Jack
  Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, has informed me that separate information about the processing of claims from under 18-year-olds on grounds of severe hardship is not available. However, the average clearance time for all income support claims was 3·1 days in October 1991. Claims from under l8-year-olds are given priority and a direction for income support under the severe hardship provision is made within 24 hours of the customer being interviewed in the local office.

  Source: Benefits Agency management information systems database.

  Income Support
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of pensioners who are in receipt of income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 5 November at column 82.

  There are about 1·4 million pensioners in receipt of income support where "pensioners" is taken to mean
  144
  income support claimants who also receive retirement pension. The number is about 1·7 million if the definition is taken as income support claimants aged 60 or over.

  Source: 1990 Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  Local Offices
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide translation and interpretation facilities in local offices to meet the needs of the ethnic minorities communities.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The provision of translation and interpreting services in local offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of unemployed people were receiving(a) income support only, (b) unemployment benefit only, (c) income support and unemployment benefit, broken down by sex in each case, at the date for which the most up-to-date information is available.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest information is shown in the table.

  Income support only

  Unemployment benefit only

  Income support Unemployment benefit

  Males

  969,906

  315,290

  93,094

  (55 per cent.)

  (18 percent.)

  (5 per cent.)

  Females

  242,460

  137,865

  9,062

  (14 per cent.)

  (8 per cent.)

  (1 percent.)

  Note: This information is taken from the Unemployment Benefit Statistics Quarterly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants, May 1991, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The figures in brackets illustrate the number shown as a percentage of all unemployed people receiving benefits for unemployment.

  Maxwell Companies (Pension Funds)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether he has received any representations before 5 November 1991 from the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation about the pension funds of any companies of which the late Robert Maxwell was a director;

  (2) whether he has received any representations before 5 November 1991 from the Occupational Pension Board about the pension funds of any companies of which the late Robert Maxwell was a director.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No such representations were received.

  Social Fund Inspectors
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many social fund inspectors were employed on 31 October;

  (2) how many applications for review by a social fund inspector were outstanding for more than one month on 31 October.
  145
  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the Social Fund Commissioner that on 31 October 1991 there were 66 social fund inspectors employed and 3,043 review applications outstanding for more than one month.

  Pension Equalisation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the effect of the protocol relating to equalisation of pensions signed at Maastricht;

  (2) when he expects to introduce legislation to enforce the protocol on equalisation of pension ages signed at Maastricht; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The implications of the protocol are still being discussed.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to issue the Government's discussion paper on equalisation of pension age for the state scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The discussion paper "Options for Equality in State Pension Age"—which, as I said when I made my statement to the House on 26 June, will help to inform debate by exploring the issues and providing background information—will be published tomorrow.

  Occupational Pension Funds
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward regulations relating to(a) the disclosure of information on occupational pension funds arising from the Social Security Act 1988, (b) limited price indication, (c) self-investment (both arising from the Social Security Act 1990) and (d) contracting-out rebates for the next quinquennium.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We shall bring forward amending regulations relating to disclosure of information in the new year, shortly after the publication of a booklet giving guidance to trustees on the exercise of their function.

  Implementation of limited price indexation was delayed because of the uncertainties arising from the Barber judgment. In the light of the Maastricht protocol we are considering whether and when the necessary regulations should now be introduced. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 12 December at column 527 in relation to self-investment regulations, and my reply to the hon. Member on 15 November at column 685 in relation to the contracting-out rebate.

  Chief Adjudication Officer's Report
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the seventh annual report of the Chief Adjudication Officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The report is being published today. Its findings point to improvement in some areas of adjudication, including those in the Employment Service, while in some others, standards remain disappointing. The Chief Adjudication Officer welcomes the positive response made to the majority of recommendations in his 1989–90 report, and goes on to make further recommendations to build on the progress made so far. He welcomes the 146
  commitment of the chief executives of both the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to the improvement of adjudication standards as an integral part of customer service.

  The recommendations are being considered, and will be the subject of a formal response in due course.

  Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been, in percentage terms, the proportion to the index of average earnings, for a family consisting of husband, wife, and two children aged five and 10, of(a) child benefit, (b) unemployment benefit and (c) sickness benefit during the first six months of sickness, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: For many families, unemployment benefit and sickness benefit are not the sole sources of benefit income.

  The information requested is given in the table:

  Date1

  Child benefit (per cent. of earnings)

  Unemployment benefit (per cent. of earnings)

  Sickness benefit (per cent. of earnings)

  November 1979

  7·0

  29·2

  29·2

  November 1980

  7·0

  26·6

  26·6

  November 1981

  7·0

  25·4

  25·4

  November 1982

  7·3

  25·6

  25·6

  November 1983

  7·4

  25·1

  24·1

  November 1984

  7·3

  24·5

  23·5

  November 1985

  7·0

  24·7

  23·6

  July 1986

  6·7

  23·6

  22·6

  April 1987

  6·5

  22·7

  21·7

  April 1988

  5·9

  21·5

  20·6

  April 1989

  5·4

  20·8

  19·9

  April 1990

  4·9

  20·4

  19·6

  April 1991

  4·8

  20·9

  20·0

  1 Date used is month of uprating for the year in question.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of pensioners who are in receipt of housing benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In May 1990, there were 2,067,000 housing benefit cases in Great Britain where either the claimant, or the partner, or both were aged 60 or over.

  Source: Housing Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample May 1990.

DEFENCE

  Women Employees
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women are employed in each of the top three civil servant grades in his Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  At present, none. My Department did not recruit women into the fast stream until 1971 and those in the first intakes have yet to attain the most senior positions.

  RNAD Ernesettle
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends announcing his decision about the future of RNAD Ernesettle; and if he will make a statement.
  147
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I shall announce a decision after giving full consideration to the representations made by the trade unions and other interested parties.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the competitive tendering process.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I believe that competition in the procurement of defence equipment has been successful in providing value for money both to my Department and to the taxpayer. This assessment is supported by the Committee of Public Accounts in its recent report on "Initiatives in Defence Procurement".

  Diversification
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about diversification in the defence industry.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Decisions affecting the future of a company, including its product lines, are best left to the commercial judgment of its management.

  Peace-keeping Forces
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account he has taken of future United Kingdom involvement in European and United Nations peace-keeping forces in determining the reorganisation of British regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The size and structure of Britain's Army for the 1990s has been determined in the light of a thorough assessment of its likely future commitments.

  Horses (Ceremonial Duties)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on procuring additional horses for ceremonial purposes during the past year; from which sources the horses were procured; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of £170,000 was spent in 1990–91 on horses purchased from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. About 55 horses are purchased each year to replace those which are retired from active duty.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the military effectiveness of individual units is one of the factors he is taking into account in deciding the fate of Territorial Army battalions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. There is no objective definition of military effectiveness, which is therefore not a suitable criterion to use in formulating such decisions.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role and size of the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made on 10 December at columns 733–48.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, when he next meets the Secretary General of NATO, he will discuss with him the implications of a moratorium on nuclear testing.

  Mr. King
  I last met the Secretary General of NATO at the NATO Defence Planning Committee in Brussels on 12 and 13 December.

  Scottish Regiments
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current total numbers of regiments recruited in Scotland and the projected numbers after the envisaged cutbacks in the number of battalions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 12 regiments from the Infantry, Royal Armoured Corps and Royal Artillery who recruit from Scotland. Following restructuring there will be 10. Other arms and services are drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

  Property Sales
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much Ministry of Defence property has been sold in the last five years; and what value was received for it.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the five years to 1990–91, the last year for which records are complete, the Ministry of Defence sold its freehold interest in land totalling 7,280 acres, and 8,073 service and civilian dwellings which, taken together, generated receipts totalling £454 million.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions Ministers and officials of his Department have had with their Libyan counterparts over the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Sleeping Accommodation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total of unused sleeping accommodation on Ministry of Defence premises in the Greater London area and surrounding counties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for reductions in personnel and vessels in the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our plans to move to a smaller and better equipped Navy remain as set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991. We will move to these lower force levels while introducing newer and more capable vessels. Navy manpower will reduce from the present total requirement of 63,000 to around 55,000 by the mid-1990s.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the medical service of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital is for civilians.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  About 60 per cent of patients treated in 1990 were civilians (including service dependants).

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Her Majesty's Government first learned of the military testing role of the Al-Atheer site in Iraq.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Al-Atheer site was visited by the second (22 June to 3 July 1991) and fourth (27 July to 10 August 1991) nuclear inspections teams. The sixth nuclear inspection team (22 to 30 September 1991) confirmed the linkage between Al-Atheer and the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the vessels currently in service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, giving the date of construction and the life expectancy of each vessel.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The names and construction completion dates of the ships currently in service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are listed below.

  Ship

  Completion date

  Olwen

  1965

  Olna

  1966

  Olmeda

  1965

  Grey Rover

  1970

  Blue Rover

  1970

  Gold Rover

  1974

  Black Rover

  1974

  Brambleleaf

  1976

  Bayleaf

  1982

  Orangeleaf

  1982

  Oakleaf

  1981

  Resource

  1967

  Regent

  1967

  Fort Grange

  1978

  Fort Austin

  1979

  Sir Bedivere

  1967

  Sir Geraint

  1967

  Sir Percivale

  1968

  Sir Tristram

  11965

  Sir Galahad

  1987

  Argus

  21988

  Diligence

  21984

  Notes:

  1Rebuilt in 1985.

  2 RFA in-service date after conversion from commercial use.

  All RFA vessels are maintained to Department of Transport and Lloyd's survey standards and their service life expectancy is kept under regular review. It is not our policy to provide details on the life expectancy of individual vessels.

  Naval Procurement
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which major naval procurement decisions are due in(a) the next three months, (b) the next six months and (c) the next financial year.
  150
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  On current plans we hope to make announcements on the order of further type 23 frigates, and on our procurement plans for an aviation support ship early next year. We plan to place the order for the fourth Trident submarine, subject to the satisfactory outcome of negotiations.

  HMS Challenger
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in relation to the shipping companies or others bidding for HMS Challenger; and what terms have been agreed to by his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 8 July at column 285. The position is unchanged.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the number of Her Majesty's forces from whom he expects to receive requests for financial assistance in relation to housing finance in relation to the decline in numbers arising from "Options for Change", the proportion of these in Scotland, the total sums involved and the Scottish proportion, and information of the relationship between his Department and relevant local authorities in order to overcome the problems arising from service personnel leaving the forces in considerable numbers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not possible to predict the number or geographical distribution of those leaving the armed forces over the next few years who might seek such assistance.

  My Department is liaising closely with the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office concerning the problems which may be faced by those service personnel leaving the forces as a result of restructuring.

  Army Resources, York
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to inspect Army resources in York.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend visited units in north Yorkshire last month, although not York itself.

SCOTLAND

  Stonyetts Hospital
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of responding to the petitioners and others who made representations against the closure of Stonyetts hospital in terms of(a) administration and personnel, (b) stationery and (c) postage; and if he will indicate whether the latter was first or second class.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:(a) £3,796; (b) £318 and (c) £1,350.

  Of the 7,401 responses, only 130 were issued by first class post.

  Oak Trees
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Forestry Commission's policy on giving grants for the growing of traditional English oak, Quercus robur; and what proposals the European Commission has made on genetic purity of tree species.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: The Forestry Commission pays a higher rate of grant for the planting or regeneration of broadleaved species, including Quercus robur. In ancient semi-natural woodlands, the commission will grant-aid the establishment only of species which are appropriate to the ecology of the site; this will often include Quercus robur.

  EC directive No. 66/404 introduced arrangements for the registration of sources of good quality seed with the aim of improving the genetic quality of trees being used within the Community. EC directive No. 71/161 requires that tree seed offered for sale must have less than 1 per cent. impurities, which includes seed from another species. There are, however, derogations from these requirements in favour of the United Kingdom which permit the collection and planting of acorns from non-registered stands of native oak.

  Cetaceans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on the establishment of a programme for the retrieval of carcases of stranded small cetaceans in Scotland to conduct post-mortems on these animals and to analyse tissue samples for contaminants.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: A contract, funded by the Department of the Environment, has been offered to the veterinary investigation service of the Scottish Agricultural College. The co-ordinator for the programme of retrieval of carcases and research on stranded small cetaceans in Scotland is expected to take up post early in the new year.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what work is being carried out by his Department to investigate the status of small cetaceans and the threats facing them; and how much money has been allocated to this work each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: The Department's scientists work closely with other researchers in the United Kingdom and take part in international groups such as the ICES study group on seals and small cetaceans. A number of groups are funding research into the status of the bottle-nosed dolphin colony in the Moray firth. The Government's own effort will he increased in 1992 with the appointment of a co-ordinator on strandings of cetaceans in Scotland and introduction of new arrangements for voluntary reporting of accidental capture of cetaceans by fishermen. Much of the Department's work is ad hoc, when strandings or accidental captures occur, and detailed costings of this effort are not available.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what budget has been allocated to the analysis of contaminant levels in stranded small cetaceans; and which body or institution will be conducting this work.
  152
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: Research on levels and significance of contaminants in small cetaceans is undertaken by Scottish Office scientists as part of a wider programme of studies on contaminants in the aquatic environment. Additional work on stranded or accidentally captured cetaceans will be undertaken next year and reports and analyses of strandings in Scotland will be co-ordinated through funds provided by DOE. A new system for fishermen to report, voluntarily, accidental capture of cetaceans is also being introduced. The full costs of this work will depend on the number of carcases reported and retrieved for analysis.

  Glenesk Foods, Brechin
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the financial consequences for the local economy of the closure of the Glenesk Foods Ltd. factory in Brechin; and what action he intends to take.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: The information received by my Department from HL Foods indicates that the Glenesk Foods Ltd. factory in Brechin is not faced with complete closure. HL Foods has decided to cease the factory's canning operations but will continue to produce ready meals at the site. Such matters are best left to the commercial judgment of the company concerned.

  The local enterprise company, Scottish Enterprise Tayside, is actively involved in the soft fruit and vegetable industries in Tayside through a number of initiatives. The enterprise company has already held meetings with those involved at Glenesk Foods to establish the likely effect on soft fruit suppliers and to develop, in partnership with others, an action plan to minimise the effect of the job losses. The full range of Employment Service activities will also be available to assist those who have lost their jobs to gain employment.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers in Scotland have applied for the set-aside scheme for 1991–92; how many hectares of land are involved; what was the total expenditure for set-aside schemes for each year since 1988; how many farmers benefited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: A total of 131 farmers have applied to enter the one-year set-aside scheme for 1991–92, proposing to set aside a total of 2,345 hectares; 122 farmers have applied to enter into an agreement under the five-year set-aside scheme, with effect from I October 1991, proposing to set aside a total of 4,542 hectares.

  Claims made and expenditure incurred on the five-year set-aside scheme are as follows:

  Set-aside year

  Number of claims

  Expenditure £

  1988–89

  364

  2,312,558

  1989–90

  529

  3,522,265

  Claims for the 1990–91 year, ended 30 September 1991, are currently being processed. It is estimated that 658 claims will be paid, amounting in total to £4,670,000.
  153
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which crops were proposed for each acre of agreed set-aside land for each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: No agricultural crops may be produced on set-aside land. A green plant cover must be established on land set-aside as fallow, by sowing or by allowing the naturally occurring vegetation to regenerate. No plant species are prescribed for sown plant cover.

  Under the non-agricultural use option, set-aside land may be used to produce hay for horses or to grow crops intended as cover for game birds in a commercial shooting enterprise. Such cover crops must include a mixture of appropriate species and may not be harvested. No records are kept of the specific areas used for hay or game crops under this option.

  Helicopter Companies
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the regulations governing foreign ownership of British passenger fixed-wing airlines apply to British passenger helicopter companies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no such regulations. However, under section 65(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, if the Civil Aviation Authority is not satisfied that an applicant for an air transport licence is either a United Kingdom national or a body specified in section 65(3), it must refuse to grant a licence unless the Secretary of State for Transport gives his consent. Similarly, under section 66(3) of the Act, if the CAA has reason to believe that the holder of a licence is no longer either a United Kingdom national or a body specified in section 65(3), it has a duty to inform the Secretary of State accordingly and, if he so directs, revoke the licence. Sections 65(3) and 66(3) of the 1982 Act apply both to passenger fixed-wing aircraft and to passenger helicopter companies.

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

Vehicle Thefts
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering any action to help curb the rising number of thefts of motor vehicles in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill in another place last month. It completed all its stages on 9th December. The Bill proposes tough measures against those who take cars and drive them dangerously, or who cause injury or damage. My right honourable friend has also engaged in a series of meetings with leading car manufacturers in order to encourage them to make further improvements to car security.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. I am sure that all noble Lords and those outside who are concerned will be thankful that the Government are showing such resolve in this direction. Perhaps I may ask one specific question about car theft. It relates to the documentation of vehicles. Is the noble Earl aware that as a matter of business among certain criminal elements in the car trade, there is the practice of purchasing from insurance companies the wrecks of write-offs which include the documentation of the cars? The log book is now called the vehicle registration document. The documents are even more valuable than the remains of the car. People steal vehicles in order to obtain parts so they can reassemble a written-off car to match the documents. Is there some way in which the Government can encourage insurance companies not to release these documents? Better still, perhaps they can persuade the vehicle licensing authorities to recall the documents and scrap them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an interesting point. I shall look into that. I have no information at the moment about what the process is. However, if there is a way of preventing people from buying vehicle registration documents and using them for the wrong purposes, I shall certainly look into it.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, considering the rapid passage of the Bill through another place, why has there been a delay in introducing it to this House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, those of your Lordships who were here until one o'clock this morning will realise that the Parliamentary programme is fairly congested without making it even more so.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while the penalties for taking cars may be increased, in practice a great number of cars are taken by juveniles? On the one hand, we put up the penalties; but, on the other hand, the Home Office and others—whoever they may be—make it almost impossible to punish youngsters. They cannot be fined because they have no money, and they cannot be sent to prison. Some youngsters are sent to an institution but when they come out they steal straightaway—and nothing can be done.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that this is a dilemma. We have to keep young offenders out of prison; but also action must be taken against them. Where they are very dangerous, they can be subjected to some form of detention.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the first part of his Answer is exceedingly important? It was a very welcome statement that the British motor manufacturers are interested in trying to find some system where cars can be made much more secure. Is it possible for the Government to keep in touch with the motor manufacturers? Peradventure the Government might be able to help the manufacturers to carry out the research that is required in attempting to make cars more secure.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, found my Answer important and interesting. I like to think that that is a common facet of my answers. My right honourable friend keeps in touch with the car manufacturers. He met them on 11th December, and progress was made over matters with regard to the introduction of deadlocks on new cars and extending the use of visible vehicle identification numbers; and, most importantly, accelerating the development and the introduction of effective immobilising systems. My right honourable friend is due to meet them again at about Easter time.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister tell us when we can expect results from this series of meetings, which we greatly approve? We are grateful that the Government are conducting them. How long is it likely to be before something surfaces?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, like most of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that is almost impossible to answer. It is a question of discussing with manufacturers what they can do and then the manufacturers being able to put it into practice. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, shakes his head. If manufacturers are trying to improve the form of locking system on the car, that is very much a mechanical matter and depends on the manufacturing capabilities.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl found my question impossible. Let me try and rephrase it. Are the talks going well? Are the motor manufacturers being helpful? If they are, what suggestions which the Government are putting to them are they being helpful about? If they are not being helpful, what are the Government's suggestions which they are being unhelpful about?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a far clearer question. If only the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would make his original questions as clear as his supplementary ones, that would be a great help. He asked six questions, and I shall answer the first three. Yes, the meetings are being successful. Yes, the motor manufacturers are being constructive, and yes, we continue to expect more meetings.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, are not the Government barking up the wrong tree in getting the manufacturers to do this? Does he not agree that as soon as systems are introduced the thieves get to know them? The answer is for every individual to have his own peculiar arrangement on his car. I have one and I challenge anyone to start my car.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if my noble friend will be good enough to tell me the details of what he puts on his car, I shall see that I put it on mine too.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the considerable number of schemes based in the community and run in several instances by the police in collaboration with volunteers, the probation service and others, which give young offenders found guilty of motor vehicle offences the opportunity to satisfy their abiding passion on vehicle maintenance and vehicle driving in safe areas? Such schemes are already paying dividends in discouraging young people guilty of car crimes from persisting in that dangerous activity.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that point. Such schemes are an important part of trying to keep young offenders away from offending while at the same time meeting their desire to mess about with cars. The Government encourage local probation services, the police, voluntary groups and others to work effectively to counter motor offending. At the moment expenditure amounts to about £200,000 a year.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that during the war it was standard practice to pull the regulator out of the magneto and put it in one's pocket? Modern cars do not have either a magneto or a distributor. Surely, however, a modern alternative can be devised so that cars are easily immobilised by the owner.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. Distributor caps have gone from modern motor cars. However, the noble Lord can always uncork the battery and put that into his pocket if he so wishes.

ERM: Effect of Membership
2.45 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have analysed the effect of membership of the exchange rate mechanism on base rates in the United Kingdom in the light of estimates by Greenwell Montagu and other City
1184
experts that, had the United Kingdom not joined the mechanism, the base rate would now be 7 rather than 10.5 per cent.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government keep all aspects of economic policy under review. It is possible that without the anti-inflationary creditability gained by ERM membership, interest rates might have to be higher.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that not wholly unexpected reply. Does he not agree that real interest rates of 6.4 per cent.—21 times higher than in the United States—sustained over a long period are without precedent, and that the cost is being borne by those who are losing their jobs, the owners of small businesses which are going to the wall and those whose houses are being repossessed? Is it not the case that because of our membership of the ERM, the unemployed, the bankrupt and the dispossessed are effectively paying the price of German reunification?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not agree with anything that the noble Lord puts forward in his supplementary question. His Question assumes, without saying so, that we would have to devalue to get interest rates down to the figure he quotes. It is quite clear that outside the ERM the Government could not have let the pound fall by cutting interest rates. A firm exchange rate would be part of an anti-inflationary policy whether we were inside or outside the ERM.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is not the message from this Question rather confusing? Was it not the City that urged the Government to join the ERM when some of us were telling them that it was not such a good idea? Who are we to take heed of in the light of the Answer to this Question?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: So far as I recall, my Lords, the City was urging us to join the ERM, the CBI was urging us to join the ERM and, in the end, even the party opposite was urging us to join the ERM.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when we joined the exchange rate mechanism we put too high a value on the pound? The pound is grossly overvalued on the exchanges at the present time and thus causing accumulating damage to the volume of our exports. To maintain the rate of exchange within the ERM we are forced to keep interest rates up in order to hold hot money here. The results of high interest rates are already with us in terms of continuing deflation in this country which makes 1931 look like a peaceful dream. Those high rates are responsible for bankruptcies, unemployment and homelessness.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong, although I admit that he was not one of those who favoured joining the ERM when we did. The rate at which we joined—the central rate of 2.95 deutschmarks—was close to the average real rate over

1185
the past decade. Since joining the ERM, in the year to the third quarter the value of our exports to EC members has risen by 8 per cent.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that had we not joined the ERM, inflation, which has gone up this month, would have gone up even further?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since we joined the ERM inflation has more than halved. It is now within 0.1 per cent. of the German inflation rate. Early next year, we should have an inflation rate lower than that of Germany—the first time that has happened for many years.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I speak as one who has always been in favour of joining the ERM and who agrees with the Government on the issue. However, in view of the fact that the Government do not blame membership of the ERM for the present high interest rates, does that mean that they accept that their management of the economy is responsible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since joining the ERM, interest rates have come down on eight separate occasions by 4.5 per cent. To industry that is worth something in the region of £6 billion; to the family with an average £30,000 mortgage it is worth £70 a month.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on the fact that the digital clocks in the Chamber have been repaired. However, is it some sort of omen that the colour of the figures has changed from a greenish sort of blue to red?
To return to the Question, is the noble Lord not aware that by joining the ERM and sticking so closely to the limits, we have lost all flexibility in dealing with our monetary policy? Does he not recognise that what we have done is to go back to the gold standard which caused such trouble and the depression of 1929–31? Does he further recognise—and will he agree—that unless something is done, that is precisely, as my noble friend said, what will happen over the next five years?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with anything that the noble Lord said for the reasons given in my previous answers. Whether one is in the ERM or not, one still has to have disciplines against inflationary pressures. They must be there whether one is within or without.
Lord Peston: My Lords, noble Lords seem to have the advantage of me. I must confess that I have not seen this great work of economics by Greenwell Montagu or the other City experts. Has the Minister read the documents? If so, can he tell me what they say would happen to the inflation rate if the interest rate was lowered to 7 per cent. and what they say would happen to the rate of exchange? I find the whole matter quite mystifying. I should like some enlightenment on what it is that we are supposed to be discussing.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, so would I. I understand that the forecast mentioned in the noble
1186
Lord's Question has not been published; it has merely been spoken of by an economist at Greenwell Montagu. There is no published document to which one can refer. However, I understand that reference is made to the need to devalue to achieve this rate of interest.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is bizarre that we are spending valuable time in your Lordships' House discussing an unpublished piece of hearsay. I believe that the Minister said that the implication in the Question was devaluation. But is there any inflation indication in the hearsay? In other words, whatever the gossip is, can we hear all of it so that we can prepare for it in the future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not table the Questions; I merely try to answer them. I have no further information on what has been said. The noble Lord must ask the noble Lord, Lord Monson, what he knows.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the Minister confirm what his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day; namely, that the Government intend to move to the narrow bands? Further, can he tell the House how soon that is likely to happen?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can confirm that my right honourable friend merely repeated what he had said on earlier occasions: that it remained our longer-term intention to move to the narrow band and that there was no question of devaluing the pound as part of a move to the narrow band.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, as there is no intention of devaluing, and as we wish to stay in the exchange rate mechanism—at least, most of us wish to do so—what is the Government's policy for overcoming this real depreciation of sterling against the deutschmark by over 20 per cent. since 1987? How does that affect our competitiveness?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the one hand I am being advised that we should devalue in order to make us more competitive against the deutschmark; on the other hand the noble Lord rightly says that we should not devalue to make ourselves more competitive. Since we joined the exchange rate mechanism we have, by and large, been steady against the deutschmark.

GCSE Examinations: Coursework
2.55 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change the part played by coursework in the GCSE examinations.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science recently announced the Government's decision to reduce the amount of GCSE credit gained through coursework and to increase the extent of external control over it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply. However, can she explain why the decision to change the GCSE was taken without consultation with teachers, parents, governors, examination boards, national professional teaching bodies, employers or LEAs? It has caused widespread anger and consternation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government did consult their examinations council. They also acted on the basis of a number of reports which were brought to their attention. HMI said that there were emerging problems such as the varying amounts of help given to pupils by the school and/or other adults as well as difficulties encountered by marking, standardising and moderating. Indeed, the examinations council itself, SEAC, identified inconsistencies in coursework markings, unclear and sometimes conflicting coursework guidance being sent to examination centres and an absence of arrangements for co-ordinating the standards of coursework. There were so many problems that I believe my right honourable friend has responded very positively.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, while it is generally recognised that there have been advantages in coursework for GCSE, many problems have also been identified in addition to those which she mentioned. I refer to the strain on pupils in having 100 per cent. coursework and also the real problems caused by the fact that some pupils perhaps come from advantaged homes with more parental support than others. Therefore, the shift in the direction of a reduction in the amount of coursework, and an appropriate balance with unseen examinations at the end of the course, is actually educationally desirable.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, apart from the issue of academic rigour, my noble friend raises an important point. Courses which have 100 per cent. coursework seriously disadvantage young people from homes which do not provide back up and support. It is not always possible to tell who has done the work. When we consider the effectiveness of the system it is most important that we should think about the children and not the indulgence of the teachers.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Government please stop messing around with the education system? Will they please leave the teachers and the schools to get on with their job? Do they not realise that they are destroying the education system and knocking all the life out of it? When will they stop doing so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him. The party of noble Lords opposite did a great deal of talking about the problem but did not address it in practice. We now have a very firm framework in the national curriculum which I understand enjoys all-party support. We have a system of systematic assessment and testing. Having been advised that a great deal of coursework was advisable we realised that, in practice, that is not so. Academic rigour is
1188
important. A balance between coursework and summative testing at the end of the course is important.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister realise that all she said in her last answer but one, and what her noble friend Lady Cox said, has been challenged by very reputable people in the education world? The noble Baroness mentioned the Schools Examination and Assessment Council, but does she know that the maths committee of that council is very unhappy about the decision to cut the coursework and that it would prefer 70 per cent. of coursework to remain? Is she further aware that four major mathematical associations have written to the Secretary of State begging him to reconsider the decision? It is not all one way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is interesting to note that the noble Baroness chooses to cite the example of mathematics. The increase of coursework in mathematics has not increased the number of young people taking the subject; nor, indeed, has it increased the academic rigour of the subject. I believe that the balance suggested by my right honourable friend is right.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister make available to the House the advice of the Schools Examination and Assessment Council? It is the normal practice to make available advice to the Secretary of State from the council so that others may read it. For some reason that practice has not been followed in this case. It would be most helpful if the Minister could make it available.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, HMI reports are published documents. We are talking about observations that the inspectors have made from visiting the schools. There are imagined problems. As a school governor and a parent of children who have recently been through schools I know that there are weaknesses in having a high proportion of coursework for young people without there being a large element of summative testing at the end of the course.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Will the Minister answer my question? She completely failed to do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said that inspectors had made observations. We know that they also come from the public because the department has had correspondence about the subject. I said that the examinations council also identified inconsistencies. I shall have to ask my right honourable friend whether he can refer the noble Baroness to documents which codify the evidence.

Cigarettes: Tax
3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to take any action following the recommendation of the Health Education Authority that the tax on cigarettes should be substantially increased.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, taxation is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is clear evidence, however, that price affects the consumption of tobacco, and we were happy to see a substantial increase in price in the last Budget. The Department of Health will continue to ensure that the Chancellor is kept fully informed of the health arguments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if people practise a habit which is certain to increase the costs of the National Health Service they should be obliged to contribute towards those costs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. My understanding is that they do, and that we have seen the result of that recognition.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, on cigarette taxation, is the Minister aware that in Spain the tax is £16 per 1,000 cigarettes; in France, it is £31 per 1,000 cigarettes; and in the United Kingdom it is £74 per 1,000? With the establishment of the internal market is there not likely to be a flood of cheap, continental imports? Secondly, is she aware that they will be cheap, high-tar content cigarettes which are much more dangerous and unhealthy than the low-tar British cigarette? Although we all agree that youngsters should not be smoking at all, the fact is that they are. Is she aware that the Government's present tax policy will further endanger the health of those youngsters and the unemployed, who will be going for the cheap smoke? Should we not try to avoid that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am very much aware of the figures quoted by the noble Lord, which is why we intend to do everything in our power to keep the price differential in favour of making consumers think twice before they smoke. The scare stories about the completion of the single market which have been quoted are based on an unrealistic assumption about legal personal imports and smuggling.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome and thank the Minister for what she has said. At a time when more and more children are starting to smoke—replacements for the 300 adults who die every day from smoking—does she agree that the two most important things to do are, as she has said, first, to increase the price as a deterrent; and, secondly, to end the advertising of tobacco products?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, a package of measures is necessary to discourage smoking,
1190
especially among the young. We have focused on the education and preventive front in many of our campaigns. We have also focused on the price effect. We believe that the strict controls which our voluntary agreements bring to advertising are adequate.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that in the last Budget the Government increased the tax on cigarettes by 15 per cent.; and that we are now the country with the second highest taxes on cigarettes in the EC—only Denmark beats us? Will she not fall for the argument that banning advertising somehow stops cigarette smoking? It does not. It has not done so in the Scandinavian countries. It is higher in the Scandinavian countries where they have banned advertising than it is anywhere else. Will she not be led astray and not bend to the arguments coming from Brussels, the BMA or anywhere else, but stick to the voluntary agreements which seek to achieve what has been put forward from the other side of the House?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said, advertising is one of a number of considerations that have to be applied in our attempt to decrease the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco products. We believe that the efforts we are making through our voluntary agreements are suitable and adequate.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be unseemly for the Government to appear to be taking orders from a quango such as the Health Education Authority, especially as the statistics upon which the authority's case is based are highly suspect, as emerged during Questions in the House only the other day?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the HEA document underlines the terrible health consequences, of which we are all aware, which result from smoking and the enormous costs that that creates for the health service. In the Government's Green Paper The Health of the Nation, we seek to reduce the proportion of people in this country who smoke: for men, from 33 per cent. to 22 per cent.; and for women, from 30 per cent. to 21 per cent. by the year 2000. Strict measures are required to achieve those targets.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Canada, following a large increase in tobacco duty, there has also followed a large increase in the smuggling of cheaper cigarettes from the United States? Is that not likely to happen if the Government go too far and overtax cigarettes?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware of the problem. We shall have the necessary safeguards.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the most extraordinary paradox that is often put about? If it is true that cigarette advertising does not encourage the purchase of cigarettes, is it not the biggest waste of resources in our economy that we could possibly imagine? Does the Minister agree that it would probably be a good idea to divert those resources elsewhere?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is a matter for the industry to decide. We are convinced of the importance of the obvious health warnings which all advertisements have to contain.
Lord Rea: My Lords, would not it be logical for Her Majesty's Government to remove the cost of tobacco products from the RPI, as certain other countries have done, as only one person in three in this country is now a smoker? Does she agree that that would allow the duty on cigarettes to be increased without affecting inflation, the calculation of which depends upon the RPI?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the RPI is supposed to be a representative measure of consumer prices and there is therefore no reason to exclude tobacco products.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1991, the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1991 and the Broadcasting (Programme Contractors' Additional Payments) Order 1991 will be taken.

Business of the House: Debate, 18th December
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, your Lordships will remember that yesterday a Motion was agreed applying a five-hour time limit to tomorrow's debate on the Maastricht Summit. The speakers' list has grown considerably since then. In the light of that, further discussions have taken place through the usual channels, and what I would now suggest to your Lordships is that we should have a six-hour rather than a five-hour debate. That would mean that each speaker would be allocated about seven minutes. I further propose that in order to have the vote at about eight o'clock, which was the time expected by your Lordships, the House should meet at 1.30 p.m.
I shall be tabling a Motion tonight to change the time limit on the debate from five hours to six hours. That Motion will be taken in the House tomorrow immediately after Starred Questions and before the debate. I shall ensure that all noble Lords who have Starred Questions tabled for tomorrow and who have put their names down for the debate are informed of that change in case they are not in the Chamber today.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does that not confirm what I said yesterday? It is premature to have the debate at this time and it is restricted to six hours only, whereas in another place they are having two days, one of which will run on till 2 a.m. Even at this late stage, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House
1192
reconsider his position and propose that we should have a two-day debate—there are 47 noble Lords wishing to speak in the debate—after the Recess when the arguments can be adduced after proper and mature consideration of the issues involved?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it would be very rash indeed to assume that postponing the debate would cause fewer people to speak. The chances are that considerably more would wish to speak. In those circumstances, the business management problems might grow. All noble Lords know the constraints on time. It has been agreed through the usual channels that there should be a one-day rather than two-day debate. In those circumstances I cannot offer to your Lordships the hope that we could give a second day.
Of course, I am in your Lordships' hands as concerns the timing and length of the debate tomorrow. However, it has been discussed through the usual channels. We only arrived at the time of six hours because it seemed to be for the convenience of most people. Obviously, we shall never get it perfectly right but I repeat that it has been carefully discussed. That is the conclusion to which the usual channels have come.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while I readily agree with what my noble friend has just said, there seems to be one exception. He said that noble Lords are well aware of the constraints of time. That seems to fly in the face of experience.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am tempted to agree with my noble friend, but as Christmas is coming I shall be restrained.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Leader of the House tell us what objection there is to holding the vote at nine o'clock?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the difficulty is that for a number of days noble Lords have become used to the idea that if there is a Division it will be at eight o'clock. We have to bear in mind what noble Lords had been given to expect. That is why we believe that it would be inconvenient rather than convenient to change the time of the ending of the debate.

Osteopaths Bill [H.L.]
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a body to be known as the General Osteopathic Council with the functions of promoting and regulating the practice of the profession of osteopathy and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Walton of Detchant.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Judicial Standing Orders
3.12 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Motion seeks the approval of the House to amendments to the Judicial Standing Orders which are intended to give effect to certain procedural changes which have been agreed by my noble and learned friends the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
The first amendment abolishes the order of service. This is the order made by the House which the appellants are required to serve on the respondents ordering them to lodge a case in answer to the petition of appeal within a certain time limit. Our proposal is that cases for both the appellants and the respondents should be replaced by a joint statement of facts and issues and that the case proper should become a less formal document lodged nearer the time of the hearing of the appeal. If this change is adopted, the formal order of service becomes unnecessary, and I therefore propose that it should be discontinued.
Amendment No. 2 deals with exemptions from the requirements to pay security for costs and brings the terms of the standing order into line with current practice. The other amendments are consequential upon the replacement of the cases with the joint statement of facts and issues.
I should say that representatives of the legal profession were consulted before it was decided to recommend these changes, the main object of which is to achieve a more effective use of judicial time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the following amendments be made to the Judicial Standing Orders of the House:

1. Leave out Standing Order V

Standing Order VI
2. At end insert
("(b) to appellants in appeals under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, or (c) to a Minister or Government department")

Standing Order VII
3. In paragraph (1), leave out ("Case") and insert ("Statement") and leave out ("(or as soon before, at the option of either party, as all the Cases and the Appendix shall have been lodged)")
4. In paragraph (2), leave out ("alone, in his Case or in the Appendix thereto") and insert ("in the Appendix")
5. In paragraph (3), leave out ("that the Case be signed by one or more counsel") and insert ("that the Statement be signed by one or more counsel for each party")

Standing Order VIII
6. Leave out ("Cases") and insert ("the Statement")
Standing Order IX
7. Leave out ("V")
Standing Order XI
8. Leave out ("V")

Standing Order XIV—Schedule
9. Leave out ("Order of Service")
10. Leave out
("Cases lodged, including laying Case on the Table, entering Appeal in Cause List, Bar Fee, and Counsel attending.
Joint Case lodged, including laying Case on the Table, entering Appeal in Cause List, Bar Fee, and Counsel attending.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the explanations he has given for the amendments now before us which might otherwise have left a certain sense of mystery.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welsh Development Agency Bill
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Report received.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Code of practice on performance indicators
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall within three months of the date of Royal Assent lay before both Houses of Parliament for approval by resolution a Code of Practice on Performance Indicators with respect to the area of each Commission to which duties are given under section 1 below.
(2) The Codes referred to in subsection (1) above shall specify the manner in which the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission shall each carry out their functions under sections 1–4 below.
(3) The Secretary of State shall undertake a review of the operation of each Code not less than bi-annually from the date on which it comes into effect, and may lay before Parliament for approval any revisions he considers appropriate.
(4) The continuation in force of any Code shall be subject to its being approved by resolution of each House of Parliament at intervals of not more than five years.
(5) Before preparing any Code or making any alteration in it, the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons, as appear to him to be concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that on this occasion noble Lords have had adequate opportunity to escape the abstract and tedious debate which I am sure they are convinced will take place on the Bill. I shall try to make the debate a little less abstract on this amendment than on some occasions in the past.
The amendment concerns the responsibilities of the Audit Commission in carrying out the wishes of the Government on the Citizen's Charter. It is not in any sense a wrecking amendment; it seeks to improve the way in which the commission considers the performance indicators and suggests that it would be appropriate for the commission to establish a code of practice on performance indicators comparable with the one it has on the conduct of local authority audits.
The 1982 Local Government Finance Act provided that the Audit Commission which it established should have a code of practice on the actions of auditors to local authorities. It provided that that code of practice should be published and widely discussed. Section 14 of the 1982 Act provided that it should,
"embody what appears to the Commission to be the best professional practice with respect to the standards, procedures and techniques, to be adopted by auditors".
The section also stated:
"The code shall not come into force until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, and its continuation in force shall be subject to its being so approved at intervals of not more than five years".
I know that many noble Lords are understandably cynical about some of the order-making procedures to which this House is subjected. Many orders—for example, those simply uprating amounts of money chargeable under the legislation—are presented to us to which there can be no possible objection. They are dealt with rapidly in a dinner interval and do not add much to parliamentary control of legislation.
I suggest that the order which the Audit Commission has to have approved every five years for the code of practice for local authority audit does not fall into that category. We read that code of practice carefully. When there are significant changes—and the Bill provides that there can be such changes during the five year interval—we examine them and on occasion there can be a sensible debate.
This is a good example of parliamentary control and one which could well be applied in the case of performance indicators. The real danger about performance indicators, as the Bill provides for them, is that they will be abstract, ill thought out and over-simplified. They will not be subject to adequate consideration by those who know about the performance of local authorities; that is, the providers and above all the users of local authority services.
At the last moment of the Committee stage, that is at one minute past midnight on 5th December this year, the Audit Commission published a useful paper on performance indicators. I welcome a number of the
1196
provisions in that paper. The Audit Commission reiterated what the Government have said on a number of occasions: that it is not the commission's role to set the standards. That is the role of local authorities. The Audit Commission acknowledged the difficulty of the task. It acknowledged the justice of many of the comments we had made in Committee only a day or two before the commission published its paper. The Audit Commission's paper refers to the difficulty of reconciling a number of potentially conflicting objectives. I shall illustrate what that means in practice in a minute.
The Audit Commission's paper recognises the need to involve local government, local government associations, individual authorities and other organisations—notably those representing consumers—in the process of establishing performance indicators. There is a welcome recognition in the paper that it is necessary to obtain pragmatic evidence; in other words, to assemble a body of performance indicators which are used by local authorities rather than simply dealing with the matter as a theoretical exercise. However, there are worries about the way in which the Audit Commission is going about this process and, given the remit it has, the way it inevitably has to tackle the process. The Audit Commission has said that there are likely to be 200 separate indicators, of which perhaps 100 would apply to the shire counties.
The Audit Commission has referred to a phenomenon known as a bellwether indicator. Noble Lords who know more about sheep farming than I—that must be nearly every noble Lord present—will know that a bellwether sheep is the sheep who wears a bell that indicates the whereabouts of the whole flock. That phenomenon applied to performance indicators means the single measure, or one or two measures, which summarise a large number of measures which make up the performance indicators; in other words it is a recipe for oversimplification.
I do not believe that there is enough recognition in the Audit Commission's document of the weakness of the statistics of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and of the Audit Commission's own profiles and its own quality exchange. That weakness is acknowledged by those who produce the statistics. I shall try to indicate how the process may work by referring to an example that the Audit Commission has included in its documentation. I refer to the measures for sports centres and pools which are mentioned on the sheet entitled Leisure 4. This is a large document and contains a wide variety of measures.
I shall start with the good news first. The measures proposed by the Audit Commission properly recognise the need for outreach; in other words, the need for a local authority to seek new customers for its leisure centres and its pools and the need to make them accessible to people who would not otherwise have access to them. It is good that the Audit Commission discusses surveying users and developing a marketing strategy: that is, promotion, targeting and charging for sports facilities and activities.
There has not always been enough recognition—not least by local authorities—of the need to find out what users want before entering into grandiose plans to supply what councillors think users might want. There are real difficulties here, however, as there are 23 different measures of measurable performance. There are measures of usage, numbers of attendances, numbers of users whether regular or occasional, numbers of passport holders and other such measures. In summary, there are 23 of these measures, none of which is really identified as being measures of cost, efficiency, economy or quality. I do not understand what is meant by the term, "management costs per square metre, wet/dry".
Is that a measure of cost, or has it something to do with the extent of the measurement which has to be provided for a particular configuration of sports facilities? I can think of all kinds of unfortunate interpretations, but I must avoid doing so. There are real difficulties as regards the complexity of these measures. What will be the bellwether measure? Which is the measure that will stand out and be used in the national performance indicators? Will it be expenditure per thousand of population or expenditure per usage of item of service?
The next item in the Audit Commission's list is cemeteries. Each burial costs £210 in Kensington & Chelsea whereas in Hillingdon it costs £80. Does that mean that one area is more efficient than the other? I doubt that that is the case. I am sure other factors enter into the matter such as the cost of land and the accessibility of land. Those factors are much more likely to affect the cost of burials.
Recently the Sunday Times produced an elaborate and absurd article on the costs of libraries. It was suggested in the article that some libraries were much more cost effective than others. However, no attention was paid to the need or the desire of some library authorities to provide good mobile libraries or libraries for children and hospitals. If such facilities are provided, the cost per book issued is bound to increase. However, that does not mean that the effectiveness of the service provided is decreasing.
The difficulties involved with this matter are great and some of those difficulties are recognised by the Audit Commission. The closer one gets to considering individual services, the more one realises the difficulty associated with proposals of this kind. No one is against Citizen's Charters and no one is against attempting to set standards. However, to attempt to do so on a national basis without taking into account the evidence which is available from those who provide the services and those who use them, would be an act of folly. In proposing that there should be a code of practice on performance indicators, the amendment seeks to ensure we have more realistic standards and more local standards, and that they are properly considered and approved by Parliament. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wish to make one small remark in respect of the noble Lord's comments on burial grounds. I have always been rather fascinated by the fact that my local authority has
1198
passed the management of burial grounds, and everything connected with them, to its leisure and recreation department.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that was not a point that I expected to hear made. Perhaps that illustrates the different ways that different local authorities organise their services. That matter is at the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposes in this amendment. However, I depart from him somewhat in the route he uses to get there. In Committee we spent a great deal of time talking about the need to identify locally agreed performance indicators. While I well understand the anxiety felt about this matter having attended that debate and having read what has been published since our debate occurred, I believe we should do everything possible to assist those indicators to be determined locally.
If there is to be a code of practice which is to be approved by both Houses of Parliament that is more likely to bring about a degree of uniformity than if we allow the diversity that exists in different local authorities to emerge. I know the noble Lord is aiming to achieve that diversity.
I put my name to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke to those amendments, which are grouped with Amendment No. 1. Clearly, if there is to be a code approved by Parliament then the directions should be in accordance with that code, as set out in Amendment No. 2. In particular, Amendment No. 3 proposes that the word "information" be omitted and replaced with "performance indicators" so that what is published is the performance indicators.
We have used that terminology to such an extent that to leave the broad term "information" in the Bill—which has much wider implications than what we have been discussing and what is defined later in the Bill—is misleading and may require rather more of local authorities than we have previously expected of them.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 place some specific new duties on the Secretary of State. I have the highest respect for my right honourable friend, but I do not believe that he would claim to have the expertise to guide the Audit Commission or the Scottish Accounts Commission in these decidedly technical matters. That is why the Bill gives the task to the commissions to carry out according to their expert judgment.
On a number of occasions noble Lords have suggested inserting amendments into the Bill with the intention of requiring the Audit Commission or, although not specifically mentioned by name, the Scottish Accounts Commission, to do or not to do certain things. I have in mind such tasks as to consult specific bodies, to take particular matters into account, to publish or not to publish certain items of information and so on. The amendments would specify how the two commissions are to carry out their performance indicator functions.

1199
I venture to suggest that that approach of closely circumscribing the work of the commissions is misguided in this particular case, and more generally. Your Lordships may recall that the Audit Commission's revised Code of Audit Practice was brought before this House in November 1990. On that occasion there was no question of party Whips and there was all round support for the work of the commission. I believe that the commissions have earned a high level of respect for their work and their manner of setting about it. They have consistently shown themselves both responsible and responsive. I believe that it is misguided to try to nanny them and spell out in detail how they should set about their business. They know their business very well and we should leave them to get on with it.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Audit Commission is obliged to seek the approval of Parliament for its Code of Audit Practice at intervals not exceeding five years but can alter its code between times without reference to Parliament. It is an indication of the Audit Commission's responsible attitude to its duties that it came to Parliament in November 1990, less that three years after the previous occasion (in February 1988), because it considered that its new code, incorporating its duties in respect of the National Health Service, should have the blessing of Parliament.
The Audit Commission has already published a paper setting out in broad terms how it will approach the job of setting performance indicators if the Bill is enacted, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to that paper. I shall arrange for copies of the paper to be laid in the Libraries of both Houses. In that paper the commission again demonstrates how responsibly and how sensibly it does its job. The paper underlines my point that we should trust the commission.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made some interesting points and I hope that he will make those points to the Audit Commission because the commission's paper is a consultative paper. However, the noble Lord's points do not amount to an argument for a code of practice. He referred to complexity. If the commission's initial ideas are too complex the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should say so. However, again, that is not an argument for a code of practice.
Authorities and the commission will not necessarily publish performance indicators. They will publish the information which is essential—basic factual information. Therefore, why is there a need for a code of practice?
In speaking to the amendment the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made a number of references to the commission setting standards. That conflicted with something that he said earlier. It is well established in this House that the Audit Commission will not set standards. It will be for local authorities to do that. The information which is published will relate to what actually happens.
Amendment No. 3 would mean that instead of requiring authorities to publish information the commissions would require them to publish performance indicators. That suggests a change, from
1200
requiring hard information for public consumption—in other words, the facts—to some kind of processed information.
I do not want to suggest that that is necessarily, and in all cases, wrong. There may be times when some processing of raw data is necessary in order for meaningful comparisons to be made or useful conclusions drawn. The Bill as it stands would permit that approach when it was appropriate, but that, I suggest, is something for the Audit Commission to judge. There may also be occasions when it is right to publish the raw information—the basic facts—without dressing them up to make them into "performance indicators". For one thing, with the basic factual information we know we are on solid ground. As soon as any processing is carried out that ground may start to shift below our feet.
The amendments are unduly prescriptive. It is my view that we should trust the Audit Commission to do its work. The amendments imply a lack of confidence in the Audit Commission and Scottish Accounts Commission which is quite uncalled for; and they would entail limiting the commissions' independent judgment in ways which we believe are quite inappropriate. I invite your Lordships to reject the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister will not drive a wedge between me and the Audit Commission that easily. With one breath she suggested that I should submit evidence to the Audit Commission. With another she suggested that the amendment shows a distrust of the Audit Commission. I shall not be trapped in that way. I thought that I had set out—perhaps rather too fully but certainly clearly—the extent to which I welcomed much of what the Audit Commission had to say. I do not welcome its timing, however. It is extremely unfortunate that the Audit Commission's paper on performance indicators should appear after we had completed the Committee stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, there are many valuable points in that paper.
The Minister also failed to convince me that the code of practice is a bad idea. The code of practice is used by the Audit Commission, in slightly different circumstances, as a means of setting standards for audits of local authority finances. It does not set out in detail what the audit shall contain. It is not prescriptive in that way. It seeks to ensure standards of audit. With the amendment we suggest that the Audit Commission should seek to ensure standards of performance indication—if that is the correct noun. The important point is that those standards should be set by the Audit Commission, as an independent body, rather than by the Secretary of State. That is the important distinction.
The difficulty with such issues and with setting performance indicators is the conflict between complexity and understandability. It is a genuine problem which will not be removed simply by saying that we shall let someone else handle it. We seek to ensure that there is parliamentary accountability for the process as well as adequate consultation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. With the leave of the House I should like to say that the noble Lord appeared to refer again to the Audit Commission setting standards and to be worried that the Secretary of State might have a hand in that. The Audit Commission will set yardsticks against which standards are measured. It will be for local authorities to set standards.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that entirely. My reference to setting standards related to the Audit Commission's code of practice for local authority audits. It is true that it is the Government's intention that local authorities should set standards. My difficulty with the way in which the Government seek to implement that is highlighted by the fact that the Minister appears to think that there are such things as hard facts which can be contrasted with what she calls processed facts.
The difficulty here is a universal difficulty. If you have simple facts without any explanation they could no doubt be called hard facts, but they are not very useful. As soon as you try to relate them to each other—that is the significant point; it is the ratios that matter—you start to get into what the Minister calls processed facts and what I would call analysis to make them useful. That is when you get back to the problem that we have always had; namely, the temptation in those circumstances to look for the coin that you have dropped under the nearest lamppost rather than where you dropped it on the grounds that the light is better. That is the temptation with which the Audit Commission will find itself faced and, with the best will in the world, it will find it difficult to get away from that with the remit given to it by the Government.
On this occasion, to satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am prepared to say that we should not pursue the code of practice as a way of pursuing this matter, but the issue that we have raised about performance indicators is so important that although I shall seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1, and do not intend to move Amendment No. 2, I shall ask the House for its opinion on Amendment No. 3. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Publication of information as to standards of performance]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("information") and insert ("performance indicators").
3.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Aylestone, L.

Birk, B.

Banks, L.

Blackstone, B.

1202

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jay, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bottomley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennet, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Listowel, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Crook, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Desai, L.

McNair, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Donoughue, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ennals, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mishcon, L.

Ezra, L.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Foot, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Galpern, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Glenamara, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Rochester, L.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grimond, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stallard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Willis, L.

Jacques, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Dundee, E.

Aldington, L.

Effingham, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Alport, L.

Elton, L.

Amwell, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Arran, E.

Faithfull, B.

Astor, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Balfour, E.

Flather, B.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boardman, L.

Geddes, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bristol, Bp.

Harrowby, E.

Butterworth, L.

Henley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hives, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hood, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hooper, B.

Carnock, L.

Howe, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Chalfont, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Ilchester, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Knollys, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cox, B.

Lawrence, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Layton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Liverpool, Bp.

Digby, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

1203

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Quinton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Renton, L.

Lye11, L.

Renwick, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Rodney, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Seccombe, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Selborne, E.

Mancroft, L.

Sharples, B.

Marlesford, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Slim, V.

Mersey, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Strange, B.

Morris, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mountevans, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Munster, E.

Strathspey, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Nelson, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Newall, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trumpington, B.

Norrie, L.

Ullswater, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Vivian, L.

Palmer, L.

Waddington, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wharton, B.

Peel, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Pender, L.

Windlesham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wise, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wynford, L.

Powis, E.

Prior, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 1, line 12, after ("of") insert ("quality").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert the word "quality" as a point of reference for comparisons in addition to the criteria of cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
In the debate in Committee, considerable anxiety was expressed by Members on all sides that the question of quality should be properly considered at all appropriate stages. In referring to quality as a separate criterion, the Minister said that it was,
"a question of subjectivity versus objectivity".
I agree with her when she went on to say:
"The judgments that will be made upon it at the end of the day will be whether the chosen level of service was delivered economically, efficiently and effectively. Therefore, there will have to be a judgment about the quality and level of service chosen by that authority.—[Official Report, 2½12½91; cols. 21–22.]
The terms cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness are not the same as quality. We on these Benches believe in quality and in our electorate judging us on the quality that is achieved. As the Minister said, it is for local authorities to be judged by their electorates and not to be the sole arbiters of their own quality. It is in order to facilitate that that I move the insertion of this term. Quite simply it is to bring quality as a matter to be judged up to the same level as the other criteria and in particular to allow the local electorates to judge their own authorities on that basis. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. However, I think that noble Lords who come in from the Princes Chamber are very
1204
well aware of the reference to the standing order. I found great difficulty in hearing the noble Baroness because a considerable number of noble Lords were carrying on quite loud conversations in the Chamber. I feel that it is discourteous to a speaker, although I realise that we all do it from time to time when we have to. However, this was a particularly bad example when a number of conversations were being carried on in different parts of the Chamber.
The noble Baroness's amendment follows from points which she made very effectively at Committee stage. It is an economical and effective way to pursue the point and I hope that the Government will accede to the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, noble Lords may like to know that in one of the debates at Committee stage I drew attention to a government circular which had been published a year or two ago in relation to buildings and such. The part of the circular which I quoted mentioned that quality was a paramount consideration. If the Government thought then that quality was a paramount consideration—judging by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, at Committee stage they still do—the word "quality" should be included in the Bill. I support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. In doing so I must say that we are in danger, through this Bill, of treating local authorities as if they were subordinate bodies to government instead of properly elected bodies in their own right. I suppose that it is reasonable to give local electorates some idea of the performance of their local authority, to be set against the performance of other local authorities. Nevertheless I believe that one can go too far down that road.
The fact is that local government is local government and there are local circumstances which make comparisons difficult in some cases. After all, in the last analysis, local government is elected in exactly the same way as are the national government, by universal suffrage. There seem to be no performance indicators in that case, particularly with the present Government.
As I said, I support the amendment. However, I do not want to go too far down the line of constraining local authorities by rules and regulations in such a way that they have no initiative or are not allowed to use their initiative in any way lest they provoke the ire of this or that body.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Bill lists a number of criteria, by reference to which standards of performance will be compared. The amendment seeks the inclusion of another criterion, the criterion of quality. However, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the addition is unnecessary because we shall be making comparisons between standards of performance and there cannot be different standards of performance without some reference to quality.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will welcome my joining forces with him on

1205
some of the comments that he made just now. But it must be a matter for local authorities to determine the standard and quality of the services and then to be judged on those standards by their local electorates. Moreover, the criterion of effectiveness necessarily subsumes judgments of quality.
I hope that the noble Baroness, who made the important point that quality must be a consideration, will agree that in fact it is implicit in all that is written on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the term "effectiveness" is one that we have considered at great length. I accept the Minister's assurance that, according to her reading, the reference subsumes quality. That is not how I understand it. I do not wish to impugn any of those who have been responsible for the drafting, but effectiveness means achieving something that one has set out to do without a reference to quality—it is hard to find synonyms for the word because after all quality is quality—but without the prior exercise of identifying and setting out the quality that is being aimed for.
However, I have no doubt that those responsible for the drafting and the Minister herself are convinced I do not wish to take issue with them on a matter of semantics, if that effectiveness includes the criterion of quality. It is on the record. On the basis that effectiveness includes quality, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 14, leave out from ("performance") to end of line and insert ("determined by different relevant bodies and achieved by such").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I shall base my remarks very much on the welcome words of the Minister at Committee stage and indeed the words of the Audit Commission in the performance indicators paper to which reference has already been made.
The Audit Commission says that it is not the commission's role to set standards but simply to specify how standards should be measured. That statement was repeated in Committee and again this afternoon by the Minister. We welcome it. The difficulty is that the Bill does not say it in those terms.
The Bill states that there will be a national definition and national publication of performance indicators and that it is up to local authorities to justify the standards that they have set in the light of those. Despite the measure of agreement between us on the objective, we still believe that that provision is the wrong way to go about it. We believe that inevitably in the public mind if one has this national prescription one will land up with a national prescription of standards.
I do not expect the Minister to interrupt me to say that standards will be set locally; I accept that. I am saying that the government proposals will result in
1206
standards being judged against the national performance indicator—that is entirely as it should be—but they will be judged only against the national performance indicators and the performance indicators will be taken as standards. If the Government insist on providing that the Audit Commission takes all the initiatives in the matter, that will be the result.
The Audit Commission's paper is very good in many respects. The problem is that it does not give examples. I spent some time on an earlier amendment talking about sports centres, pools and leisure services. I spent some time in Committee talking about refuse collection. Those are relatively simple matters to measure compared with more difficult local authority services such as education and housing.
Perhaps I may briefly recapitulate on what I said about refuse collection. It is no good having standards, even bellwether standards, which refer to the cost of collection per household unless those standards—I should say performance indicators; I must not get trapped into that again—indicate what frequency of collection has been agreed with local people. That is the critical point. They must indicate too whether it is to be kerbside collection or collection from somewhere on the premises; whether there is special provision for recycling of paper, glass or any other items and what provision is made for collection of special items; and whether there is any improvement on the minimum provision of a community amenity site, for example. Those are factors which will be a matter for public discussion between a local authority and the people electing the local authority and using its services. They will affect the cost per household covered by a refuse collection service.
Unless one understands what has been done and the way in which agreement has been reached on the standard of service, and unless that standard of service has been subjected to the democratic test of saying, "If we do not like your service we shall kick you out at the next election", however many performance indicators one has, one will not have a true reflection of the quality of service. That difficulty is not overcome by the repetition either by government or by the Audit Commission that they are not proposing to set standards.
In these amendments we propose to open up that debate again to emphasise that standards of performance should be determined locally and to ensure that those locally determined standards are achieved by public discussion in local areas with the users of the services. The Bill at present does not provide for that. It is still a matter of negotiation between central and local government rather than between local government and its own people. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government's intention in the Bill is that local authorities and other relevant bodies should be required to report on the standards of performance they have achieved. We intend that independent comparisons shall be made between bodies and between years so that their customers can judge whether value for money is being delivered.

1207
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 would additionally require the commission to publish details of the targets set by bodies for themselves and their performance against those targets. But if that means what it says, it is a meaningless exercise. The aspirations of a body can be couched at any level: if they are pitched low enough, the body will be able to claim that it has beaten its target; or the body may make high promises and deliver very little. We prefer the approach set out in the Bill as it stands whereby objective comparisons are made with other bodies and over time.
Amendment No. 6 presupposes what I have just urged your Lordships to reject; namely, that so-called determinations of what standards of performance a body intends to provide are to be part of the system for making comparisons. Let us go along with that presupposition for a moment.
I have to say that even on its own terms Amendment No. 6 is a curious amendment. Indeed it has no practical effect whatsoever. Being framed as a power, not a duty, it purports to allow a relevant body to ignore the very things that the amendment is concerned with.
I shall offer just one other comment on Amendment No. 6. Its effect, when taken together with the earlier amendments proposed by the noble Lord, would be that performance indicators published by authorities were potentially inconsistent. Bodies would be able under Amendment No. 6 to vary the content of the information published in order to match what they felt were their own local circumstances. That would clearly undermine the validity of the comparisons being made.
In these amendments we have what I can only describe as a mishmash of provisions which would require authorities to publish useless information, undermine the comparative information they provide and empower relevant bodies to do things that they can do already. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an astonishing response. I did not expect these modest amendments to reveal that level of mistrust between central government and local government. The noble Earl says in his most gentle and courteous way that he really believes that local authorities will falsely determine the standards that they wish to achieve either by setting them so low that they can achieve them easily and cannot be caught out or by setting them so high that they cannot achieve them. I can only say that the noble Earl cannot know much about the way in which local authorities operate and he cannot have listened to much of the discussion which took place in Committee.
In Committee we produced a number of concrete examples of service agreements between local authorities and local people. I have not brought those examples back again because I did not consider it necessary. However, I remember very clearly the example of Stockton-on-Tees: a local authority which seeks to retain the confidence of its electors and users
1208
of its services sets out standards of service which it believes it can achieve but which reflect the aspirations of the people who will use the services.
No local authority will achieve confidence or gain re-election if it simply sets the standards too low in order always to achieve them or too high in order to con people into believing that a higher standard will be achieved. I do not believe that the noble Earl knows much about the way in which people effectively complain about local authority services if he considers that an authority will set the standards too high and run the risk of complaint when it cannot achieve them.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may add something which may indicate that I have not misunderstood the noble Lord. Perhaps I may paraphrase the noble Lord. He said that comparisons on a national basis do not adequately reflect local circumstances. I believe that that was the thrust of what he said.
I accept of course that local circumstances are relevant. However, the amendments would throw the baby out with the bath water. They would remove any possibility of national comparisons because local data would be subject to prior local interpretations. That is the difficulty. I believe that it is better to produce information using national measures and after that to allow local interpretation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is the Government who are throwing the baby out with the bath water because they have now admitted that they are talking about national measures and not about national standards. The noble Earl chose to make fun of local authorities which set their standards too high or too low. In effect he is urging local authorities to set their standards somewhere around the medium level. He is saying that the achievement of that medium standard—whether it is a 75 or 95 per cent. achievement or whatever—will be the way in which the local authorities are judged. We are coming perilously close to having national standards. Whatever the Government say about the matter their approach makes clear the fact that that will be the result of the provisions in the Bill.
As the noble Earl rightly said, the amendments make clear that the initial determination of the quality and level of service should be by the local authorities rather than by the Audit Commission and the Government. The noble Earl in his reply convinced me that I should take action that I had thought would not be necessary; that is, to test the opinion of the House.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Aylestone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Banks, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Birk, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

1209

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kirkwood, L.

David, B.

Listowel, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ennals, L.

McNair, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Ezra, L.

Mar, C.

Falkland, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Foot, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gallacher, L [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Galpern, L.

Monson, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Glenamara, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

Gregson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hampton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rea, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rochester, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hooson, L.

Scanlon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hughes, L.

Stallard, L.

Hunt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jay, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

Willis, L.

Kennet, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Alport, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Arran, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Astor, V.

Geddes, L.

Balfour, E.

Gisborough, L.

Beloff, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Bessborough. E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Blatch, B.

Boardman, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harrowby, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Henley, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hives, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hood, V.

Butterworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Howe, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Killearn, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Knollys, V.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cullen of Aslibourne, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Lyell, L.

Digby, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Elibank, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Faithfull, B.

Marlesford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Flather, B.

Morris, L.

1210

Mottistone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mountevans, L.

Selborne, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Shannon, E.

Munster, E.

Sharples, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Nelson, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Newall, L.

Norfolk, D.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Norrie, L.

Strathspey, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Terrington, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Teviot, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pender, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Trumpington, B.

Porritt, L.

Ullswater, V.

Prior, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Quinton, L.

Vivian, L.

Reay, L.

Waddington, L.

Renton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renwick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rodney, L.

Wynford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.20 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) In making any determination by a relevant body of local standards of performance for the purposes of subsection (1) above, such a body may have regard as it considers appropriate to policy objectives previously determined by such a body.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has a similar but not identical thrust to Amendment No. 6, which we discussed although it was not moved.
It is not only during this debate that we have heard, quite rightly, from the Government that local authorities are to determine their own standards and levels. Similar points are made in the Green Paper on the internal management of local authorities in England. Its introduction states that the Government believe that the local authorities' role in the provision of services should be to assess the needs of their own area, plan for services and ensure that those services are delivered. It would be difficult to take issue with that.
In our discussions about quality, standards, consultations with users, voluntary organisations and so on, so far we seem to have rather lost sight of the need for the work that local authorities do to meet their own policy objectives. There is a great deal of talk these days about taking politics out of local government. That is a matter with which I cannot agree. It is a blind alley. Local government is highly political. It is about making choices and identifying priorities. Those are political activities. This amendment is designed to allow local choice as regards the mechanisms and means which will lead to the best locally determined ends.
The services which are to be provided should be in the context of an agreed framework of local democracy, efficient local services and the rights of citizens. However, to forget that each authority must

1211
make its own choices about what is important loses the fundamental purpose for which local authorities should aim. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness appears to see constraints in the freedom of local authorities where none exist. The underlying idea of the amendment is that relevant bodies should make determinations of their intentions and that those determinations should be the subject of comparisons in the same way as comparisons of achievement. The inconsistency lies in the phrases that qualify the underlying idea. The relevant body is not required to have regard to policy objectives but is merely allowed to do so. Surely if a body has set objectives it should have regard to them. Again, one is to have regard only to the extent that the relevant body considers appropriate—a less than full-hearted commitment.
We believe that there is no point in making analyses of good intentions. Our policy is to arrange for an analysis of the outcome and to let the facts speak for themselves. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that was an interesting response. I was not suggesting that we should analyse only good intentions. Whatever its final form, I hope that the Bill will be about hard local political decisions and good local government and not just about motherhood and apple pie. I am not endeavouring to achieve that.
I raise this issue because I hope that it may provoke some discussion about just what is the purpose of local government. I believe that that matter needs to be debated and put on record from these Benches, but I am sure I am not alone in that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Hear, hear!
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. There should be more than a mere bureaucratic exercise of performance indicators in the rather dry way in which we talk about them. Local government is about something real and is important to people.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I hope that she does not imply from my response that we do not believe that there is an important role for local government. Under the Bill as drafted local authorities are free to determine their own policies, are free to have regard to them—indeed, one would expect them to do that—and are free to determine the standards which they wish to provide. They should be prepared to have those standards measured against a yardstick to be determined by the Audit Commission.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that intervention. I am content to have raised the issue and to have put it on the record. I do not wish to put the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Directions under s.1]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7.
Page 3, line 19, at end insert:
("in order to secure that the information to be published will enable appropriate comparisons to be made as required by section 1(1) above, including comparisons concerning—

(a) standards of service;

(b) standards of performance; and

(c) value for money.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 falls within Clause 2 which is concerned with directions given by the Audit Commission to relevant bodies under Clause 1; that is, directions to local authorities in order to secure the information required to achieve the standards of performance which are required under this part of the Bill.
Clause 2(3) provides—we do not disagree with it or seek to take it out of the Bill—that the Audit Commission or the Scottish Accounts Commission shall consult the associations of relevant bodies, or other such persons as it thinks fit, before issuing directions to impose new requirements. This amendment seeks to bring out into the open the standards of service, performance and value for money which have been made by local choice and which have been made on the basis of the identification of local need.
The danger of all the processes is that they will provide a centralised summary of performance indicators against which local standards should be set—I cannot avoid repeating myself on these matters but the amendment is not a repetition of earlier amendments—without paying adequate recognition on the face of the Bill to the need for local authorities to identify their local needs and to make the necessary plans to provide services in response to them.
Clearly, comparisons of performance and service delivery are meaningless unless related to local choice. Unless the publicity is given to that local choice in the way suggested by the amendment we greatly fear that the process will be a centralised process. It will be a process for bringing local authorities to account to local government rather than doing what the Citizen's Charter should do; namely, to bring local authorities to account to their electors and the users of their services. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this amendment is another example of the desire, which I fear is prevalent among noble Lords opposite, to seek to prescribe how the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission are to carry out their duties. That aside, I hope that I can convince the noble Lord that the amendment is totally unnecessary.
Clause 1 already specifies that the purpose of publishing the information is to enable comparisons of performance to be made. As standards of performance include standards of service a specific reference to either is not needed. Comparisons of value for money will also be possible without the amendment as Clause 1 specifies that comparisons of performance should be by reference to the criteria of cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Those concepts clearly subsume value for money.
There is a thread which links a number of amendments tabled this afternoon; that is, that the

1213
commissions should have it spelled out to them at every turn on the face of the Bill what their job should comprise. We must give the commissions credit for some professionalism and let them get on with their task which the Bill already sets out with a good deal of clarity. This amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl once again has been given a provocative brief. He is trying 10 tempt me into dividing the House. Of course the amendment seeks to set out on the face of the Bill the way in which the Audit Commission should carry out the wishes of Parliament. It does not indicate any distrust in the Audit Commission.
Let us consider the alternative. The alternative is not that the Audit Commission will have complete freedom to do what it likes but that the Secretary of State shall prescribe exactly what the Audit Commission is to do. I remind the House, as was made clear in Committee, that the Secretary of State may issue a direction to the Audit Commission on the performance of any part of its duties and the Audit Commission shall give effect to any such direction. That is the provision of the Act under which the Audit Commission was established.
Therefore, when the noble Earl seeks to characterise my amendment, which seeks to set out more clearly what the Audit Commission should do, as being an attack on the Audit Commission he thinks I have the wrong target. No, my target as always is the Government and the Secretary of State. The amendments are concerned with the lack of clarity on the directions the Audit Commission will give to local authorities. Its entire thrust is to provide for the expression of local choice and to ensure that the local element is not overlooked when the Government draw comparisons between local authorities.
Let us not kid ourselves. The purpose of the Citizen's Charter is for government to show up local authorities—preferably Labour local authorities—if they can possibly do so. The purpose of a large section of the drafting of this part of the Bill is to make it possible for the Government to do so without fear of contradiction. Our purpose in seeking to amend the drafting of this part of the Bill is to make it more difficult for the Government to carry out part of its political attack on the independence and responsibility of local government in this country. We wish also to make it clear that what is important is the relationship between local authorities and their electors.
The noble Earl may think that value for money is subsumed in the other categories or criteria; and he may technically be right. But I can assure him that what people expect out of local authorities and central government administration is value for money. That is the way they think and that is what they will look for. That is what they will be convinced they are receiving only when they are invited to take part in setting standards and then to make a judgment on whether or not the standards that they set have been achieved. That is what this part of the Bill does not achieve.
1214
I resist the temptation to seek the opinion of the House and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 7A:
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("31st December") and insert ("30th November").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 7A moves away from the immediate grounds of quality effectiveness, and so on, that we were discussing. I was provoked into tabling the amendment after seeing the Audit Commission paper, already referred to this afternoon, which was published as we were completing the last round on the Bill.
The timetable set out in the paper states that notification of performance indicators should be given to local authorities in December and by March they are to have prepared their measurement systems. I do not quarrel with the sequence of events. My anxiety is that a consultation period from September, as is suggested, until December could mean that that first date in September slips. One sees only too often that the good intentions exist but that the early date somehow is not met. It goes late into the month and a comparatively long time out of a short period is lost.
It is essential that the local authorities possess the information that they need by the time they set their budgets in order to take on board the decisions made during that earlier period. Therefore, the amendment suggests that the date of 31st December he brought forward to the 30th November. That will ensure that decisions will have been made before local authorities are deep into budget making. I mentioned the consultation starting in September. I believe if we bring forward the December date to November it will put pressure on everyone concerned to ensure that the September date, which is not written on the face of the Bill, is met.
The amendment seeks to raise the practical problems that local authorities will experience; to bring to the attention of the House the need not to set dates because they appear to be nice and neat but rather because they address the realities of life at the sharp end. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the amendment seeks to extend the minimum time that local authorities have to prepare for complying with new directions from three months to four. A similar amendment was tabled at Committee stage. It may appear to be only a modest change but three months should normally be sufficient to prepare for collecting and recording such information, contrary to what the noble Baroness indicated. The three-month period contained in the Bill—and I stress this—is only a minimum. The Audit Commission will be able to give a longer time if it feels it is necessary and it is quite possible that it will do so on some occasions.
Once again we must give the Audit Commission credit for acting in a reasonable manner. Scope for flexibility is there. On those grounds I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that response. My amendment was not simply to provide sufficient time for local authorities to

1215
collect information. It was intended to provide sufficient opportunity for them, in setting their budgets in the following year, to take account of what information must be collected in that year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Something the Minister said in his reply struck a chord with me. He said that the three-month period would be the minimum period and that the Audit Commission would often be able to give longer periods for the work to be done by local authorities.
I draw the noble Earl's attention to the paper on performance indicators published after our Committee stage on this part of the Bill, where, in the section on the legislative framework, the Audit Commission sets out a timetable for each year. The timetable says that the performance indicators should be notified in December, not the month running up to it. It says December and then allows for local authorities between December and March to prepare their measurement systems and between June and March the following year to measure and record performance.
There is no indication in the Audit Commission's thinking that it is planning anything beyond a December deadline. Therefore, the noble Baroness has a point which was not adequately answered by the noble Earl.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I repeat an invitation made earlier by my noble friend Lady Blatch. Perhaps it is a point that the noble Lord should make to the commission. However, nothing that he said contradicts my point. The flexibility for the Audit Commission to prescribe a longer period of notice still exists.
The Audit Commission paper makes clear first, that this is only the first set of indicators; and, secondly, that the formal consultation from September will follow detailed work with the best qualified people drawing on the experience of local authorities. That is a direct quote. I hope that that provides the reassurance that the noble Baroness is seeking.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, that is really a quite unacceptable response. He is suggesting that instead of raising the matter in Parliament I should be writing to the Audit Commission about its timetable. I should remind him that the date of 31st December is provided on the face of the Bill. In other words, the Government are establishing the timetable, not the Audit Commission. Therefore, any discussion of the timetable comes properly in this House and not in communications from individual members to the Audit Commission.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it is a minimum of three months. It cannot be less than three months. That is the point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is not what the Audit Commission is saying in its timetable.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I think that that exchange has been useful. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for intervening. He got to the point more cogently than I would have done. That is precisely what I was driving at.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that a similar amendment was tabled at Committee stage. That was a quite radical shift from December back to June. All that is being sought here is a very modest movement from December back to November. I accept that there are points to be made to the Audit Commission. Given that the date of December is in the Bill I am tempted to divide the House, but that is a temptation that I ought to resist.
However, the Audit Commission will certainly have drawn to its attention the repeated use of the term "flexibility" in order that it may—and I hope that it will—take serious note of what underlies this amendment, which is not simply playing with words. It is a very practical point made by people who understand the difficulties that very often exist in implementing new arrangements at local authority level and bringing everything together at the right point when the budget has to be fixed in the spring of each year. Having let off that bit of steam, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Internal management of local authorities
.—(1) This section has effect for the purposes of assisting local authorities to—

(a) maximise the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of their services, and to achieve the highest standards of performance in accordance with the needs of their areas as required to be published under section 1(1) above;

(b) fulfil the requirements of sections 5 and 6 below;

(c) fulfil any requirements arising from orders or regulations made under sections 8 and 9, or from section 10 or Schedule 1 below, in the most appropriate and effective manner in the interests of their areas;

(d) fulfil any requirements or activities, whether arising from paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 or otherwise, arising from the provisions of Part II to this Act.

(2) The Commissions to which functions are assigned by section 1 above shall each appoint a designated officer, who shall be a legally qualified person, for the purposes of subsection (4) below.
(3) The Commissions shall, after consultation with such local authority associations and other persons as appear to them to be concerned, publish and from time to time revise guidelines for local authorities in relation to applications under subsection (4) below.
(4) The person appointed under subsection (2) above shall consider and advise the Commission as to any application from a local authority made under this subsection and the relevant Commission may exempt such an authority from the application of any enactment relating to its internal management, provided that the Commission is satisfied that such exemption—

(a) would be conducive to the development of local democracy;

(b) would promote the provision of efficient local services; and

1217

(c) would not curtail the rights of any citizen or extend they obligations of any such citizen in relation to the authority.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the internal management of a local authority shall be taken to include the structure of decision-making within an authority, and arrangements for support to the work of elected councillors.
(6) The relevant Commission shall not less than two years after the coming into force of this section review the effectiveness of any arrangements made in accordance with subsection (4) above.").
The noble Lord said: I readily admit at the beginning that Amendment No. 8 is not in the ideal place. It is not framed in the way we should like it to be. We are seeking in this amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State is not able, by direction to the Audit Commission or the Audit Commission by direction to local authorities, to inhibit full consideration by local authorities of the best way to achieve the efficiency and effectiveness of the service they provide in terms of the Citizen's Charter.
This amendment ought not to be necessary. It ought to be the case that the internal management of local authorities is not subject to central government control. It ought not to appear on the face of the Bill at all. Unfortunately, in the absence of any indication to the contrary we have to look at the way in which Ministers are in practice thinking about the internal management of local authorities. The indications are all too clear. Ministers have formed their own views about the way in which local authorities are going to run their services. If they get the opportunity to do so they are fully prepared to impose those views on local authorities. This Bill provides an opportunity for a Secretary of State to do just that. A Secretary of State who can give any direction he thinks fit to the Audit Commission can then require the Audit Commission to set standards to a local authority that are suitable to the Secretary of State.
It will not be enough for me to be told that the Government have no intention whatever of intervening in the internal management of local authorities. It is quite clear that individual Ministers in this Government long to get their hands on the internal management of local authorities and long to restrict their ability to organise themselves in the best way possible to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of services.
The Government have published a Green Paper on the internal management of local authorities in England which appears to open the door to experimentation. That is all very well; but it is when we come to what would happen as a result of the Green Paper that we begin to get worried. It is quite clear from the Green Paper that they will, of course, listen to consultation. They will then go away and do their own thing. In other words, the Secretary of State will decide according to such criteria as seem suitable to him—which he will or will not specify, as he thinks fit—whether a particular proposal is acceptable.
It is all in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is what we find so unacceptable. Much as we wish to have no control of internal management, we think it is better to provide on the face of the Bill for the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission to have responsibility for this and for them to appoint
1218
a legally qualified person who would evaluate applications from individual authorities against specified criteria.
The range of alternative ways of organising local authorities is, I am glad to say, opening up. Examples were given at Committee stage of many local authorities that are seeking to decentralise a very large part of their powers to neighbourhood committees.
The Bill contains the provision that there could be parish councils in urban areas in England if the Local Government Commission thinks fit. There are all sorts of stirrings towards decentralisation of services, with or without the activities of the Local Government Commission, which authorities ought to be free to develop as long as they maintain certain basic minimum standards.
Other authorities may be moving towards a strengthened executive; to having greater powers for a more limited number of councillors who might be paid. I am not sure that I am keen on that. However, if that is the way that they want to go then surely they ought to be able to move in that direction and seek to persuade their electors that that is the right thing to do.
We are extraordinarily slow in experimenting in this country. We are also extraordinarily slow in making it possible to experiment. Compare, for example, this country with Sweden and Norway. For at least five years Sweden and Norway have been developing what they call "free communes"—in Norway they call it "free local government". At present their experiments apply only to a limited number of communes but they provide that these communes—these small local authorities—shall have a degree of freedom including a power of general competence. That was taken away from local authorities in this country many years ago.
There are, of course, protections which are put into the Swedish legislation. There are fundamental considerations of fair distribution of social services and protection of the lives and health of the general public. There are legal safeguards and safeguards in regard to the preservation of the local economy. Those are protections against the misuse of powers by the free communes. Why on earth can we not open up a little? Why can we not give ourselves an opportunity to try new ways of providing local services? I am sure there are local authorities throughout the country who long to do that, given the ability to do so.
I repeat, this is not the ideal way of presenting thoughts of this kind. As we take the words themselves it appears that this is a restriction on local authorities' internal management because it makes any significant changes in internal management dependent on the approval of the Audit Commission under certain circumstances. The alternative is not freedom for local authorities. The alternative is unfettered power for the Secretary of State. It is that unfettered power which we oppose by putting forward this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, though my name is not attached to this amendment I should like to support it. There is an increasing tendency in this country for local government to be seen as local

1219
administration. That may be denied—I hope that it will be denied—but it is precisely because of my fear in that regard that I support the amendment. My first reaction was that it was unnecessarily restrictive, but given the constraints on local authorities, perhaps it is necessary to raise the issue in this way.
It is explicit in much of what was said in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that locally determined internal arrangements are a good thing. Legislation, therefore, should be permissive of local authorities and not restrictive. We should be looking to allow the richness of our different local communities to be reflected in the diversity of their own arrangements, provided that those arrangements are not inappropriate. How local authorities govern themselves should reflect their own local circumstances, though I would go perhaps a little further than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and mention devolution, rather than just decentralisation, as something that should be striven for. Though it may appear to be an awkward place in the Bill to raise this issue, it is a current issue and one that is appropriately raised in the context of other aspects of the Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is most unfortunate that an amendment of this kind should have to be placed on the Marshalled List. Twenty-five years ago it would have been unthinkable that we should need such an amendment on the Marshalled List. Twenty-five years ago local authorities were considered to be highly responsible bodies, which discharged their functions extremely well and to the satisfaction of most of their people. Over the past 25 years, and particularly through the Local Government Act 1972, local authorities, because they are organised in such a way as to take them further away from the people, have become in some senses less responsible to their electorates. When people are made less responsible to their electorates they do not always behave in the manner in which government or other authorities may expect them to.
The whole raison d'être for the Bill and therefore for this amendment is that local authorities over a long period of time—certainly since 1974—have not been allowed to discharge the functions which local authorities should properly be there to discharge. Over the past 12 years the Government have shown such an antipathy towards local authorities that any move by the Government is seen by local authorities and certainly by noble Lords on this side of the House as a further move to restrict what local authorities can do. That is not good enough.
If we believe in local democracy, local authorities should have responsibilities which they discharge independently and according to the decisions made in their area. The Government appear to be trying to force local councillors out of administration. What they are seeking to do—I may be wrong, and if I am wrong I hope the noble Baroness will be able to tell me that I am wrong—is to make local authorities advisory boards to a town manager. I have never seen local authorities in those terms. I see local authorities as lively bodies, representative of the communities which they serve, capable of making serious and important
1220
decisions and able to experiment over the field of their responsibility. That is how I have always seen local authorities. But now local authorities are a mere shadow of what they were when I served on one. The restrictions placed on local authorities make it necessary for amendments of this kind to be put down to protect them from government attempts to take away their powers and duties.
I have always believed that if we want a truly democratic local government system the doctrine of ultra vires should be dispensed with. We should have a system of general competence. That may be a large step for the Government to take but in my experience—I have had reasonably wide experience not only in local authorities and Parliament but in business and nationalised industries—the more responsibility one gives the people the better able they are to discharge it. The more responsibility you take away from people and institutions the less responsible they become. My view—I know that the Minister will not agree—is that we should remove ultra vires and give this duty of general competence. I do not know what my noble friend Lord McIntosh will say to me but that is the kind of policy that a Labour Government would wish to introduce.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is correctly expressing Labour Party policy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is a relief. I have to say that I am delighted that my noble friend has been able to give that assurance. I only wish that the Minister could give a similar one.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether I inhabit the same world as noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I came into local government under a Labour Government. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, acting under the constraints of the IMF, cut very drastically local authority budgets. My authority was no exception. Although I did not like what happened at the time, nevertheless—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will permit me, the Secretary of State had no power to cut local authority budgets or expenditure. What Mr. Crosland did was to cut central government grants to local authorities, which is very different.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It was local authority grants—it was not Mr. Crosland; it was in fact Peter Shore. Nevertheless, it was for national governments to be concerned about macro-economics. It was the national government at that time who decided seriously to curtail grants to local authorities. Having said that, powers of general competence would not have been compatible with the Labour Government of that day. The amendment relates to internal management. I suggest that the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, do not do justice to the considerable enterprise which is actually present in local authorities.

1221
I was a member of a local authority which piloted—I prefer to use the word "piloted" instead of "experienced"—a number of very new ideas in local government. For example, way back before it was fashionable, we piloted a system of local financial management in schools. We devolved as much as possible to the unit of operational management; in other words, we devolved management down as far as was possible. We also established a very effective non-executive and executive way of arriving at decisions and thereby streamlined decision-making. All of that was piloted. During the passage of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has talked about Tower Hamlets and the enterprising way in which it arranges its internal affairs.
The amendment before the House is similar to one which was considered in Committee. However, the present amendment seeks to give a role to the Audit Commission and to the Scottish Accounts Commission in approving changes to the internal management arrangements in local authorities.
I share the noble Lord's view that it is important to ensure that local authorities have the right management structures and flexibilities to enable them to operate effectively in the interests of the public that they serve. Our consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities spelt out our commitment to seeking more effective decision-making, enhanced scrutiny of decisions, increased public interest in local government and an enhanced constituency role for councillors.
Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I said that I thought it was premature to put forward amendments on the subject. I have to tell the House that I have not changed my view. I have given an assurance that the Government will come forward with the results of the consultation exercise and their proposals for taking the issue forward as soon as possible.
I ought perhaps to make the point that I am doubtful that it would be right to give the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission the role that the amendment envisages. However, I have taken note of the remarks made by all speakers in the debate. We shall certainly take such issues into account in considering how we should proceed. I should like to stress that the Government regard this as an important subject which needs careful consideration before any legislative changes are introduced. In the light of all that has been said in the debate, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's last few words. I have been trying to write them down. I hope that I will have understood them by the time I finish my remarks so that I may respond appropriately.
I was fascinated by the Minister's references to her early years: in local government. I was glad to have her confirmation that Labour Governments of that time, although they did not support the power of general competence—the noble Baroness is quite right about that—never sought to control the budgets of local
1222
authorities. They sought, quite properly, to ensure that central government money for which they were responsible was allocated in the way that they and the taxpayers thought fit. Throughout Labour government, the power of local authorities to raise what money they and their electors thought appropriate for local services was never criticised. That is still the case. That is still the position of the Labour Party. We are still opposed to the capping of local authority budgets.
I notice that Cambridgeshire is in some disagreement with the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the level of spending on its education budget. It will be interesting to see, although I know that the Minister is in no position to answer, whether Cambridgeshire will end up being capped this year as a result of that disagreement.
In other respects the Minister's reply confirmed my worst fears. Anyone who thinks that we would fall for the indecisive nature of a Green Paper on internal management must think that we were born yesterday. But why have the Government introduced a Green Paper on the internal management of local authorities? They have done so not to say, "You are all good chaps and these are all good ideas; go ahead and do it". No, that is not the case. They have introduced a Green Paper so that at the end of the consultation period, and after hearing the views of all the people concerned, they will lay down those forms of internal management which are considered acceptable.
The present Secretary of State has strong ideas on such matters. Indeed, he expresses them quite frequently to the press, to local authority audiences and in Parliament. Some of those ideas I agree with, while others I disagree with. Some of them were set out by the Minister in her response. However, the point is that governments do not issue Green Papers unless they are proposing to do something. They are proposing to restrict the powers of local authorities to manage their own internal affairs as they think fit in response to the needs of their electors and in relation to the services that they must provide.
Up to that point, I find myself having no sympathy at all for the Minister's reply. She went on to say that the views expressed would be taken into account,
"in considering how we should proceed".
Perhaps the Minister would be good enough, within the rules of debate at Report stage, to tell us what she means by those words. Is she considering that there should be amendments to the Bill which would give local authorities the freedom to manage their internal affairs as they think fit? Is she proposing to us that the conclusion from the consultation after the Green Paper will be that the Government will not be prescribing which forms of internal management are acceptable and which are not? In other words, is she really proposing that the Government's intentions are explicitly to make this amendment unnecessary?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to help the noble Lord. It is very unlikely, and decidedly improbable, that changes will be made to this Bill. However, when all considerations are taken into account as a result of the consultation exercise, and should it be necessary to legislate, it will

1223
be Parliament that decides the matter. Government can make recommendations but at the end of the day it will be for Parliament to make the decision.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Minister does not think that her party will have a majority in another place. But the reality is a little different. Perhaps I may ask the question in another way. Is it the Government's intention to introduce legislation at any stage following the consultation period? Further, is it a possibility that such legislation may prescribe which forms of internal management are acceptable and which are not?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, with the leave of the House, I must point out that it would be quite wrong for me to pre-empt the outcome of consultation; that is, whether legislation is required or whether what comes out of it will be prescriptive. We know that there has been a great deal of feedback to the department that local authorities would like to determine internal management for themselves. That may well be the outcome. However, as I said, it would be quite inappropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of that debate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand. That has confirmed me in my view that the answer given is unsatisfactory. The Minister is quite understandably refusing to rule out the possibility of prescriptive legislation that will determine which forms of internal management are acceptable and which are not. The noble Baroness generously referred to the response to the Green Paper. I have some of those responses in front of me. However, what she did not say is that the amendment is unnecessary. She said that it would go against some of the things which government might want to do in the future.
The amendment would take out of the hands of the Secretary of State and put into the hands of a responsible officer of the Audit Commission the power to approve under certain circumstances forms of internal management by local authorities which,
"would be conducive to the development of local democracy; would promote provision of efficient local services; and would not curtail the rights of any citizen or extend the obligations of any such citizen in relation to the authority".
The important point about that in relation to the amendment is that subsection (4) provides that,
"the relevant Commission may exempt such an authority from the application of any enactment relating to its internal management"—
provided that the commission is satisfied in the terms that I mentioned. In other words, in the amendment we are providing protection against future encroachment by the Secretary of State which the Minister is, understandably, unable to assure us will not happen. It is necessary that we make the point; that we pursue it; and that the House take a view upon the amendment.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

Judd, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Broadbridge, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mar, C.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ezra, L.

Mulley, L.

Falkland, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Glenamara, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rochester, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Alport, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Arran, E.

Cox, B.

Astor, V.

Craigavon, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Balfour, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Borthwick, L.

Digby, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elibank, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Elton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Faithfull, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Butterworth, L.

Flather, B.

Caldecote, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gainford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Geddes, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Gisborough, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Glenarthur, L.

1225

Gray of Contin, L.

Norrie, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harrowby E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Hives, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Holderness, L.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Renton, L.

Howe, E.

Renwick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rodney, L.

Jeffreys, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sandys, L.

Kitchener, E.

Seccombe, B.

Knollys, V.

Selborne, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Shannon, E.

Lawrence, L.

Sharpies, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Sudeley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vinson, L.

Mountevans, L.

Vivian, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Waddington, L.

Munster, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Nelson, E.

Wynford, L.

Newall, L.

Young, B.

Norfolk, D.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.18 p.m.
Clause 3 [Functions of auditor and studies by the Commissions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 28, at end insert:
("(4) Before undertaking or promoting a study falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) above, the Commission shall consult such persons representative of users and of voluntary organisations as may be concerned as to the impact of any comparisons made in accordance with section 1 above on—

(a) the determination by relevant bodies in consultation with users and other persons representative of their local communities of levels of service;

(b) the ability of relevant bodies to meet the different needs of their areas, having regard to the social composition of any such area and the resources available to it;

(c) the development of regional patterns of provision;

(d) the ability of relevant bodies to respond to any requirements arising from provisions of the European Community.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I draw attention to the wording of the amendment. It is an amendment which does not refer to local authorities. It refers only to users of services and of voluntary organisations. The amendment is concerned to establish that when the Audit Commission is promoting a study which falls within subsection (3) (a) and (b), which I shall explain in a minute, it,
"shall consult such persons representative of users and of voluntary organisations as may be concerned as to the impact of any comparisons made".
The studies referred to in subsection (3), are,
"studies designed to enable the Audit Commission or … the Scottish Accounts Commission to determine what directions it should give under section 1"—
that is, the whole range of activities of the Audit Commission under the Citizen's Charter provisions, and—
"studies of information published in pursuance of directions … which are designed to enable the Commission in question to determine, in relation to each financial year, what comparative information to publish itself about the standards of performance achieved by relevant bodies";
that is, by local authorities. Then curiously, subsection (3) states:
"but neither Commission shall be required by section 26(4) of the 1982 Act or section 97A(3) of the 1973 Act—
that is, the Scottish Act—
to consult any person before undertaking or promoting a study falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above".
My memory is notoriously poor on these matters but I cannot remember a provision in legislation on the face of a Bill which says that anyone is not required to consult. There are plenty of provisions for commissions or Secretaries of State or local authorities or whoever it may be to consult.
However, to put on the face of the Bill that they are not required to consult seems interesting. It raises in my mind the possibility that would no doubt occur to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were he in his place, that if on this occasion the Audit Commission is not required to consult, perhaps the absence of the provision means that the Audit Commission is required to consult in other cases: exclusio unius, est inclusio alterius, is the way to put it on this occasion.
If I could only receive an answer to that question as to what lines 25 to 28 on page 4 mean, I should consider my time well spent, even though other noble Lords may feel that their time is not well spent.
There is, however, a serious purpose to these amendments. The Audit Commission takes account in its paper of the need to involve representatives of consumers in drawing up the performance indicators. I have already paid tribute to it for that. In its own publication on the effectiveness of the Audit Commission it has indicated that local authorities should do this when they make decisions about the provision of services.
In this amendment we propose simply that the Audit Commission should consult users and voluntary organisations who are extremely well informed about the provision of local services when they are carrying out studies. It is not always the case that from the centre—whether the centre be Buckingham Gate (the headquarters of the Audit Commission) or Marsham Street (the headquarters of the Secretary of State)—conditions which apply locally are well known or can be assumed to be well known. There are major differences between one local authority area and another in terms of their social composition and need for services. It seems not unreasonable to suggest that the Audit Commission might humbly seek the views of those who use the services of voluntary organisations before embarking on studies of this kind. After all, the studies are critical to the effective enactment of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has baffled me with the amendment. The effect, as I see it, is obscure because a very convoluted proposition has been strung together. Under Clause 1, the commissions are required to give directions as to the information to be provided on the basis of which the commissions and others are to make comparisons; under Clause 3, the commissions may undertake studies to determine what directions to give and what information themselves to publish. But the amendment requires the commissions to consult about the impact of comparisons on a range of matters, in advance of the studies, that is to say, in advance of all the foregoing. The persons to be consulted are to be representatives of users and of voluntary organisations and the range of matters on which the commissions are to be required to consult are, as I understand it, the determinations made by relevant bodies of their intended standards in accordance with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5; the ability of bodies to meet the needs of their area with the available resources; I assume that that is the validity of the SSAs; the development of regional patterns of provision; and the ability to respond to EC requirements.
Before the Audit Commission can even start work on a study which is designed to lead to the development of performance yardsticks, it must consult users about the impact of any comparisons which might occur if information were ever to be published in accordance with those yardsticks. What exactly would be the purpose of consultations? Is it intended that if the information could have had an undesirable impact, it would be suppressed? The word "impact" has been used by the noble Lord in the amendment; it is not a word I am using.
I cannot see what this undesirable impact is expected to be. If there is such an impact, is the noble Lord saying that we should suppress the information to avoid the impact? Whatever happened to freedom of information? If that is not what the noble Lord means, I return to the word "impact". What then is the purpose of the amendment? If it is simply to require consultations, then I have to say that first it is worded very oddly. Secondly, in so far as the matters mentioned in the amendment are relevant, consultation is already provided for in Clause 2(3). Again, it is a case of nannying the commission.
The amendment moves on from the requirement to make well intentioned statements of the service that bodies hope to deliver to a quite ridiculous level of guesswork about the future. This is an extraordinary amendment. It seeks to require the commissions to consult various interests about the impact of comparisons made on the basis of information which is to be provided in the future by relevant bodies in accordance with directions to be given about how to report the information. Those directions are based on studies and it is before those studies that the consultation is to take place about the impact of comparisons.
1228
I am wholly confused by the wording of the amendment. Far from having to give explanations to the noble Lord, I wonder whether he will give explanations to the House as to its meaning.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister did not use the word "impact", and I did not use the word "desirable", so we are quits on that. She seems to think that the reference to Clause 2(3) provides adequately for consultation. I remind her or the House that Clause 2(3) provides quite properly that the Audit Commission should consult,
"such associations of relevant bodies and such other persons as it thinks fit".
What the clause does not do is what the Audit Commission now realises. It does not recognise the necessity to consult users of services. Voluntary organisations are also users of services—more than that, they are also providers of services. The noble Baroness is surprised that we suggest that there should be consultation before a study is carried out. I carry out many studies on behalf of government and of private clients. I can assure the Minister that the most significant part of the study is not the reporting, it is the consultation, the exploratory work which is carried out in advance, before fieldwork is conducted. Unless the questions are right, the study will be worthless. The questions will not be right unless one has gone out into the field and found out the anxieties of people and the way in which they wish those anxieties to be expressed. That is the purpose of the consultation at a time before the study has been undertaken or promoted.
I do not believe that anything that is suggested in the amendment in any way restricts the ability of the Audit Commission to carry out a study. We wholeheartedly agree with carrying out studies of this kind. Nor does it restrict the ability of the Audit Commission or the Scottish Accounts Commission to act on the study. It makes sure that the study is as broadly based and effectively researched as possible before it is carried out.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may speak with the leave of the House. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I need to make it clear that we are not requiring consultation before the study is undertaken. What is required is that there should be consultation before directions are issued. That is surely when the impact can be considered.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not proposing to remove the requirement that there should be consultation before the direction is issued. We seek to involve users and voluntary organisations at an earlier stage to improve the quality of the studies provided under Clause 3. I believe the two points are complementary rather than conflicting. However, the Minster may well have identified defects in the drafting of the amendment. I cannot perceive those defects at the moment. I think the intention is clear and that it is clearly expressed in the amendments. However, I shall read with care what the Minister has

1229
said. In the meantime, without prejudice to whether we return with this matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Duty to consider auditor's report or recommendation]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 6, line 7, after ("above") insert:
("(aa) to any magistrates' court committee).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Amendment No. 10 seeks to follow up the Government's undertaking to consider" extending the Audit Commission's remit in this area. That undertaking was given in Committee. At that stage I believe the Minister accepted it was difficult to see why magistrates' courts committees were treated differently to, for example, probation committees which fall within the value for money remit of the Audit Commission. Amendment No. 10 is a way of inviting the Minister to report progress made during discussions with the Home Secretary on extending the Audit Commission's remit in this area.
Amendment No. 11 picks up the same principle. It seeks to ensure that, where relevant, school or college governors see an auditor's reports that are submitted to a local authority. In Committee we raised this issue. Money that is spent by school or college governors under the local management of their organisations is public money and we felt it was appropriate that where an auditor's report reflected that expenditure, the governors should consider it. In response, the Minister said at the time that local management of schools instead allowed the chief finance officer of the local authority access to those institutions and that information. The Minister also said the governors were already answerable through annual reports for quality of service delivery and that the right way forward was to make the local authority answerable for these matters in open meetings. We entirely agree with the Minister on those matters. This modest amendment simply tries to ensure that a copy of the auditor's report goes to the school governors so they can take it into account. I hope the Minister can support the amendment.
Amendment No. 12 again refers to the auditor's reports and how they are addressed by bodies that are affected by them. The Bill, as constituted, proposes that the auditor's reports be discussed in full council. However, the 1944 Education Act and the 1970 Local Authority Social Services Act respectively require that in the case of education committees and social services committees the full council should not discuss items affecting; those committees without having first consulted the relevant committee. In other words, any matter affecting those committees should first be discussed with those committees. There are many highly sensitive matters that may affect both those committees such as child abuse, welfare reports and reports on nursing homes. The latter reports affect social services. Detailed consideration of sensitive matters such as school reorganisation may take place.
1230
Therefore it is right and proper that those matters should receive careful and prior consideration by the committees involved.
As regards Amendment No. 12, I have two questions for the Minister. First, is this Bill's requirement that the full council should discuss the auditor's reports in addition to existing committee responsibilities on education and social services, or is it in place of them? In other words, does the Bill add to or override the existing formal structures? Secondly, as these matters are either confidential, quasi-confidential—I am sure everyone would accept that—sensitive, delicate or technical, and therefore should clearly be considered by a committee, would it not be sensible to allow the appropriate committee, rather than the council as a whole, to receive and to respond to the auditor's reports? In this regard I think of the example of a housing committee considering improvement grants. That is a sensitive matter.
I hope the Minister will clarify that point. We believe we are speaking to the spirit of the Minister's response in Committee. We hope to extend in appropriate and proper ways the information that the auditor's report generates and have that discussed in the proper fora whether those be magistrates' courts committees or the committees of a local authority. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall respond to Amendment No. 10 first. On 2nd December the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, moved an amendment that would have brought magistrates' courts committees within the scope of Clause 5. This was withdrawn by the noble Baroness on the understanding that we would consider the possibility of a government amendment on the general issue of extending the Audit Commission's responsibilities to include magistrates' courts committees. We have carefully considered the issue but in doing so it has become clear that this would not be consistent with the thrust of this Bill. That is not just an excuse for the Government to do nothing.
Bringing magistrates' courts committees within the scope of Clause 5 is not as simple as it might sound. The existing powers of the Audit Commission in relation to local authorities could not be applied simply as they stand to magistrates' courts committees. It would be necessary to take account of the different status of magistrates as members of committees compared with members of local authorities and other public bodies which are subject to audit by the Audit Commission. In some areas there is a different division of responsibility from area to area between magistrates' courts committee staff and those employed by the paying authority which may affect the situation. The question of whether existing provisions relating to public access, accounts regulations and consultation could be extended to magistrates' courts committees, or would require modification, would have to be considered.
I will not elaborate further on these or other such matters now, because they are complex and not strictly relevant to the Bill now under discussion, but I hope noble Lords will accept that the matter is not as straightforward as it might appear. I am sorry that

1231
our conclusion is that it will not be possible to take this matter further at present. I have drawn the question of whether the Audit Commission should be given a role to play in relation to the magistrates' courts service to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and we have this point firmly lodged. I can assure the House that now the extension of the Audit Commission's role to magistrates' courts committees has been raised, this is something that the Home Secretary will keep under review.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I hope he can take us one stage further in the discussion. Is he willing formally to ensure that magistrates' courts committees receive the auditor's reports, given that magistrates' courts are funded in part by local authority money?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not in a position to give an undertaking of that kind at the moment. I repeat, however, that we are in sympathy with the idea behind the amendment. I shall write to the noble Baroness on this matter.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 11. This would introduce a requirement for auditors to send copies of their reports and recommendations, where it referred to a school or college, to the governing body concerned. I shall explain why we feel this is an unnecessary measure. To begin with, action arising from an auditor's report or recommendation will remain a matter for the local authority. The authority is of course able to forward a copy of the report to the governing body if it thinks it appropriate to do so. Indeed it is inconceivable that a local authority would not inform the school's governing body where an auditor criticised the management of a school. Not only that, where an auditor has prepared a report or recommendation which needs to be brought to the attention of the governors of a school or college, he can be relied upon to copy it to them. It is certainly not necessary to introduce a statutory requirement for him to do so, no matter how insignificant the reference might be. This is another case of proposing legislation to require an auditor to do something which he would be doing in any case.
Governing bodies frequently complain at the amount of paperwork they receive and make pleas for it to be reduced. It has to be borne in mind that governors are volunteers, many of whom have a limited amount of time at their disposal. We must do all we can to reduce not increase the amount of paper they receive. The amendment would require every auditor's report or recommendation which made any reference to a school or college to be copied to the governors concerned. That is clearly unnecessary.
Amendment No. 12 is, I believe, with great respect to the noble Baroness, misconceived. The provision referred to in the Education Act 1944 ensures that before an authority exercises any of its education functions it must first consider a report from its education committee. Similarly, Section 3 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 is concerned with the matters which should be dealt with by a social services committee. That has nothing to do with
1232
Clause 5(7) of the Bill, which is designed merely to make it clear that the whole of Clause 5 does not override provisions in any other legislation in so far as they relate to auditors' reports or recommendations. Any obligations presently contained in the Education Act or the social services Act must be complied with. The Bill does not affect those obligations or reduce them.
For the reasons I have given I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in relation to Amendment No. 10 I can do no other than to accept that the Minister acknowledges the significance or thrust of the amendment. If there is a more useful way of ensuring that public moneys are properly considered and scrutinised by the bodies spending them I am sure that we can mutually find a way forward, either at Third Reading or in another place.
I should like to read in Hansard what the Minister had to say on Amendment No. 12 to see whether we share the same interpretation of the legislation. The noble Earl may well be right.
I should like to return to what I considered a rather flabby response to Amendment No. 11, which relates to school governors. The Minister spoke of governors being volunteers and being snowed under by paperwork—and not having the energy, intellect, understanding, interest or commitment to take on board an auditor's report which affects how they spend money. Such is the Minister's view of the impoverished quality of school governors. Yet at the same time they are to be endowed with the rights, duties and responsibilities of locally maintained status. Which view does the Minister hold: that they are competent to run schools, including very large budgets, sometimes of over £1 million, with 70 teachers and 1,000 children; or that they are so amateur that it is unreasonable to expect them to read an auditor's report which just happens to explore their competence and matters affecting the local authority's competence to run the financial affairs within which their school operates? Perhaps the Minister would care to indicate which view of governors he holds.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say, with respect, that the noble Baroness wilfully misrepresented what I said. I did not cast any aspersions on the competence of school governors. I said that one would not be doing school governors a favour if one required them to receive a thick dossier of paper to wade through every time their school was mentioned in a report, however insignificant the reference. Of course, if the report refers to matters of real relevance to their school they should receive that report. However, I see no need to place an obligation to that effect on the face of the Bill. It happens anyway and it is right that it should happen, but it need not happen every time the school is mentioned in some report or other.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the Minister saying that it will happen, that it does not need to happen or that it ought not to happen?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is good practice that it does happen. It should happen in that sense but I see no need for that stipulation to be included on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, then is the Minister saying that school governors who are spending substantial sums of public money should not receive, as of right, even an edited version of auditors' comments on the financial arrangements affecting their school?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can add nothing more to what I have already said. Where it is appropriate the governors receive such reports and should receive them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in that case why will the Minister not join with us in ensuring that they receive them?
Earl Howe: My Lords, because the amendment refers to:
"any report or recommendation which refers to any school or college of further education".
That is a very broad statement. The noble Baroness knows full well that reports can include references to a school which are of no pith or moment whatever. It is bombardment with such papers that we seek to avoid.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House, but I find that a singularly unpersuasive response to the amendment. However, if the Minister shares our view that reports of relevance affecting a school should be incorporated on the face of the Bill perhaps we may return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 13:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
(" Effect of competition on architectural services
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of architectural services.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of architectural services by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 13 is the first of a clutch—although perhaps "clutch" suggests too small a number—of amendments which are designed to remove a wide range of services from the threat of compulsory competitive tendering. I use the word "threat" advisedly. The number and range of services which are the subject of the amendments show the level of anxiety among many Members of this House concerning the damage that would be caused should compulsory competitive tendering be extended to that list of services. We in the Liberal Democrats believe that competition can be
1234
very useful and healthy and that on occasions it can be appropriate. It is the compulsion which we find distasteful.
In speaking to Amendment No. 13 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14, relating to architectural advice and to Amendments Nos. 27, 39 and 40 dealing with engineering, the preparation of feasibility studies and project management. I know that other noble Lords will spend longer on those topics than I shall. I shall refer in particular to the question of architectural services.
It is significant that the architects' own professional organisation, which looks after the interests of both public and private sector architects, is anxious that architectural services might become the subject of CCT. One might think that that professional organisation would approve of extending the possibility of work in this area to those in the private sector. However, the RIBA is prominent among those who have drawn attention to the problems which might arise.
It has already been said in the context of the Bill that value for money is not determined by cost alone. Value for money is not just a matter for those of us who do our weekly shopping in the supermarket; it applies to many areas. It certainly applies to architecture. We have also spent a good deal of time on the subject of quality and we shall do so again with these amendments. The importance of quality has been rightly recognised by the Government. There are outstanding examples of architecture which are the result of the Government choosing architects on the basis of quality rather than cost. There are two such buildings very near to where we are now: Richmond House is one of the newest examples. The courts at Truro are another example. Why should local authorities be subject to a regime which central Government do not choose for themselves?
The White Paper Competing for Quality considers that an initial quality threshold for architectural services might be appropriate. Some might say that that concedes the principle which is at stake. It has also been said before and it does no harm to repeat it that at issue here are professional fees which in relation to the cost of a new building represent a very small proportion of the whole. Even on the narrow basis of what is most cost-efficient in terms of initial outlay, what could be saved would therefore be relatively little. Measured against the risks to the built environment from decisions being taken because cost is the prime factor, while not suggesting that the public purse should be squandered, I am sure that many people would think that the criteria applied were wide of the mark.
It is not just the Government who do not apply tendering to architectural services. Major private sector commercial organisations do not use competitive tendering. Like many local authorities, they have in-house architects' departments which help to commission the best architects for the job. It would be sad if we denied local authorities the opportunity to act as clients in the same way as everyone else in the world acts as clients—in going out and choosing their own professionals. Private sector developers are

1235
moving in the opposite direction. They are prepared to commission architects to design better buildings. Again, not just for aesthetic reasons but for reasons of cost, better buildings will let at higher rents, they will satisfy people better, they will have a longer life and they are likely to be more energy-efficient and, over the longer term, to create savings.
The question of choice comes into the debate here. Many of our good public buildings have been built as a result of design competitions. Again, it would be sad if provisions were introduced that would restrict or outlaw competitions which encourage innovation and which allow choice. The Government rightly support schemes that assist the introduction of art in public buildings—the Per Cent for Art scheme and the DoE scheme which is administered by the RSA for art for new buildings. That too supports the argument that the bare minimum or the cheapest is not enough for buildings.
What are we most aware of when we think of our heritage? On a day-to-day basis, it is our built environment. Do the Government want to be known as a Government who allow creativity to flourish? I hope that they do and that they do not want to be known as the promoter of the ordinary. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should like to second Amendment No. 13 and speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 27 (on civil engineering), 39 (on feasibility studies) and 40 (on the management of construction projects).
Perhaps I may start with some general points before, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, speaking particularly to architecture. The first feature that all the services have in common—this is the basis of our argument that they should not go out to CCT even under the existing 1988 legislation—is that, where appropriate, local authorities already use private firms. For example, in structural engineering, about 10 per cent. of such services already go out to private firms. That includes structural engineers and heating engineers in my authorities. It is precisely those areas in which modest-sized local authorities cannot reasonably be expected to have in-house expertise, so they go out, not for cheapness, but to acquire expertise. Engineering is an obvious example. When we come to the question of law, seeking counsel's opinion will be another such example. They go out in order to enrich the quality of their expertise, not for reasons of cheapness.
Secondly, local authorities almost never go out on grounds of financial savings. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly said, the hourly rates for those professional services are invariably higher, between a third and sometimes a half as high again as local authority rates. Furthermore, private firms which are not particularly specialist may require extensive briefing and supervision by in-house staff, an expense that is often not easily costed. I remember as a housing chair having to train up a number of private architects as regards the fine print of housing cost yardsticks in order that they, as private architects, might build houses for the local authority. That was expensive in staff and committee time. Equally, when you go out,
1236
you also lack the ability, unless you pay a heavy price, to have the informal telephone call and the ad hoc contact to discuss the minor works. Therefore, not only do private firms cost you more by hourly rates, but they fail to give you much of that value for money which is part of the on-going running of a professional service.
Thirdly, by going out by CCT as opposed to going out voluntarily, there may be real damage to the corporate policy that the local authority wishes to advocate because those services—architecture, engineering and the like—are intricately connected not only with each other, but with other services such as planning, housing, building control and law. For example, a road building scheme will involve traffic and highway engineers, planning authorities, the housing manager and the environmental health officer. It may well also involve the legal officers and the property estates officer. Clearly, that concept of corporate management is damaged when parts of the services are arbitrarily hived off to a private firm that has no on-going, day-to-day contact with the array of local authority services that underpin a corporate approach.
Finally, the public are inconvenienced. They are not sure who is responsible for delivery, whether it is the local authority as client or the local authority trying to gee up the contractor on their behalf, if I may put it that way. Many of those schemes—for example, road widening involving traffic engineers or a major modernisation scheme involving an architect—require constant accessibility to the public who are worried about the implications for the properties in which they live. That accessibility is by definition damaged when you rely on private firms.
I wish now to move on to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 concerning architectural services. The consultation paper accepts that the architects' services have a pivotal role to play in the development and management of local authorities' capital programmes, a core service which it may not be appropriate to expose to CCT. It suggests some of the other items that may go out to tender. As I emphasised, first, local authorities already employ private architects where appropriate. Secondly, most architects' departments run practice accounts. Thirdly, architects' departments have real experience and know that it does not save money. However, there is a further issue that architects share in common with engineers and the like and I know that the Minister shares this concern. It is the question of the quality of the built environment.
In the case of many professional services, if a mistake has been made, it can be remedied. For example, if a housing estate has become run down or if it is too large, you may open a local office and seek to reverse that trend. The local authority may change its library stock or its peripatetic library routes. A school may abandon or reinstate streaming. A picture may be turned to a wall. However, in architecture, not just the architect but all of us have to live with that work for ever. In architecture almost more than any other profession, none of us, least of all the architect, can afford mistakes. We need well-managed buildings, sympathetic to the streetscape, indicative of the local

1237
sense of place, functional to the present purpose, yet which may lend themselves to purposes not yet considered and which enhance our built environment. CCT, with its emphasis on cheapness, is the deepest folly.
If we look around, there are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, plenty of good buildings built under private patronage. I can think of the Sainsbury Centre at UEA; plenty of splendid buildings that resulted from architectural competitions where cost was only a subsidiary consideration; plenty of sensitive buildings that resulted from negotiated fee structures; plenty of attractive and humane buildings provided by in-house local authority departments, such as Hampshire schools and Norwich council housing. Can the Minister name me five good buildings that have resulted from competitive tendering? I do not mean distinguished buildings that she might wish to open, or outstanding buildings that she might wish to list in the future—just good buildings. I cannot think of any. If she cannot, I suggest that the Government should be wary of temporary, ideological obsessions warping our built heritage. If CCT in the field of architecture and related services does not generate cost savings—as clearly it does not—and if it threatens quality and blurs accountability, I hope that the Minister will concede that the argument has been won on this side of the House. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I had intended to put my name to all five amendments but I see from the Marshalled List that I neglected to do so for Amendment No. 14. However, I support all five. During the Second Reading of the Bill I drew the attention of the House to the example of a building in Canada which suffered collapse about three years ago, luckily without any loss of life. In the inquiry which followed, the collapse was described as having been caused by inadequate design which was the direct result of price cutting under a regime of fee competition. The inquiry by the Government of British Columbia eventually decided that the minimum fee should be 6 per cent., which was rather more than the price cutting, successful engineers had achieved.
I remind the House of that example to illustrate the dangers of price cutting and to ask whether it could happen here. It could happen here and does already happen here. Fee competition already exists to some extent among local authorities, although it is not compulsory.
A letter sent to me the other day by a consulting engineer refers to a local council choosing by rigorous fee competition a checking engineer some two years ago from a list of six names. The engineer says:
"It [fee competition] is used by Local Authorities for the appointment of 'period contracts' Checking Engineers and some ridiculous rates are being quoted. £12/hour for a C.Eng."—
that is a fully qualified professional engineer—
"hardly covers his salary let alone Employers National Insurance, contribution to rent, rates, Professional Indemnity
1238
and secretarial staff. A recent fee tender for a £3.5m public building scheme attracted bids ranging from 0.7% to about 1.4%".
One should consider that against the 6 per cent. which the Government of British Columbia decided should be the minimum. I remind the Minister that 0.7 per cent. of £3.5 million is rather less than £25,000 and 1.4 per cent. would represent rather less than £50,000. One cannot obtain good quality work at that kind of price. One cannot have the kind of work which my noble friend Lady Hollis asked for a moment ago for a £25,000 consultant's fee. It is totally out of the question. That is a real example and not an imaginary one. It shows where fee competition can lead us.
During the Committee stage of the Bill I asked the Minister whether there would be a competition for the brief which led to the competition for the fee. He undertook to write to me and has done so. I am grateful for his letter which I found extremely interesting. I expected him to reply that the cost of the brief would be small and therefore would fall below some arbitrary cost threshold so that fee competition would not arise. Surprisingly his reply did not say that. It said that the sort of technical brief which I had in mind could in fact come under competition. It added:
"The detail, however, has yet to be decided".
That tempts me to ask the Minister a further question. What about the competition for the brief before the fee competition itself is reached? Is there a situation rather like that seen in the Russian dolls that we bring back from holiday, with Mr. Yeltsin on the outside and inside a number of former Soviet leaders, diminishing in size, until there is a very small Lenin in the middle? I imagine that the answer to my question must be no. There must come a time when the fee competition comes to a stop. I suspect that the right answer was in the letter which I did not receive.
To pick up the points raised by my noble friend Lady Hollis about continuity, it must be remembered that, whereas capital projects are one-off items and require little, if any, pre-knowledge of an authority or its area, the service maintenance work, particularly in matters such as traffic engineering, require detailed local knowledge of installations and layouts and an on-going involvement in such matters on site and in the locality. Discontinuity of personnel would certainly follow if there were a series of fee competitions with different consultants appointed from time to time. That would surely be counter-productive. Quite honestly, the idea of three-year or four-year contracts for work of that nature with no continuity of personnel would be absurd. I agree very strongly with my noble friend in that respect.
I turn now to the amendments themselves. I should like some clarification from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the term "such other persons" in line 3 of subsection (2) in Amendment No. 14. I take "such other persons" to include the professional institutions. I would not describe them as "other persons". I should prefer them to be described as professional institutions. I have in mind in particular such bodies as the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the

1239
RIBA and, probably most important of all, the Association of Municipal Engineers, which is right at the heart of this matter. If any body is to be consulted, it should be that one.
Lastly, once or twice today value for money has been mentioned. In this area value for money should be the aim of the Government rather than cheapness. I am not at all against competition in this field, but it must be competition based upon the value of the work—the quality of the work that is being offered. That must be the criterion on which the consultant is chosen and not the lowness of the fee. Competition on quality is how to get value for money. The Government can forget entirely their fee tendering propositions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend replies perhaps I may say that I believe that on this matter there is a good deal of misunderstanding. When the Bill reached Committee stage I initially had problems with it. I was anxious about legal services. I discussed the matter with my noble friend Lady Blatch, who wrote to me and explained that there were core services which definitely must be excluded in order for the local authority to work.
A couple of weeks ago I was at a gathering attended by several hundred Scottish architects. The subject which they met to discuss was the quality of what is referred to as the built environment and the problems that arose in improving matters. They realised the value of a presence when the Bill was under discussion and a number of them came to talk to me about it. I found that their great concern was the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Howie. They felt that it was very difficult to, as they called it, tender for quality. That was their problem: they felt that in order to obtain a job with a local authority they would have to price themselves out of quality and they were not prepared to do that. We continued to talk about it; I understood their problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, speaks with deep knowledge of local authority work and of the problems of getting a good built environment through local authority work. I missed the first two minutes of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; I apologise to her. However, having listened to her, it seems unlikely that architects will obtain any work from local authorities unless the Bill is enacted. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that only local authority architects can get it right. She and I live in different parts of the country. We may have greater problems in Scotland, but I do not believe that most people in Scotland regard the success of local authority architects as all that great when looking at the built environment. Many architects would like to take part but do not have a chance to do so. The Bill is about obtaining all the talent available for local authorities.
Having read the Bill and the supporting material, I do not believe that local authorities are unable to obtain quality through tendering. It is simply a matter of getting the specification right, bringing other people
1240
in, considering what they wish to do and deciding where value for money lies. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred to that aspect.
I hope that the amendments will not be passed if there is a Division. I believe that local architects will have no chance of working for many local authorities unless we have a measure such as the Bill provides.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may point out that competition for quality is the norm. It has been going on for a long time, ever since the roles of consulting engineers and architects were invented. The quality is demonstrable in the track record of the tenderer. It is also enshrined in the body of people the tenderer says will be doing the work. The architect or engineer gives a list of qualified persons who will be engaged in the work. Because of their quality, experience and so on, those persons define the quality that will be achieved. There is also the factor called quality assurance.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I had not quite finished. Of course I realise that the noble Lord has been involved in relation to local government work as I was myself some time ago. However, in a number of areas of Scotland the feeling in local authorities is much as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, expressed. I believe that there is not much chance for architects if such a feeling is overwhelming.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour when she says that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked some direct questions. She asked me whether I could name buildings that had been built as a result of competitive tendering. I have seen many up and down the country. Many of the development corporations—indeed one on which I served for many years in Peterborough—used the competitive tendering process. Some fine buildings were preserved—she would be pleased to support that aspect—and good, listed buildings were preserved and refurbished as a result of competitive tendering. Indeed new buildings have been built also.
Perhaps I may give her an example of direct labour designing a poor building. I refer to 2 Marsham Street. Need I say more? It speaks volumes. There are good, bad and indifferent categories in direct labour forces, as indeed there are in the private sector. What is absolutely essential and an absolutely key factor so far as concerns this debate is that it is local authorities which have to learn the new skill: that is, to know what they want, properly to specify it and to make sure that they have an effective and efficient service. If it is a building that they wish to have built, it is important that they select on the basis of cost-effectiveness and operational effectiveness.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, how do those words apply to quality when one speaks of architecture?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is for local authorities to make judgments about quality. We have

1241
had a long debate. The noble Baroness will know that for the moment she has tied the Secretary of State's hands to deal specifically, sensitively and sensibly with quality when it relates to professional services. However, as the noble Baroness knows, temporarily Members opposite have won a reprieve from allowing the Secretary of State to behave in that way. I can say without hesitation that the Government are still fully committed to the extension of CCT, and that the power for the Government to extend CCT is entirely intact—even accepting the successful pressing of the amendment by the noble Baroness opposite and her colleagues. The flexibility that the Secretary of State requires will indeed be addressed before the Bill has completed its progress through both Houses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also said that no local authority ever opts for architectural services for reasons of economy. It is precisely for that reason that many local authorities do not have large architectural departments. To have a large architectural department within the local authority has become an expensive option. Therefore by buying in services—very often when the particular service may be more expensive—the cost to the local authority over time is infinitely less expensive. Much has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about cheapness and about disregarding quality. I have spent a great deal of my time at this Dispatch Box arguing for the Secretary of State to have the ability and flexibility to ensure that quality is a constituent part of making a judgment about professional services. It goes without saying that in any legislation that has been enacted to date no local authority is bound to take the lowest tender. What is important when it does not take the lowest tender is that it gives a full explanation to its local community as to why it did not.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy again referred to the issue of quality. It is almost as though the only way in which one can protect and safeguard the built environment in some way is by having a direct labour workforce operating. Again it is for the local authority to have a view about the quality of buildings that it wants and about the quality of design of building. It is for the local authority to specify that and to make sure that such requirements are secured whether from the DSO or from the private sector.
Perhaps I may clarify another point to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hollis. The competitive tendering procedures apply only when there is an in-house workforce. In other words, if there is an in-house workforce it goes out to competition but if there is no in-house workforce then it is up to the local authority to choose its own way of architectural services. For example, that could be by means of a design competition, which is a popular way to secure a design, or through choosing a preferred private architect.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, was anxious about competition leading to price cutting, which he said leads to dangerous buildings. I cannot understand why that should be so. The suggestion that CCT will mean an epidemic—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I thought that I had given an example from Canada which demonstrated my point fairly convincingly. Perhaps I did not explain the issue clearly enough.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord explained the issue very clearly. However, 2 Marsham Street is not the best example of a very good building; it was built by direct labour force. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, inferred that the appointment of private architects under the competitive tendering rules will somehow lead to poor and shoddy buildings.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, obviously I was far from clear in my explanation. I hold no brief for 2 Marsham Street, outside or inside, and I never mentioned the building. I was not talking about direct labour. I do not believe that these things have to be done by direct labour. What I said, and it was a simple point to understand, was that if fee competition were the major criterion on which a consultant was chosen, it could lead to price cutting and inevitably price cutting would lead to shoddy work. That was all that I said. I said nothing about direct labour.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I have given an adequate explanation of why such action need not necessarily lead to price cutting. It is for local authorities to make judgments about price and quality. However, they must make sure that the information about how and what they choose is in the public arena.
The principle of extension of the CCT regime to further local government activities through subordinate legislation was accepted when the 1988 Act was passed. These amendments do not address that principle. Noble Lords opposite could do so if they wished by seeking to repeal the sections of the 1988 Act which enable the extension of CCT. The amendments simply place restrictions on its operation in practice. Many of them prevent the Secretary of State from extending CCT to the very services for which a case for competition has been set out in our consultation paper. We believe that CCT has proved its worth in the services in which it operates. It would be quite wrong now, after CCT's success in the manual services, to remove from the Secretary of State the right to extend it, subject to the safeguards of the 1988 Act.
Section 15(1) of the 1988 Act provides that any order made under Section 2(3) by the Secretary of State is subject to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. That means that Parliament has the opportunity to consider, and if so minded to reject, any proposed addition to the list of defined activities. Moreover, the Secretary of State is obliged by the Act to consult on the details of any proposed extension with representatives of local government before bringing an order before Parliament.
If there are particular concerns relating to particular local authority activities they should be expressed now in response to the current consultation paper. That paper sets out the Government's proposals clearly and we shall be considering carefully the responses that we receive. In subsequently

1243
bringing forward any proposal to extend CCT to any individual activity, we shall carry out further consultation on the details of the order which the Secretary of State would need to make in each case under Section 2(3) of the 1988 Act before placing such an order before Parliament. That would provide a further opportunity to voice any anxieties about individual services. We should undertake a similar exercise if an order under Clause 8 were in prospect. Existing legislation allows this House and another place the opportunity for detailed discussion of individual activities.
Finally, I wish to reiterate the point that the requirement for the detailed procedures under CCT legislation applies only where the local authority intends to use its own workforce on a defined activity. Where an authority intends to put work out to a private supplier, as would be the case in much architectural work, for example, the detailed requirements of CCT legislation do not bite.
By virtue of subsection (2) the amendments tabled would also have the effect of obliging the Secretary of State to consult with the local authority associations and such other persons as appeared to him to be concerned on the effect which any extension of CCT would have on the service. It would require detailed consultation with, in this case, architects' interests on an order adding some other activity to the list of those subject to CCT, presumably to prevent any hidden or unforeseen effect on the quality of architecture. Given that the first part of each amendment would already have removed the service in question from the scope of any such extension this seems to me to be an unnecessary refinement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the RIBA's anxiety which we have noted. My officials have met with its president and have noted the anxieties at first hand. I believe that my officials were able to allay some of the fears. In particular, my officials made it clear that CCT will operate only if an authority's in-house workforce is involved.
Restricting the application of the power in Section 2(3) of the 1988 Act is wholly inappropriate given the separate parliamentary scrutiny which would have to take place before any use of that power. I hope, therefore, that with that explanation and clarification of some of the misunderstandings about quality, cost, control and the power that local authorities have as regards securing services for themselves, the amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that long reply. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, asked what was meant by "persons". He suggested that they should be the professional institutions. I understand that in this context a person is a legal entity. Institutions include people and they are persons. There is nothing of substance that divides us.
It was important and appropriate to have had the debate. I suggest that not only misunderstandings but real fears exist among those both inside and outside the profession about services of this type. I was glad to hear the Minister say that representatives of the RIBA
1244
have had some of their fears allayed. However, she used the word "some". I have no doubt that on another occasion we must consider the fears that were not allayed.
The Minister said that it is for local authorities to learn the new skill, to know what they want and properly to specify it for cost effectiveness and operational effectiveness. I do not argue with that comment; I argue with the element of compulsion. I do not argue that there should always and only be a direct labour organisation; I argue with the dogma that is inherent in the whole extension of compulsory competitive tendering to services which are so fundamental to the quality of life in this country.
The subject has been well aired and will continue to be aired through the consultation that is taking place. I do not apologise to the House for having taken time to discuss the issue because it was right to do so. However, it is also right to await the results of the consultation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 15:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on home-to-school transport
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of home-to-school transport services.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of home-to-school transport services by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in 1971 approximately 70 per cent. of seven year-olds went to school unaccompanied. In 1990 the figure was less than 7 per cent. In other words, the company of a trusted adult had become essential. That is the issue behind the amendment on home-to-school transport and the request of your Lordships to exclude that from the 1988 Act.
The Education Act 1944 required local authorities to provide school transport where journeys were above a certain distance or where they were unsafe. That provision affects approximately 900,000 children and accounts for about 2 per cent. of the budget of local education authorities. Without such a provision it is clear that there will be severe limitation on parental choice. It will be confined to the nearest school, particularly in rural areas given the decline in public transport or for denominational schools where children are dependent on transport. Secondly, there will be increased use of the parental car, which we already see. That generates congestion. It has been estimated that school car journeys add something like 30 per cent. to peak morning traffic hour movements. Therefore, this is not a small matter. Equally, that accounts for something like a quarter of all accidents to children under the age of 16. Therefore, young children, on grounds of safety, secondary school children, given the distances involved, and children

1245
with special needs—a category to which I wish to return—all need access to local authority-provided school transport.
As the recent Audit Commission report urges, home-to-school transport needs to be expanded. It needs to be reliable, inexpensive and, above all, safe. Have local authorities met that need under the Education Act 1944? First, about half of all children using home-to-school transport travel in contract vehicles. It is clear that where the local authority thinks it appropriate it will use the private sector to meet that need. Secondly, 45 per cent. of children, mainly older children attending secondary schools and FE colleges, have help with fares through travel passes. Therefore, this amendment addresses the 5 per cent. of children using local education authority vehicles. I ask your Lordships to say that that 5 per cent. of children should not travel in vehicles exposed to CCT.
Why is that? It is clear that local authorities already use the private sector where it is unproblematic. They already use and subsidise public transport where it is unproblematic. Who uses the other 5 per cent? It may be used by those children in rural communities where there is little alternative competition but, above all, local authority vehicles are used by children with special needs who attend special schools. Eighty per cent. of special needs children need home-to-school transport. For example, in London that absorbs nearly three-quarters of the educational transport budget.
When we speak of special needs children we are talking about children with physical disabilities who may need first-aid or who may need to be lifted. Trained local authority drivers on secure and permanent contracts may remove the need for escorts. If private firms are used, almost invariably schools must provide escorts. Equally, the children may need specially adapted vehicles for their comfort, safety or health. Those are rare in the private sector. Mentally handicapped or disturbed children may exhibit bizarre behaviour; for example, as regards dressing or undressing in public or acting in physically or sexually provocative or abusive ways.
No local education authority will willingly spend more on transport than it needs to because it knows that the cost of transport will be at the expense of books, nursery education or the ratio of teachers. For 95 per cent. of children local authorities use private transport or make subsidies through travel passes and so on. For the remaining 5 per cent. that is not done because the local authorities know that considerations other than cost considerations apply; for example, considerations of child safety and the training of staff. Under CCT questions about staff cannot be asked. There is also the matter of criminal convictions which is important when dealing with disturbed young girls who, as I say, may use sexually provocative behaviour. Questions about that cannot be asked under CCT.
The Government—and in his absence I compliment the Minister in the Department of Transport as well as the Minister in the Home Office—accepted the force of that argument when on another occasion noble Lords on both sides of the House argued that minicabs
1246
should be licensed. Many minicabs are used for this purpose outside London. That was in order to ensure the safety of the users of those quasi-public vehicles. However, that provision does not apply to private coach operators and minibus drivers.
I repeat that local authorities already keep in-house barely 5 per cent. of home to school transport. That is done either because either it involves rural communities which need to be kept alive, to avoid split villages and to protect denominational schools or, alternatively, to protect the very vulnerable handicapped children with special needs. To force such services out to CCT on the grounds that that will be cheaper may endanger children's safety, health and well-being. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Secretary of State will consider the importance and extent of competitive tendering both for professional and technical services. He intends also to have flexibility to ensure that in appropriate cases quality—and I know that this is a point about which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is anxious—can be considered separately from cost so that it is established separately from cost. In some cases it is appropriate that those matters should be dealt with together and in others it is appropriate that they should be dealt with separately. Moreover, both Houses of Parliament must give their approval to the exercise of the Secretary of State's power to extend CCT. All the anxieties of the noble Baroness will be considered at that time. For those reasons I ask the House to reject this amendment and all amendments up to Amendment No. 48.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry but I fail to understand the Minister's response. I can see that in certain areas there may well be ideological differences which divide the House as to which services are appropriate for CCT. The case which I put forward applies to only 5 per cent. of children who need home-to-school transport. They are the most vulnerable children for which the education authorities ever care. Those children will not be protected under CCT provisions. Those arguments, on grounds of safety, were conceded by other members of Her Majesty's Government when dealing with minicabs. I believe that the Minister should have made the concession that that group of children should be excluded from CCT. Otherwise that transport will be brought in on the cheap and heaven help the safety of those children.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments relate not only to this service but also to legal services, housing management, fire vehicles, libraries, electoral registration, personnel management, computing services, PR services, secretarial research services, parking services, property management, vehicle fleet management, trading standards, police vehicle maintenance and so on. The principal point which I wish to make is that the particular circumstances surrounding each of those services will be considered in their entirety. I do not intend to go into detail

1247
because this will be a matter, first, for consultation and, secondly, for both Houses to consider at the appropriate time.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the simple process of tendering requires a specification? If there is to be a specification, it should accommodate 1 per cent., 2 per cent., 5 per cent. or 20 per cent. of those involved. Surely it is for the local authorities to establish a proper quality specification in the first place.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that was a helpful comment. I should like to use it to lead on to ask the Minister a direct question. Is the noble Baroness saying that the quality envelope will be applied when we consider this service? Home-to-school transport is not a professional service. The consultative paper does not mention that the quality threshold will apply. This matter comes under the 1988 Act which so far only takes into account cheapness. If the noble Baroness is saying that the quality threshold applies, she is effectively accepting the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness whether her information is based on fact. I ask her to give figures for the number of children who have suffered injury because I was responsible for arranging much of this work. People were chosen extremely carefully and I do not believe that at any time there were any accidents.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes. The information I gave comes from detailed research. Like the noble Baroness, I share an interest in the question of safety of vehicles used for public purposes. At the moment around 900,000 children have access to school transport under the 1944 Act, of which 5 per cent.—in other words, 45,000 to 47,000—use home to school transport provided by local authorities. A substantial majority of those are children with special needs whose safety, in my view, will remain unprotected unless the Minister assures us that there will be a quality threshold as indicated previously by the noble Viscount.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend was indeed helpful with his intervention. The one matter that he addressed was quality. There is a serious misunderstanding in the debate that somehow, because the Secretary of State required flexibility, quality only applied to professional services. That is simply not true.
If the local authority wishes to specify a service—this applies to any service, whether school transport or any of the others on the long list of services in our possession—as my noble friend pointed out, it can also specify safety; safety of the vehicles; the competence of people driving those vehicles. It can specify anything it wishes in regard to that contract which then goes out for tender and which will be responded to by local companies.
With regard to the specific rather complicated
1248
business of quality thresholds required for professional services, the answer is no. But in regard to the detailed and real anxieties of the noble Baroness, to which my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred a moment ago, competent, efficient operators can be secured when the specification is being drawn up and, more importantly, when the contract is being let.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I believe that we are now coming to the heart of the matter. The Minister assures the House that under the 1988 Act there is adequate provision for quality to apply to all that part of compulsory competitive tendering which comes under that Act and not under this legislation. If that is so, why are the Government seeking to impose new and different rules for new services to be brought in under compulsory competitive tendering in the 1991 Act? If the provisions in the 1988 Act were adequate, then why are they not adequate now?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall soon need to be advised by the Clerk of the House. We are probably breaking many of the rules of Report stage. I rise once more with the leave of the House to say that quality is something that can be secured in the specification; in other words, when the specification is drawn up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is aware of that. She has been involved in drawing up specifications for work. All I can say is that specifications should not be drawn up without reference to efficient and effective delivery of service which subsumes quality, as I said earlier. The only reason I made specific reference to flexibility is that in the case of professional and technical services, establishing quality is something that may need to be done separately. However, we are breaking many of the rules of the House at Report stage and I hope that the matter can be determined. If it has to be pressed, so be it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am still unpersuaded by her response. Clearly much of the debate at Committee stage on the whole of compulsory competitive tendering was about the so-called level playing field. It was the fact that consideration after consideration that Members on our side pressed were about quality, whether of training, employment practices or whatever; it was quality, quality, quality. That was excluded by the Minister as being unfair to the private contractor; it was said that what should dominate is the question of price.
In those circumstances (this is in no sense a reflection on the Minister's integrity) and because I am not confident that only through specification can one achieve the quality one wants—because many of the amendments moved at Committee stage on our side were deemed to be uncompetitive by the Minister—I have no choice but to seek the opinion of the House.
6.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bristol, Bp.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNair, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Desai, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Shackleton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alport, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Astor, V.

Kitchener, E.

Balfour, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Caldecote, V.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Nelson, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norrie, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Plumb, L.

Digby, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Sandys, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Selborne, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Vinson, L.

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Waddington, L.

Holderness, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 16:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on legal advocacy and litigation
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of legal advocacy and litigation services.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of legal advocacy and litigation services by local authorities of any such order").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. I realise from what the Minister said that she is not going to respond to these services in detail, and I expect the same answer will be offered on each. We on this side of the House believe that we would be less than fair to local authority services if we did not spell out for public consideration the reasons why we believe those services should not be brought within CCT. It is in that context that I should like to speak to the amendments affecting law and legal services.
Local authorities currently buy in about 10 per cent. of their lawyers, particularly during peak periods—for example, when they have a great deal of conveyancing or when they want to buy specialist legal services such as counsel. The consultative document follows the Audit Commission report on competitive councils in identifying three main legal functions: corporate policy and giving advice to members and committees; the propriety role (ensuring that council business is conducted with financial and legal integrity); and legal services (litigation, advocacy, conveyancing and commercial contracts).
The consultative document appears to agree with the Audit Commission that the first two of those functions should not lend themselves to CCT. However, the third does, following the second stage of internal trading accounts. I repeat that local authorities regularly use the private sector to aid them in routine work, such as conveyancing, or highly specialist work. However, is it sensible to draw the line with legal services as the consultative document does? Careful reading of the Audit Commission report suggests serious reservations, even about legal services. It states that:
"For most purposes and in most authorities an all-purpose legal department is the most effective means of meeting the regular needs of service providers".
With the exceptions I have mentioned it clearly doubts that it is as cost effective to go outside. The report goes on:
"The overall cost of going outside may be less than that of maintaining an in-house resource which is inefficiently managed or inefficiently used".
Even then it recognises that given the in-house cost of supervision it is indeed doubtful.
The Audit Commission report goes on to identify other and serious problems—not just that of cost effectiveness. It states that in many smaller towns there will not be private firms with the breadth and expertise necessary to provide appropriate legal

1251
services unless those legal firms use golden handcuffs to keep their qualified staff with them on the basis of which they won the tender in the first place.
Next—and this is the mirror opposite problem—where firms are large enough to cope with local authority work by definition they are likely to have a portfolio which includes local landowners and potential developers so there is a real risk of conflict of interest. In such a situation it is just as likely that a private solicitor will withdraw from local authority work, leaving the local authority stranded, because the private sector is better paid. Indeed, whatever the Chinese walls—a point we shall no doubt come back to on planning and property management and other services—there is no way that staff cannot make use, to their clients' commercial advantage, of the internal knowledge of local government that they have acquired.
One can add further anxieties. How cleanly is the line drawn in the consultation document? A lawyer advising a planning committee on a Section 106 planning agreement—the sort of enterprise which kept many of us busy for many hours last winter—is clearly giving corporate policy advice. But is the drafting of that agreement corporate or operational? Are the negotiations with the developer corporate or operational, or will those roles be splintered? I hope the Minister can clarify the position.
Again, some legal services have a predictable load. Conveyancing there may be, but what about child abuse? Is the social services department to be limited in the legal prosecuting services it can afford because it has not anticipated those in the tender, or alternatively face very heavy additional charges—three times the in-house cost—to provide private lawyers at the end of the financial year? It is intolerable that services like education and social services should feel constrained about the quantity and quality of legal advice they should seek because it is towards the end of the financial year and their budget arrangement for legal advice has been spent.
No local authority can predict how many prosecutions it may need to conduct or how many children it may need to take into care. Indeed, if they have to draw up a detailed specification, as under the 1988 Act, two years in advance, for a contract that will run for three years they have to anticipate how much legal work they will need to take children into care five years hence.
On top of that there is a legal dimension to other services. The city treasurer's staff may take poll tax defaulters to court, or car parking staff may handle prosecutions. The trading standards officer or the housing department may help private tenants with bad landlords. Is all that work vulnerable to CCT? In other words, legal services can very often be a dimension of other service work and we need to know how they are going to be affected by CCT. Therefore, even if one excludes corporate advice from CCT it is, I suggest, clearly not sensible to expose even legal-centred services on a compulsory basis to CCT.
Noble Lords do not have to take my word for this or even register the hesitations of the Audit
1252
Commission. Incidentally, all of this work, as I understand it, is done in-house. Let us take instead the advice given to the Government by the Andrew Report of 1988–89 when the Government pursued this very same question of whether their legal services should go out to CCT; but every time the Andrew Report uses the word "government" I ask your Lordships to substitute the words "local authority".
In advising the Government not to pursue CCT the Andrew Report said, first, that it emphasised the need for an in-house legal service throughout government (or local authority) departments. Secondly, on the basis of research it insisted that in-house services were far more cost effective. The report cited cases where, by going outside, private solicitors cost three to four times more than the Treasury solicitor estimated that he would have charged for the same service. The Andrew Report consulted widely and found that with the exception of one bank all the commercial and industrial companies that it consulted kept their legal services in-house because, as the Andrew Report noted to the Government it was,
"more responsive at lower cost".
Such a finding is consistent with everything we know abroad, as in the United States.
The Andrew Report also urged government (read "local authority") that for certain legal services such as prosecutions it was self-evidently inappropriate—as I hope to have persuaded your Lordships on questions of child abuse. It warned that the speedy responsive nature of legal services would deteriorate and it feared for the confidentiality of legal advice when more than one client was involved, however scrupulous private solicitors might be.
In summary, on page 28, the Andrew Report said to the Government:
"It is desirable that a substantial in-house capability should be maintained in both litigation and conveyancing to preserve expertise, to provide a reservoir of legal manpower which can be drawn on to meet urgent demands elsewhere, and to serve as a training ground for young lawyers who may in due course move on to advisory posts".
Quite so, my Lords, and every word applies to local government. It said that the greater part of the Government's legal work should be done in-house and that it should go outside only where the necessary expertise did not exist in-house; where government did not have the resources; or where to go outside was more cost effective. I agree.
That was the advice to the Government in the Andrew Report—independent advice and expert advice. Local government would endorse every word of that. Does the Minister not accept the Andrew Report or will she argue that local government's need for legal services is qualitatively different from that of central government? What the Andrew Report emphasised and what local authority lawyers provide is an unambiguous commitment to the public service and undivided loyalty to the public client, whether that be a Minister, a committee chairman or a councillor. Following the Andrew Report I understand that the Government were persuaded to keep their legal services in-house. I understand that the

1253
Audit Commission keeps its legal services in-house. Why should not local government have precisely that same choice? I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I listened with some amazement to what the noble Baroness said on these amendments. My noble friend the Minister correctly identified development corporations as evidence that competitive tendering has been successful in many of the areas under discussion, including legal services. Officers in development corporations call on outside legal services according to their needs, according to the expertise required and according to the situation in hand. I doubt whether many local authority legal services see more than one major development a year—the expertise will come from other areas—or deal with one multinational every month. They use the expertise. They do not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested, stay with the small town solicitor. They go to where the legal advice that they need is available.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, is no longer in his place because I suspect that his experience is the same as mine, that the majority of officers in development corporations come from local authorities. I fail to understand why, if they administer the system so effectively and efficiently in development corporations, noble Lords opposite believe that they should find it impossible to do so if employed by local authorities.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am glad to respond to what I think lies at the heart of what the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, has just said—that there is no defence in regard to local authorities' refusal to go out to the private sector where that is appropriate. It is the element of compulsion weighing heavily on them that is objected to.
As a professional on the other end of such a process, I welcome the spreading of work, as all professionals do, so that it is done where it can best be done. However, I would be very fearful of auditioning, as we have to do these days and rightly so, for much of the work that is done by local authorities. It was put very well in a legal magazine earlier this year. Anticipating the extension of CCT to legal services—I use the term broadly—the writer said that no doubt the private sector would welcome this source of new work, but went on:
"It may not be that easy. City firms should quell their euphoria until they have thoroughly examined what might be expected of them by local government".
The writer went on to refer to the general ignorance of what goes on within local authorities in regard to the complexity and the technical aspects of much of the work that has to be covered by local authority lawyers. The writer commented:
"This experience can often be gained principally by performing the work on a regular basis over a long period".
The difficulty with these services is that one cannot conveniently separate out legal advice, legal services, advocacy and litigation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, so much work undertaken by a local
1254
authority moves seamlessly from advice to consideration by committee and on to the stage of litigation. That may be planning advice, which results in enforcement action or dealing with an appeal; it may be looking after the interests of children in local authority care. It would be almost impossible to separate out those parts of a local authority lawyer's responsibilities.
The most effective way for a lawyer to fulfil his role is by being involved right from the start of consideration of an issue. It saves everyone a great deal of time if the lawyer is centrally involved when decisions are taken that a matter should be dealt with in a court—there are many different types of court proceedings—and if the lawyer knows what is going on and does not have to be briefed extensively, lengthily and at great cost—I am talking about the private sector. It is much better for that lawyer in many instances to have been involved right from the start.
At Second Reading I said that, although I regretted having to say it, I feared that if services within this sphere were put out to tender the result would be considerably higher costs than those that would result from their remaining within the public sector. That is not to resist the use of the public sector where appropriate. On major developments it very frequently is appropriate. It is the element of compulsion that is being complained about.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, in referring to these amendments I should like to give as an example children who are sexually abused. One should be able to go out to tender for legal experts who one knows have dealt with a number of these cases all over the country and have wide experience. No one local authority, unless it is a large authority—a metropolitan authority—has a sufficient number of cases of this kind to give the legal department enough experience. I was extraordinarily fortunate in the legal services of the authority for which I worked. Nevertheless in some cases it was in the child's interests to go out to tender for an advocate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is right. Local government should drive a hard bargain. The important point—and I keep repeating it—is that it should be in a position properly to specify what it is that it wants, taking into account all the safeguards mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, and it should certainly monitor and manage the contract well. But the idea that only local authorities deal with complex issues and that somehow or other the private sector does not exaggerates the case too much.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that, in the light of the requirement to consult and the requirement to have parliamentary approval before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can exercise his power to extend competitive tendering, I believe that the amendments should be rejected.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish that I could thank the Minister for her reply. However, I am afraid that I cannot do so. I should like first to

1255
comment on the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. She is right to say that development corporations have to some degree an analogous role. But they are largely concerned with commercial and development issues. That is only a small portion of the work of local authorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, local authority work is indeed a seamless web which covers a wide array of services from social services to education and the like, with which a development corporation would simply not come into contact. Although it is a valid point, I suggest that the differences between the needs of development corporations and those of local authorities for legal services are very distinct. Indeed, some of the legal services that a development corporation buys in are those which local authorities buy in simply because of their degree of expertise.
I turn now to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I entirely agree with her. The issue that divides us is not that the local authority should never be permitted to use private lawyers. Of course local authorities do so. They do so where it is cost-effective, as with conveyancing where there is a sudden peak of work which cannot be coped with in house and where it would be absurd to take on permanent staff; or, more importantly, it is done by a smaller authority—perhaps a district authority—in areas such as housing rights where there is a need for specialist or experienced legal staff; or perhaps by a county council where such services cannot be obtained in house. Local authorities have always brought in and bought specialist skills.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, can the noble Baroness tell me how a judgment can be made about whether something is cost-effective if the market has not been tested with the in-house service?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Local authorities regularly test the market. They buy in private lawyers for conveyancing under boom conditions. I did precisely that. It was judged to be financially more effective and better value for money to employ someone for a peak period of three or four months than to employ a permanent member of staff. As I said, I have done precisely that myself. I hope that the Minister will regard that as an appropriate answer. All of us have track records in buying in staff for those peak demands on service where it would be absurd to take on additional in-house staff.
As I said, what does not divide us is the Tightness and appropriateness of local authorities voluntarily to use the private sector where appropriate. The consultative paper makes clear that government are expecting some proportion—perhaps 20 per cent.—of legal services to go out to CCT whether the local authority wishes it or not or whether it is in the best interests of the local authority. We have tried to advocate that legal services are inextricably interlinked, as the Andrew Report argued, with a whole range of services from operational to committee, to policy, to corporate and through to advice. I hope that
1256
the amendment will be considered on those grounds. But in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 18:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
"(Effect of competition on work undertaken by a defined authority under s.21 of Housing Act 1985
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of work undertaken by a defined authority in pursuance of powers under section 21 of the Housing Act 1985 (general powers of management), except for works of maintenance in connection with land or buildings held under Part II, of that Act.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of work undertaken by a defined authority in pursuance of powers under section 21 of the Housing Act 1985 (general powers of management), except for works of maintenance in connection with land or buildings held under Part II of that Act by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister will recall that during the debate on Second Reading I pursued the question of whether the Government had any intentions in the later stages of the Bill to introduce a clause concerning the housing management sections in local authorities. At that time the Minister said:
"However, I should point out that the Secretary of State already has wide powers to extend CCT to additional services under the Local Government Act, and of course any addition would have to come before your Lordships".—[Official Report, 18/11/91; col. 795.]
That would be in the form of an order against which the House does not normally vote once it has been passed in another place. Therefore, we are actually faced with a fait accompli.
If the proposed new clause were accepted, it would prevent the Secretary of State taking any such action. Its purpose is to prevent the extension of CCT to housing management. The arguments are that the extension of CCT to housing management raises important issues of principle concerned with tenants' rights which do not arise with other services affected by the Bill. For example, first, tenants have rights to information, consultation and participation in matters affecting housing management; and, secondly, local authority housing management may be delegated to tenant management co-operatives or estate management boards. How would CCT affect those?
Under current legislation—Sections 27 and 27A of the Housing Act 1985—a local authority may contract out by agreement any or all of its housing management functions only after consulting tenants and obtaining the Secretary of State's consent both for the terms of the management agreement and the identity of the manager and management. The Secretary of State's consent shall not be given if it appears that a majority of tenants are opposed. That gives tenants a right of veto over contracting out by agreement.
The Government have accepted that housing management is different from the other services affected by the Bill. That has been shown, first, by the fact that housing management was not included in the scope of the report commissioned from PA consultants RCL and AC Baker PIEDA. They were appointed to carry out a separate study of the feasibility of extending CCT to housing management. It is understood that their draft report has only recently been submitted to the Department of the Environment. Secondly, Competing for Quality explicitly excludes any reference to housing management. I understand that a separate consultation paper is expected, but not before January of next year. Thirdly, the Citizen's Charter includes a commitment that the extension of CCT to housing management will be framed,
"to accommodate tenant participation".
I sincerely hope that that means that a majority of the tenants affected by any proposals will be allowed the right to vote in respect of them if they so desire.
Although the Government accept that housing management is different, no proposals have yet been put forward for consultation on how CCT could be satisfactorily extended to housing management. No proposals for consultation are likely to be published before the Bill leaves this House. It is therefore impossible for this Chamber to give adequate consideration to the proposal. In our opinion, it should be excluded from the scope of the Bill.
Tenants' existing rights to consultation on matters of housing management (Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985) and to consultation and a vote on proposals to contract out management by agreement (Section 27 and 27A of the Housing Act 1985) were not drafted with CCT in mind. If the Government are serious about their intention to accommodate tenant participation in their plans to extend CCT to housing management, they must accept that amendments to primary legislation will be necessary to ensure that the existing rights to consultation and a ballot apply where housing management functions are contracted out compulsorily rather than by agreement. No such proposals are included in the Bill. Therefore, in our opinion the Government should agree that any proposal to extend the CCT principle to housing management should be the subject of separate primary legislation—that is, treated as a subject on its own—after their consultation paper has been published and adequate time allowed for representations to be made. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is indeed true, as the noble Lord pointed out, that housing management has not been included in the general consultation paper Competing for Quality. Noble Lords may also have noticed that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has promised that there will be a further consultation paper on the subject as soon as possible. In fact, it is likely to be issued early in the new year. Housing is being looked at separately because it is a complicated area of local authority activity covering a great many staff. The housing profession has generally welcomed the fact that it has been made the subject of separate treatment.
1258
There are many ways in which competition could be introduced into the housing management field. My right honourable friend would not want to do this in a way that would jeopardise the promising developments which have taken place in recent years, especially as regards tenants' involvement in management. We gave an undertaking in the White Paper, The Citizen's Charter, to that effect. It would be quite wrong and inappropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of any consultation, except to make two points. I am afraid that I shall again be repetitive. The first is that there will be consultations and nothing will happen until the end of that process; and, secondly, as I have said, it will be for both Houses of Parliament to give approval before the Secretary of State can exercise his power to extend CCT into that area. In the light of that explanation, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving that reply, although she did not give much away. I am puzzled by the Government's misuse of the word "consultation", because they have a record of producing papers, making decisions and then asking for consultations with the people affected by them. In other words, there is a fait accompli which is nothing but diktat. They have consultations on how to operate the decisions they have already made. That is not my idea of consultations. I hope that on this occasion the Government mean consultation in the making of the decision and not in its operation. They are two different things.
I accept the Minister's word that the widest possible consultation will take place. As a result of all the Government's efforts the number of council house tenants has decreased from 6 million families to 5 million. What has happened lately is a direct result of that policy.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will be able to tell us—perhaps at a later stage of the Bill—that they have no intention, as she said on Second Reading, of bringing forward any housing proposals in the Bill. My worry is that, if the Bill stays as it is, we could be faced with a Minister for Housing—they change more rapidly than Ministers in any other department—who may well persuade his Secretary of State that it is time to act. The Minister may say that the Government keep their word on housing. They did not keep their word on the sale of council houses and the assets from those sales. Local authorities were supposed to have free access to those assets so as to justify the sale of council houses.
The Minister said that the Government will have full consultations. I hope that they will be in the form that I have proposed and that they occur before the making of the decision and not just in its implementation. On the basis of that explanation, I should like, as the Minister suggested, to withdraw the amendment. But we might want to discuss the issue further at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 19:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on maintenance of fire vehicles
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part 1 of that Act includes the provision of the maintenance of fire vehicles.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of the maintenance of fire vehicles by local authorities of any such order").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the effect of competition on the maintenance of fire service vehicles. I wish to argue strongly that the emergency services generate special demands and cannot afford the risks attached to CCT. There are two reasons for that. The first relates to the complexity of the vehicles and appliances—the ladders, the turntables, the water pumps and the cutting and lifting gear. They are complex and sophisticated, and maintaining them is not just a job for a mechanic but for an engineer. They need a range of skills seldom found in the private sector.
Secondly, those vehicles are put under an extraordinary amount of stress in terms of speed, loading, braking and cornering. The maintenance of tyres and brakes has to be well above common commercial standards.
Thirdly, fire service vehicles are not just complicated and put under heavy stress; they form an emergency service. They must never break down, never be out of order, must always be available when needed and must not need to be moved from workshop to workshop for maintenance. Given that with the abolition of contract compliance under the 1988 Act—a point of some dispute between the Minister and this side of the House—local authorities may not ask questions about the training or turnover of staff. In that case, what confidence can local authorities have that private firms which tender and win the cheapest bid have the requisite dedicated staff who are always on call and are of the type that the fire service generates?
Maintenance staff within the fire service enjoy a level of wages set by national agreement which attracts and retains the skilled and committed. Cost-cutting contracts can offer no such guarantee. They need to be welders, electrical engineers, paint sprayers, body builders, carpenters, plumbers and pneumatic and hydraulic engineers. During a major incident maintenance staff have to be on location keeping appliances fit on the spot. If necessary, they have to drive and refuel vehicles and prepare equipment at a moment's notice. In other words, they are maintenance engineers acting as part of a disciplined emergency service with a strong commitment to the safety of us all.
That is a language which is worlds away from CCT, and so it should be. The Government proposed to include fire vehicles and their maintenance in the 1988 Bill, but after fierce public opposition they withdrew, conceding, I believe, the strength of the fire service case. There were worries about cost-effectiveness, but Her Majesty's Inspectorate seems to be assured on
1260
that point. Given that, and given that the Government were persuaded in 1988 that a risk was involved that none of us should be asked to accept in the name of cutting costs, I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have heard some strange things said today. It has been suggested that merely because there are turntable ladders, complicated machinery and vehicles which have an individual specification, somehow the only people who can maintain them are those who are directly employed within local authorities. That is not true. It does not stand up as a statement. It is not true to say that only engineers can service such vehicles. Many local authorities employ mechanics as well as some mechanical engineers. Local authorities do not have some special expertise that no one else has.
It is also true that the consultation paper states that the Government consider that it is now right to look again at the exemptions from CCT which currently apply to fire service vehicles. We do not, however, propose to re-examine existing arrangements for rural areas where maintenance staff have fire-fighting duties. My department, and my colleagues in the Home Office, look forward to receiving constructive comments in response to the consultation paper.
The noble Baroness referred to the fact that under contract compliance rules there were a number of questions that were not allowed to be asked. The competence of the employees comes very much within the scope of questions that can be asked. Let me read out what it is considered is not appropriate and would not be allowed:
"The terms and conditions of employment for the contractor's workforce, including its composition; promotions; transfers; training and other opportunities".
That does not rule out asking about the competence and qualification of staff.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, what is the difference between training and competence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is a great deal of difference. If someone is qualified it is accepted that they must have trained; for example, if they are mechanics or mechanical engineers. The specification will have to determine the quality of the people required to do the work.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry that I am continuing to interrupt, but how can a local authority be satisfied of the competence of the staff employed by a private contractor if it may not ask about training?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what I shall say, and what I said earlier, is that the specification can set out clearly that competent people will be considered for the servicing of those vehicles. Competence will have to be proved. If a contractor responds to the tender it will have to say whether the workforce would be competent. What is important is that the specification drawn up by the local authority is the same as that applied to the DSO and the private sector. The level playing field is the drafting of the specification which refers to qualifications and competence.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry for interrupting the Minister again. If the same specification is drawn up for the DSO and the private sector, and vice versa, is the Minister happy to concede the argument that the local authorities put forward that contract compliance regulations should be applied to the DSO and the private contractor? That would meet our anxieties.
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, I agree with what we believe to be a number of factors that should not be considered or taken into account: the composition of the workforce, promotions, transfers and other opportunities for the workforce; (whether the person can do the job is what is important to local authorities) and the inclusion of lump labour; the involvement of contractors with irrelevant fields of government policy, for example CND activities; the conduct of contractors in relation to industrial disputes; the country or territory of origin of supplies to, or the location in any country or territory of the business activities of the contractors; any political, industrial or sectarian affiliations of contractors; financial support or lack of it from contractors for particular institutions, and the use or otherwise of professional services supplied by local authorities.
Clause 18 gives authorities the power to ask certain questions to be prescribed by the Secretary of State—the noble Baroness is aware of those—in pursuit of the duty to have regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity under the Race Relations Act 1976; and to include contract terms relevant to this purpose.
I could go on. I believe that the ability is set out for a local authority by a specification to secure an effective service. That applies right across all these subjects that we shall discuss tonight. However, I return to my normal response to these amendments. Consultation is assured and before CCT can be extended, it must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I was interested—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have summed up and this is the Report stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, 1 have to say again that I am disappointed in the Minister's response. She asserted at the beginning that my arguments did not stand up as a statement. I do not think she told us why, she simply asserted that. Where an emergency discipline service is concerned, and where lives are at risk, we are entitled to have a fuller explanation than the Minister offered us.
The second point made by the noble Baroness was that we could assure ourselves of the quality through existing legislation. We could find out about competence without finding out about training, terms and conditions of employment, turnover of staff, recruitment patterns. All I can say is that my understanding of what the word "competence" entails when our lives are at risk is clearly different from that of the Minister. Her version of "competence" is
1262
presumably that staff have passed their City and Guilds qualification. Will the Minister tell us what test of competence she would apply to an engineer maintaining a high specification fire service vehicle which could be met without breaching contract compliance rules?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the specification must be utterly explicit in every detail on the job to be done. The job may be to maintain sometimes complicated fire service vehicles. If the specification is right and someone responds to the tender, they should respond in such a way that they state that they will deliver that specification at a price. It is for the local authority to make judgments as to whether they believe that the company can deliver.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry but the Minister did not answer my question. I asked whether she would be so kind as to tell us in what way a local authority can be satisfied as to the competence—I emphasise the Minister's word—of the staff maintaining emergency vehicles when they specify the standards of service it requires. How can the local authority be sure of the competence of the staff? What questions can it legitimately ask? Can the Minister tell us what questions we may ask when putting down the specifications?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is possible as part of the process not only to consider tenders but to interview contractors. It happens in all local authorities, it certainly happened in mine. There were questions about whether the people were qualified to do the work. Are they qualified mechanics? Are they qualified mechanical engineers, if that is what the specification asks for? If they say that they are, then it is up to the local authority, if it awards the contract, to monitor it and make sure that it receives a service. Penalties are built into the clause to take action if the service is not delivered.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is a very important point because it affects police vehicles, and so on. Is the Minister saying that local authorities may call in a contractor, interview him and ask for a list of employees, a list of their qualifications and evidence about turnover of staff, training patterns and the apprenticeship qualifications they seek and similar questions?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that we are again in breach of the rules for Report stage. Once more, I repeat the point that it is for the local authority to secure, so far as is possible and practicable, that the company which has responded to the tender document—where the specification is explicit and in great detail, especially as it relates to a complicated piece of equipment—can assure the authority that the people who will do the work will be qualified and competent to do it. As happens in all services, it is for the local authority to monitor the contract and to exercise and invoke penalties for breach of contract if the work is not properly carried out.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the Minister said that the local authorities may ask for and receive an assurance. However, we cannot establish what evidence they may have to ascertain whether the assurance is valid. I hope that lives are not put at risk as a result. With the leave of the House, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again at twenty minutes to nine?
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1991
7.35 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness rose to move, That the draft regulation laid before the House on 12th November be approved [3rd Report. from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: The draft regulations amend the Education support Grant Regulations 1990. Their main purpose is to allow for the new activities that we want to introduce in the 1992–93 programme. All activities supported by ESG have to be specified in a schedule to the 1990 regulations. These amending regulations add our new activities to that schedule.
The draft regulations also remove from the schedule certain purposes for which grant is no longer payable. Finally, they provide for a technical change in respect of the audit certificate we require at the end of the year to confirm that grant has been used properly.
Let me outline to your Lordships how we will use these regulations in 1992–93. We intend to introduce four new areas of support to which we attach particular priority. First, £6.6 million of spending will assist schemes to raise standards in inner city primary and secondary schools which face particularly severe problems. This is the first DES specific grant focused exclusively on such schools. We expect to fund initiatives to strengthen delivery of the curriculum, especially reading, as well as measures to encourage parental involvement. The Government's programme of education reforms is designed to raise standards across the country. This targeted action demonstrates our determination that any special difficulties in inner cities should not be a barrier to that aim.
Secondly, we have earmarked £2 million of supported expenditure to help develop courses designed to increase the number of adults from inner city areas entering higher education. The Government are committed to widening educational opportunities for adults, and these courses will give a route into HE for entrants without traditional qualifications.
A third activity, supporting £2 million in 1992–93, is designed to encourage LEAs to develop regional provision for deaf-blind children. It has become
1264
increasingly clear that the low incidence of deaf-blindness was preventing the development of effective and suitable education for them. This new grant will encourage LEAs to work together to develop imaginative approaches at regional level, which can then be disseminated across the country.
Fourthly, we have included a new activity to help schools to offer vocational qualifications as part of their sixth form provision. This activity is a reflection of our aim to provide high quality further education or training to all 16 and 17 year-olds, and to raise all-round levels of attainment. It will support £3 million of expenditure in 1992–93. The funding will support the purchase of hooks and equipment for the new courses, and will allow school staff to undertake short secondments to industry or FE colleges. Those are the new activities we intend to support in 1992–93. Your Lordships may be interested in how they fit into the programme as a whole.
As your Lordships may know, ESGs and the LEA Training Grants Scheme have been brought together in a combined programme of Grants for Education Support and Training, or GEST. In 1992–93 we plan to offer grant support on total spending by LEAs of £377 million in England, mostly supported at a grant rate of 60 per cent. of spending. Total supported expenditure will be £13 million higher than last year. That is an increase of some 3.6 per cent. We have therefore broadly maintained the level of the programme in real terms.
For 1992–93 we have grouped together certain related activities into three broad areas—school management and appraisal, basic curriculum and assessment, and further education. LEAs are generally free to transfer their allocations between activities in the same broad area. Last year your Lordships commented that there should be more flexibility in the programme. These new arrangements will allow LEAs increased freedom to respond to local needs and priorities. In this way we will ensure that resources are used in line with both national and local priorities.
We have also encouraged LEAs to involve schools and colleges closely in implementing projects. We particularly welcome the indications received that many LEAs are increasing the extent to which they devolve in-service training funding to schools and colleges. This will give schools and colleges greater freedom to target their own funding.
As in 1991–92, we have decided that our main priority for the 1992–93 programme is to help schools, colleges and LEAs to implement the education reforms. Of the £377 million total programme, some 70 per cent. is directly related to those reforms.
Over £170 million will be allocated on activities related to the national curriculum. We are again making available funding to support national curriculum assessment; and we are ensuring earmarked funding for equipment for the national curriculum, to set alongside the continuing activity for national curriculum books.
Within the area of school management we are increasing the funding available for governor training and teacher appraisal, areas to which we attach particular importance. We believe that the extra

1265
support for these activities will make a strong contribution to improving the morale and performance of both teachers and school governors.
That still leaves over £110 million for activities which, although not directly related to the education reforms, are also high Government priorities. To give just one example, the programme will continue and increase funding for projects to improve teacher supply. This grant is an important element of our wide range of measures on teacher recruitment and its success is reflected in the much improved teacher supply figures. By January 1991 the number of teacher vacancies in England had fallen by around 20 per cent. compared to January 1990. Recruitment to initial teacher training courses has also improved dramatically. This September the intake is 21 per cent. higher than that in 1990. More students started courses this year than at any time since 1976.
I said earlier to your Lordships that we have also taken the opportunity in preparing the regulations to remove from the schedule certain items for which grant is no longer payable. ESGs have never been intended to provide permanent support for any activity, however worthy. It is right that authorities should eventually have to take their own decisions about how they wish to proceed with the activities, and what level of funding they wish to devote to them from their own resources. The benefits of the grant will not be lost. In most cases ESG projects will provide a foundation for mainstream work for years to come.
The final change made by the proposed regulations is to remove a requirement that the audit certificate covering each LEA's expenditure must be unqualified. In most cases the auditor is able to report without qualification. If there are problems, however, then we of course must know about them. If the auditor qualifies his certificate, the department will then seek any further assurances it needs that grant has been properly claimed.
So far I have focused on the GEST programme in England. The GEST programme in Wales will support expenditure of some £25 million in 1992–93. The activities to be supported broadly match those in England. As in 1991–92, support in Wales will be available for Welsh in the national curriculum.
The regulations before us will allow us to continue funding important and beneficial developments and to extend our programme of education reforms to raise standards in new areas. I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulation laid before the House on 12th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanatory remarks on the education support grants which have been introduced in the form of regulations made under the Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984. It is worth noting that this is a positive statutory instrument. Noble Lords should realise this is not the most frightening procedure imaginable. It is not quite as worrying as people sometimes appear to suggest. In
1266
the context of total education expenditure, the sums we are discussing today are small sums. However, no one doubts that they are useful sums.
If I were to put on my economics hat, I could say that the sums this year do not maintain expenditure in real terms by any measure that comes to my mind. However, I do not particularly wish to debate that issue this evening. I regard the four new areas to he supported as worthy areas. I am particularly interested in the funds for promoting provision for blind-deaf children to enable the relevant authorities to work together. We on this side of the House strongly approve of that and we are delighted to see the department giving a lead in that area.
We are also happy about the other three areas. The four new areas are undoubtedly worthy. However, I wonder whether there were other worthy areas where the department decided not to proceed because of lack of funding. It is interesting to consider why these four new areas were chosen. I am not suggesting they are not worthy areas, but presumably originally there was a longer list of new areas and these four were chosen from that list. I should be interested to know whether the choice was made on educational grounds or simply because there is not enough money to fund all the new areas the Government would like to fund. I hope the Minister can comment on that.
The Minister was right to say that we cannot assume that everything one does in the education support grant area must continue forever. However, it is interesting to note that three of the five areas that are being dropped concern language in one form or another. The activity that aims to broaden the range of languages available is being dropped. A project concerning Welsh is another such area that is to be dropped—I know I should never get involved with that issue—as is the training of teachers to improve pupils' use and understanding of the English language. Is that being done because the department considers those areas have been given a good start and they must continue by themselves, or are they being dropped because, after reflection, the department considers the money was not well spent?
One cannot assume that all projects will work perfectly well. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that one or two projects will not turn out to be good investments. I hope the Minister can comment on that matter. However, I do not ask any of these questions in a mean spirit. I do so merely because I am genuinely interested in the answers. If the Minister does not have the answers, I shall be perfectly happy for him to write to me at a later stage.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I wish to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for having explained the regulations so clearly. The Joint Committee of both Houses appointed to scrutinise delegated legislation has, I believe, considered the regulations and has determined that special attention does not need to be drawn to any of them.
Similarly in another place the regulations were accepted without controversy. We see no reason why the four further areas referred to by the Minister should not be added to the educational activities

1267
qualifying for support grants. The noble Lord told us that a number of areas no longer qualify for direct funding for this purpose. I too understand that those areas concern mainly languages. I also believe that the teaching of mathematics in schools is similarly affected. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I hope the Minister can tell us, if possible, what criteria were used to determine that those areas would no longer benefit from education support grants.
It is not a contentious issue. If the Minister is not able to answer now the points which have been raised, perhaps he will send me a copy of any letter which he sends to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. On behalf of my noble friends, I am happy to accept the regulations.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for the way they have received the regulations, and for their constructive remarks. I believe that there is a measure of support for our specific grants programme. Individual opinions of priorities will vary and the programme cannot cover every conceivable activity. However, I believe that we all agree that the GEST programme continues to provide key support in order to ensure that the education service can continue to respond to changing needs and to raise standards.
A number of points were raised. I did not expect to be asked why the four new activities had been selected, but I think that I can respond in broad terms. If I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The subjects will have been drawn from a list of priorities. The aspirations of education are without limit.
Regarding the subjects which were dropped, as I indicated in my introduction, the ESGs were never intended to provide permanent support for any particular activity. They are the main pump-priming grants and run for periods of no longer than five years. New needs and priorities continually emerge and new grants will take the place of those which end. That was always the intention.
The Government consider the size and the shape of the programme each year. Each year we have to make a decision about the most effective pattern of support within the cash limits of the programme. The 1992–93 GEST programme includes more than £170 million for activities related to the national curriculum. Items which are to end, such as the teaching of mathematics, which was mentioned by noble Lords, projects to improve the curriculum in rural primary schools and the training of teachers to improve pupils' use of English, will be eligible for grant support as part of the wider activities of the national curriculum. It is believed that some of those activities are feeding through into the main educational arena. It will be for local authorities to decide the precise use which will be made of the funding.
I hope that I have responded to the questions which were raised. 1 firmly believe that the new ESG activities in the GEST programme for 1992–93 will offer valuable support to schools and colleges where it is most needed. The overall programme will allow us
1268
both to build on previous successes in established areas and to encourage new activities. I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1991
7.52 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [4th Report. from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in each of the past two years, Parliament has approved continuation orders extending the life of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987. On the first occasion, two years ago, that was because a sufficient measure of agreement had not been reached about the way forward and new machinery. Last year an order was needed to ensure that the recommendations of the Interim Advisory Committee on teachers' pay in 1991–92 could be given effect. The IAC reported for the last time in January of this year and, under the terms of the 1990 continuation order, the 1987 Act is due to expire on 31st March 1992.
Those of your Lordships who were present on 6th December last year may recall that in moving the 1990 continuation order I said that it would be the last occasion on which the Government would ask the House to approve an extension of the 1987 Act and that there would be no further need for the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 by this time. The days of the 1987 Act are indeed numbered, but the timetable is not quite as I envisaged this time last year. The essential point, however, is that new arrangements for deciding teachers' pay are now in place. The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 received Royal Assent on 25th July 1991. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has appointed the eight members of the School Teachers' Review Body under the chairmanship of Sir Graham Day. On 20th September my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science asked the review body to submit its first report in January 1992, making recommendations on teachers' pay and conditions in the year commencing 1st April 1992.
Because the arrangements which we now have in place for determining teachers' pay and conditions are not those which we envisaged at the end of 1990, the timetable for repealing the 1987 Act has also changed. There are technical reasons why that Act needs to continue in force not just until 31st March 1992, but for a few weeks beyond that. Perhaps I may explain.
Before my right honourable friend makes the order giving statutory force to the 1992 school teachers' pay and conditions document he is required under the 1991 Act to consult interested parties on the review body's recommendations on the Government's proposals for implementation. He has also agreed, following the practice adopted in previous years and as specifically requested by the employers and the teacher unions, to consult the same interested parties on the details of the draft pay document giving effect

1269
to the Government's recommendations. As your Lordships may recall, during the passage of the Bill which led to the 1991 Act, my noble friend Lord Belstead assured your Lordships that the review body's recommendations—and the Government's implementation of them—would be subject to a wealth of consultation. That was welcomed on all sides. We shall, of course, move as quickly as possible on those consultations, but it is most unlikely that the Secretary of State will be in a position to make the first pay and conditions order under the new Act immediately upon the expiry of the 1987 Act on 31st March 1992.
Until the first new pay and conditions order is made under the 1991 Act the 1987 Act needs to be kept in being for a very short time for a very specific and limited purpose: namely, to ensure that all teachers continue to be covered by the existing pay and conditions order made under that Act. Section 6(3) of the 1987 Act provides for statutory conditions of service to continue to apply to existing contracts until new provision is made; teachers who enter with new contracts of employment after the Act expires would not, however, be covered.
It is clearly desirable to ensure that there is a smooth transition between the old and new pay and conditions orders, and in particular to ensure that the provisions of the 1991 pay document will continue to apply in the case of contracts of employment entered into between 31st March 1992 and the date on which the new order giving effect to the 1992 pay and conditions document comes into force.
That is why we are obliged to take your Lordships' time to seek approval for the final continuation order. It affords continued statutory protection to the very small number of teachers taking up new contracts of employment during any hiatus between the current date of expiry of the 1987 Act and the coming into force of the first pay and conditions order under the 1991 Act. The 1987 Act will finally be repealed alongside the making of the first pay and conditions order under the 1991 Act.
Perhaps I may stress what my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in another place last week:
"The continuation order has no bearing on arrangements for next year's pay settlement. The new schoolteachers review body is hard at work. It has received evidence from the teachers' associations, the employers and the Department of Education and Science, and has listened to the representations of all those bodies. As I have already explained, it will present its first report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister around the end of January next year. That report will make recommendations on the pay increase to be given to schoolteachers next year … It will also consider how the pay of schoolteachers might be more closely related to their performance, in line with the principles of the citizens charter".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/91; col. 703.]
As we discussed very clearly when the Bill was passing through this House, the review body will recommend precisely as it thinks fit. The Government for their part have given a firm commitment to implement the recommendations of the review body unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do otherwise. I am confident that the work of the review
1270
body will reinforce teachers' professionalism and raise still further the esteem in which society holds our teachers.
In the meantime this order is required simply to ensure a smooth transition between the old and new statutory arrangements, and to ensure that there is no hiatus in statutory provision for the pay and conditions of school teachers. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, for the second time this evening, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I accept that we are discussing the order today for purely technical reasons. It is two years since I last spoke on the subject and made my farewell speech to the Interim Advisory Committee. My noble friend Lady Blackstone made her farewell speech to the committee a year ago. I now make my final farewell speech on this occasion. Whatever we feel about some aspects of teachers' pay, it would be wrong if, certainly from our side, we did not thank everyone who has worked on the Interim Advisory Committee for what they have done and for their efforts to do something useful for teachers. I wish to place that thanks on record.
The noble Lord referred to the pay review body. Again, we must wait to see what it has to say. For our part, we certainly hope that it will make recommendations that make it easier to recruit teachers. That will raise the morale of the teaching profession and will ultimately lead to better education. As we have argued in respect of the Bill going through this House at present, what matters in the end is the end product; not those who do the work, but what they achieve. We look forward to that. As 1 understand it, we are not certain to be able to debate what that review body proposes, but I certainly hope that between us, via the usual channels, we shall have an early opportunity to debate pay and conditions, or at least the first report.
Finally, perhaps the noble Lord will tell us whether he has any information for us. We assume that the new body is working extremely hard. Everyone says that we shall hear from it in January. Are we at all close to being told when in January we might see its recommendations? Subject to that question, I reiterate my congratulations to the Interim Advisory Committee. We on this side of the House would not dream of opposing the order.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I shall be brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, told us, when the Government introduced the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill earlier this year they expressed the hope, and indeed the expectation, that the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 would expire on 31st March 1992. I am disappointed that that hope is not to be fulfilled, although I understand that it is largely for technical reasons, as we have been told. For the rest, I am content to accept the order on behalf of my noble friends.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, again, I should like to thank both noble Lords for the way in which they have received the order. I should also like to associate myself with the valedictory and congratulatory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the IAC, which did a superb job. He asked when the review body's recommendations would be known. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has directed the review body to report to the Prime Minister and to him the results of its examination of the matters referred to it with its recommendations and such other advice relating to those matters as it thinks fit in time for the Government to take a decision on the report by the end of January or, at the very latest, early February 1992. He will then arrange for the report to be published, as the Act requires him to do.
I cannot go further than that. As I said, the order is required to ensure a smooth transition between arrangements under the 1987 and 1991 Acts and to ensure that statutory provision for the pay and conditions of service for all teachers applies equally and fairly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting (Programme Contractors' Additional Payments) Order 1991
8.4 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved—[4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this order on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
The order deals with the additional payments, more commonly known as the levy, which the Broadcasting Act 1981, as amended, requires ITV companies to pay through the Independent Television Commission into the Consolidated Fund. It proposes a reduction in the major part of the levy which is based on advertising revenue for 1992.
In 1993 we shall enter a new era, with the Channel 3 licensees taking over from ITV contractors. They will effectively set their own levy through the franchise payments that they have undertaken to make. The payments vary from company to company and the legislation has brought other financial changes, but the Government's aim will remain very much the same; namely, to secure a suitable return for the taxpayer while taking care to ensure that the companies are in a position to deliver their programme undertakings. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order with such clarity and brevity. We on this side of the House welcome the measure and are glad that the Government have recognised that they were taking too high a rate of levy from the advertising revenue of the ITV companies. There has
1272
recently been a big slump in advertising revenue and any forecasts of that increasing must be dubious in view of our lamentable economic condition at present.
It is estimated that the change that the order will bring about will be worth £100 million in the last year for ITV before the new Channel 3 appears in 1993. That is obviously to the good, but we cannot ignore the context of the already discredited Channel 3 franchise auction in which all this is set. In 1993 the companies will pay £100 million more to the Treasury than under the present system. They will therefore have £100 million less to spend on good programming. Incidentally, this week sees the end of the "Thames Reports" and City programmes. Although Thames did not win a franchise, it is obviously trying to save money in the last year of its current franchise. There has already been a noticeable slide in programmes even before we reach 1992, let alone 1993. If more relief had been given in the order, the companies would have had the possibility of investing more money in programmes and perhaps being able to prevent the current slide in programme standards as we have a whole year before us before we enter into the new Channel 3 arrangements.
There is also the question of equity as regards the way in which the matter has been handled. As I understand it, it is equally across the board for all the companies. It is the same for those that have lost their franchises, such as Thames, TVS, TVW and TV-am and, on the other hand, those who gained franchises from the awful auction. It may seem a little strange that those who have lost their franchises and are starting to go out of business should receive the same amount as those who have won franchises again.
There is furthermore the question of the great variety of bids that won franchises. Central Television, which paid £2,000, will receive £10.5 million relief under the order. Scottish Television, which also bid very low, will gain £4 million, HTV will receive £4.5 million and LWT will receive £9 million. There is something to be said for apportioning the relief, especially when one considers the case of Yorkshire Television which evidently grossly overbid in order to win its franchise.
Contrary to the way in which I and many other noble Lords argued during the passage of the Bill through the House, when we wanted a moratorium on take-overs to be extended for at least a further year, that moratorium finishes on 1st January 1992, which will doubtless create more turmoil and certainly some, if not a great deal, of upheaval.
As those of us concerned with broadcasting must be deeply and primarily concerned about the quality of programmes, the relief is not great enough to help launch a quality plan ready for 1993. Nevertheless, if it is all that we are to get, we have to welcome it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her support for the order. It is a matter of judgment exactly where to set the new rates. We believe that what we have proposed is a sensible and proportionate response in line with the commitments that we made when the new levy was introduced. The new rates will offset the over-recovery

1273
which has occurred so far. They will significantly ease the present burden on the ITV companies at what is obviously a difficult time for the system.
But in proposing the rates, we have also remained conscious of the need to avoid an under-payment of the levy should the economic recovery be greater or quicker than presently forecast. Noble Lords will recall that the Public Accounts Committee has been very concerned about this point in the past, and we have taken the message to heart.
As I said, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's support for the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes to nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended. from 8.11 to 8.40 p.m.]

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 20:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on maintenance of specialist libraries etc
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of the maintenance of specialist libraries, archives and collections.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to he concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of the maintenance of specialist libraries, archives and collections by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to exclude the maintenance of specialist libraries, archives and collections, library support services and branch and mobile libraries from the Bill. Although support services only are specified in the consultation paper, Competing for Quality, the amendments arc put forward to ensure that that vague term does not include, for example, specialist collections or mobile libraries. The acknowledgment in the consultation document that competitive tendering for library services will not extend to the network of service points is welcome. However, if the purpose of contracting out is (and I quote from the consultation paper),
"to produce as good a service at less cost or better service at the same price",
there must be serious doubts about the proposals to extend CCT to library support services.
Book processing is an area of work for which most authorities already use a range of library supply firms from the private sector. Tying that into a framework of compulsory tendering could hinder effective competition since authorities would be committed either to a single supplier or a limited number of suppliers possibly for a period of up to six years.
The experience of the few authorities which have tried to contract out other elements of library support services such as ordering, cataloguing and classifying
1274
books and other materials has been far from promising. I understand that the principal reason was that potential contractors, mainly from firms specialising in library supply, could not identify where a profit could he made in those areas of activity and therefore no bids were forthcoming. One authority in which there is a strong political commitment to contracting out tried twice and approached 31 companies but still failed to persuade one to make a bid.
The evidence therefore suggests that if the Government insist on subjecting those activities to competitive tendering they will force local authorities to incur additional costs and undermine the morale of dedicated library staff without necessarily any practical benefit to library users.
Subjecting library supplies to compulsory competition could mean that library users' choice of books will in future depend not on their individual range of interests but on the commercial supply arrangements struck by private contractors. One has seen that occurring in other areas. Certain lines of books are bought which are not necessarily what people want.
The consultative document states:
"The purchasing function is probably best exposed to competition by allowing users to purchase goods and services where best value for money can be obtained, rather than contracting out the function".
Introducing compulsory competitive tendering—I again stress the word "compulsory"—for library support services would occupy a great deal of staff time when library authorities are already struggling with diminished resources. There is little evidence that the process would attract sufficient competition to allow compensatory savings.
The Government will obviously continue to give the opportunity for tendering but it should not be compulsory tendering. That is the aspect about which we are most concerned. The amendments to which I have referred relate to libraries. However, Amendment No. 23 deals with theatres and arts facilities. As the amendments are grouped together, I shall speak to the amendments while moving Amendment No. 20.
The consultation document confuses the planning, staging and promotion of theatrical and arts events with management of theatres and arts facilities. Those are two entirely different aspects. The two areas overlap but they are not synonymous. Arts staff arrange events at a range of other venues besides purpose-built facilities. For example, events can take place in libraries, parks, leisure centres and other community venues. Even where facilities are purpose built for arts, or theatrical performances, local authorities will usually make them available at off peak times for a range of local community activities run by community groups. It is difficult, and it would be wrong, to disentangle those different uses from the same facilities.
Those community activities could be threatened if major arts and theatre facilities were compulsorily contracted out to private sector contractors. Many local authorities have developed multi-disciplinary leisure departments based on the inter-relationship between cultural, leisure and sporting pursuits. Thus

1275
economies of scale have been achieved which would be threatened if there were this narrow concentration on compulsory tendering. Tying authorities into compulsory competition may hinder them in their efforts to provide for a variety of leisure needs in an efficient, cost-effective and co-ordinated way.
There is a complex inter-relationship in arts events between programming, pricing and promotion. It would be difficult to see how those responsibilities could be divided in a way that would be fair to the people involved and would give pleasure and occupation to the people at whom the events are aimed. Compulsion should not be insisted on in this area any more than it should be in relation to libraries. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment. I have my name down in support of all amendments dealing with the exclusion from compulsion of the services listed for reasons that I have already given. However, I wish to put on record the distaste that we on these Benches have for the element of compulsion. I do not believe that it would be effective or efficient for me to speak to every amendment. I therefore shall not take up the time of the House by repeating what will have been said by others in the debate. However, I wish to associate myself and Members on these Benches with the dislike of the compulsory element.
Perhaps I may say a word about the management of the theatres and arts facilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made an important point about their place in the fabric of local life. Indeed, I should go further than the noble Baroness and say that theatres and arts facilities cross the departments. They are an important part of leisure services. They are a particularly important part of the education service at primary, secondary, tertiary and adult levels. In order to preserve the work done in the different areas of local authority service it is essential that they should not fall within the requirements for compulsory contracting out. That is the fear of people who are accustomed to, pleased, and grateful for the use of those facilities at local level. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that it would be quite wrong to exempt services in advance of the consultation or in advance of the Secretary of State's recommendation—if, indeed, he makes one—to extend CCT to library support services. I repeat that my right honourable friend has the power to extend CCT. However, before he does there is a requirement to consult and a requirement to seek the approval of both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure. In the light of that I do not believe that it would be appropriate to exempt any service from the provisions of the 1988 Act. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the amendments.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister's reply was not a surprise. I shall not press the amendment, but I hope that some of the comments that we have made will rub off somewhere on someone. I hope also that when further consultation takes place the
1276
Government will realise that it is not necessary to have everything in this monotone of compulsion, because that could do more harm than good.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that much of what the noble Baroness has said, and much of what I expect will be said in respect of all the relevant amendments that are being taken separately, is a matter for the consultation process. I hope that the point will be made separately to the department.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 24:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on confidential records
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of the compilation. use or maintenance of confidential records.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of the compilation, use or maintenance of confidential records by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government do not intend that confidential records shall be handled by CCT. I made my maiden speech at the same time as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in a debate on freedom of information and your Lordships were kind and courteous enough to listen to me. Therefore, we on these Benches firmly believe that as little as possible information of a confidential nature should be held. By definition, it is prone to error, to stereotype, to accidental newspaper clippings and to gossip. We want tenants' files, health records and university records to be open. However, it is widely recognised on all sides of the House that certain material—for example, that in relation to child abuse—must be held in a confidential manner. Equally, a whole range of commercial information—for example, the expected price of an asset at disposal or legal proceedings involving the local authority—must be treated confidentially. I suggest that such information should be kept in-house.
At present, where there is such a breach of confidentiality an aggrieved citizen can go to ward councillors, to officers, to a local authority complaints officer or to an ombudsman. However, if there is a breach by a private firm what recourse does the citizen have? Where does accountability lie? Equally, if the local authority's financial fiduciary duty should suffer as a result of a breach of confidential information, what can it do? Even if it goes to court the damage cannot be remedied. Given the narrow field of confidentiality, for personal information reasons or commercially sensitive information, I hope that the Minister will confirm that there is no intention to send it out to CCT. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to make a further point that my noble friend did not mention. I refer to the possibility of fraud if confidential documents are let out to private individuals or firms. What then will be the case?
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, many of the confidential files in local government lay in the social services department; for instance, those relating to child abuse, adoption and court cases. In most of those cases other bodies are involved. The NSPCC is involved in child abuse cases and the social services department shares its papers with the society. In cases of mental handicap or illness the department shares its papers with the outside doctor or outside social worker who is dealing with the case. In cases of adoption the department often shares its papers with outside adoption agencies. As is well known to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, it shares its papers with the police.
At no time that I can remember have papers fallen into any hands other than those of professionals. However, it must be said that they have been seen by people outside the department all of whom have taken up the attitude of confidentiality. Therefore, I do not believe that there is reason for the anxiety expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention because this is an important point. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, raised the issue of fraud. That is an illegal activity whether it is carried out by somebody in the private or the public sector. Indeed, people who carry out fraudulent activities are no respecters of the particular sector within which they work. There must be safeguards. Indeed, internal management will address specifically the way in which local authorities carry out their work. It must ensure that proper safeguards exist. However, at the end of the day if someone is prepared to commit fraud they take the risk and they are no respecters of the particular sectors within which they work—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. There is one difference, however. Where the service is under the direct control of the council at least there is the supervision by the council itself. Once the service goes outside the council's administration there is only an arms-length relationship instead of a direct relationship. That could enhance the possibilities of fraud. That was what I meant.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can tell the noble Lord that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has addressed part of the issue. Control must always remain with the local authority. The monitoring and the handling of confidential records must be part of the arrangement with the agency that is being allowed to handle them, or part of the specification if they are the subject of a contract.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has illustrated well the reasons why we need the facility and flexibility to deal with different services in different ways. I hope that she will remember that when we address the issue
1278
of flexibility. In some contracts confidentiality is an important aspect that needs special arrangements which are different from others. At present we do not have that flexibility. The consultation paper does not suggest the extension of CCT to the maintenance of confidential records as an individual service as such. However, many of the services that we have suggested as being appropriate candidates for CCT would involve maintaining records which would in some cases be confidential. The need for confidentiality could, in general, be dealt with in specifications or through a quality threshold if we obtain the flexibility to apply it differently in different cases.
If there are anxieties relating to particular local authority activities they could be expressed now in response to the current consultation paper. I invite all noble Lords who have anxieties about any of these issues to ensure that their views are recorded by the department or during the statutory consultation on any order made under Section 2(3).
9 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am well satisfied with the Minister's response. Clearly this is an issue of concern to everybody. I have reservations about whether it can be dealt with by specification, as she suggests. However, I hope that she is right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 25:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on corporate professional services
.—(1) No order shall he made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of corporate professional services
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of corporate professional services by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a broad, sweeping amendment which seeks to exclude from CCT corporate services and those areas which give professional advice and so on. My experience of local government was back in the late 1960s and it may be that the Minister shares that. It was heavily departmental, led by a chief officer in his mahogany office. He was a great figure in his land and territory. Local government was heavily centralised and everything happened within city hall. Therefore, city hall was the corporation and that was the language employed. However, the impact of the Baines Report in the early 1970s and best practice taken on board from quality business organisations has meant that, since the early 1970s, local government has developed in at least three valuable and important ways.
First, it has developed the corporate rather than departmental approach. Secondly, it focuses on problems which cut across departmental boundaries which are, therefore, client or user-led rather than provider-led. Thirdly, especially in county councils, the larger mets and the larger shire districts, there has

1279
been a move to go local, to decentralise and to devolve decision-making to local budget holders. One welcomes those three developments.
I suggest to your Lordships that to apply CCT to corporate advice and services and professional advice and services will damage every one of those three trends to the irreversible detriment of local government because CCT will require local government to do what has been jettisoned as bad practice by almost every quality private company in the country.
The corporate approach seeks an authority-wide rather than a departmental perspective. It privileges the strategic perspective. However by definition CCT, with its emphasis on trading accounts, will fragment local government into individual professions, units and departments. I believe that in that process we shall lose the strategic perspective as well as generating the unholy roundabout of every professional officer trying to lay off his or her costs onto others. The lawyers will need to know what is being charged by personnel and finance departments before they can calculate what they should charge those departments. There will be a sort of pass-the-parcel approach.
Corporate professional advice and services cannot be specified in advance because they are concerned with management team matters.
The second development of the early 1970s has been that, increasingly, local government has been more problem and client centred. Following from that, local government has tried to move away from traditional departmental boundaries. That is why the old Section 137 powers have been so important a potting shed in which new developments like economic development have flourished.
Local authorities increasingly wish to establish and have established multi-disciplinary teams of officers and members; for example, for an anti-poverty strategy involving social services, legal rights, housing benefits or equal opportunities as a pathway out of poverty. That has been an innovative, flexible and pluralistic way of recognising and meeting new needs. However, that is a luxury which CCT will not permit because it will send professional officers scurrying back into their departments in order to operate as a trading account.
Thirdly, CCT will inhibit the very attractive moves towards going local, which were mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the Minister. Counties that have posted out personnel, financial services and legal staff into decentralised offices will have to unscramble and recentralise them. The very developments which were welcomed on both sides of the House which have made local government more accountable and more responsive and which will help to deliver the Citizen's Charter will be impeded because CCT requires vertical organisation of local government and labour rather than community oriented, geographically spread and localised services. Even if in-house as opposed to out-house teams win contracts, that will foster those rigid, centralised departments and restrictive practices which those of us in local government have tried so hard to overcome.
If so, what will happen? Are councils really to be managed by a small core of managers relying for support and information from professionals whose role and duties are tightly defined by a contract, whose presence is likely to change at the expiry of each contract term and whose skills, knowledge, experience and information—their share of the corporate memory—will go with them when they go?
I suggest that the opportunities for confusion, disruption, discontinuity and loss of expertise are boundless. No quality company could manage itself in that way so why should local government? The Minister has been a county councillor and I hope that she will recognise the analogy which I draw. The Minister has ably responded to an array of amendments. Her bright and shining advisers are sitting in the box—her team of civil servants.
Let us suppose that sitting in the Ministerial Box is not a team but a cluster or—dare I say?—a clutter of private contract-holding professionals, the cheapest she can get once they have passed a quality threshold such as a degree. How comfortable would she feel? What about the departmental view of previous precedents. People in and out of temporary secondment may find it difficult to inform the Minister about that. They may say, "I cannot help about that, Minister, because our company has accepted a contract from the Association of County Councils and there may be a conflict of interest". The Minister would not be able to count, as I am sure she does, on their undivided loyalty if somebody else paid them more; nor on their confidentiality in spite of their best efforts as they moved between clients; nor on their accumulated expertise because they do not hold the job for long enough.
Nor does the Minister want only the advice for which she has paid. She may need to hear advice which she does not want to hear and which a private firm may not proffer if that endangered the subsequent contract. She wants the advice to be expert because it is more than the sum of its parts and more than a laundry list of tendered-for skills. She wants to know that she and her corporate advisers share a common code of ethics, a commitment to the public good as well as government interest and the rapport which that presumes. I assume that the Minister wants all that. Certainly leaders and councillors of local authorities want all that. That will all be jeopardised if corporate advice and strategy goes out to CCT. I beg to move.
Baroness Match: My Lords, I cannot agree that there should be exemption of these services from the 1988 Act. However, the paper suggests the establishment of an internal market for a number of corporate professional services.
The noble Baroness clearly pointed up the difference between us: I do not enjoy the same jaundiced view of the private sector as the noble Baroness. It has come in for much maligning during the course of today, which is unjustified. I repeat what I said earlier: there are good, bad and indifferent professionals in both the public and private sector.
The paper makes it clear that we recognise the closeness of those areas to the democratic process and to the corporate core of local government. That may

1281
raise problems if the services are substantially contracted out. We propose that if competition is required for a proportion only of corporate and administrative services—including such less sensitive areas as purchasing, printing, secretarial and clerical support—an appropriate proportion may be 15 per cent. Again I invite the noble Baroness and her colleagues to ensure that their views are separately represented to the department as a result of consultation. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I certainly accept that there are good professional staff in the private sector. However, the Minister did not meet the point. Corporate advice by definition is not simply a random array of good professionals. It is something greater than its parts; it is about that collective memory. However, given the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 26:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on electoral registration
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of electoral registration services.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of electoral registration services by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on this occasion I rise in the absence of my noble friend and colleague Lord McIntosh of Haringey to move Amendment No. 26. The amendment seeks to exclude electoral registrations as detailed in the consultation paper.
In its White Paper, Competing for Quality, the Government stated that,
"The closeness … of electoral registration to the democratic process and to the corporate core of an authority could raise problems if … substantially contracted out".
That is not reflected in Clause 8, which enables the Secretary of State to require any service he wishes to be subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988.
There has already been considerable popular resistance to the sale of electoral registers, which is now a requirement imposed on local authorities through the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1990. Indeed, the Data Protection Registrar, with the support of the local authority associations, issued a Code of Guidance for Electoral Registration Officers which recommends that they make available for public inspection a list of bodies which have purchased the register.
In a Gallup survey carried out for the BBC in 1986, some 79 per cent, of those surveyed strongly disapproved of the sale of registers. Since then there has been increasing anxiety at the ease with which personal privacy can be invaded. Privatisation of electoral registration could well deter individuals from exercising their democratic right to register to vote.
The form of words used in the consultation paper is scarcely reassuring. Who decides what is, and what is not, "substantially" contracting out? On the evidence of the Bill it will be the Secretary of State who, after all, is consulting on the White Paper at the same time as enacting legislation and thereby devaluing both the legislative and consultative processes. Many authorities are developing computer software packages, sometimes in association with other authorities. Is that "insubstantial", and therefore to be subject to compulsory competitive tendering? What about the employees who administer the register and the temporary canvassers employed by some authorities when the register is being revised? Is the dispatch of the "A" forms and the follow-up "insubstantial"? Where do the Government propose to draw the line?
It is generally recognised that in a democratic society one of the rights of the citizen is the right to vote. Local authorities found that the introduction of the late, unlamented poll tax appeared to coincide with thousands of voters going missing from the register. Individuals who were able to register anonymously for the poll tax, but who were unable to do so for the electoral register, may have decided not to register at all. It is essential that registering to vote be linked clearly—to use the Government's own words—to the democratic process. Requiring the sale of the register to private firms on the grounds that credit reference agencies said that it would be,
"in the interests of the consumer",
is bad enough. That is to be found in the debate on the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1990, at col. 1124 of Hansard on 6th March 1990. Privatising the process of compiling and administering the register would be even worse. If it is not in the Government's mind to allow the Secretary of State to do so, the amendment should be accepted.
Perhaps I may briefly give an example from my own experience. On one occasion someone came to see me to query how certain people received information with regard to people's credit ratings. That person's daughter had returned to live in Manchester, living first with her parents and then taking a flat. She happened to have the same initial as her father. She could not have a phone installed in her flat without paying well over the normal rate and had to pay a substantial amount of money. When it was queried BT said it was because there was a bad debt in that name at that house. My friend could not understand it. He got in touch with British Telecom who said, "Oh, we haven't got the records but we will give you an address and phone number of a company in Scotland which has all this information on computer. If you write to it and send a £1 coin it will give you your credit rating". My friend did that. Strangely, all he received was complete vindication of the fact that he had just bought a house in the Manchester area and that he had sold a house in the Sheffield area—all that was clear. But he was still mystified as to why he was considered to be a bad debt when neither he nor his wife had purchased anything on credit for years. Finally, it turned out that the daughter, during a stay

1283
at the house, had not registered on the poll tax register. So she was immediately a non-person and lost all her rights to vote and so on.
What puzzles me is who is responsible for acquiring that information and notifying whoever controls that computer in Scotland? I have not invented that story which happened to someone who is pretty close to me. I am sure the Minister must find that example a little bit more than frightening, as I do. It is something that in the near future I may take to the Home Secretary, or whoever is the appropriate person, because it happened only recently. It sounds strange that one can send £1 to an address in Glasgow and receive the credit rating of anybody in your house. I should like the Minister to consider that. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to this amendment. It was only last week that I was out canvassing in a by-election in the borough of Wandsworth where I am a councillor. On several occasions while canvassing I was asked by a member of the public from where I had acquired his or her name. That might be because I look like a shifty character, but it was also because people are naturally suspicious when someone has their name. When I told them that I had obtained their name from the electoral register I managed to placate them because they then realised that that is linked to the democratic process.
This placation, this confidence, in the register has been partially disrupted by the sale of registers and we know from the Gallup survey referred to earlier that people very strongly disapprove of the sale of these registers.
It is my contention that the privatisation of the administration of the electoral register will further damage the confidence that people have in the electoral register. Therefore, we should support this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the consultation paper recognises that some aspects of personnel work, such as employee relations, staff welfare and human resource planning, are less well suited to competition and suggests that if a proportion of the personnel services were to be exposed to CCT then 33 per cent. would be appropriate. However, it will come as no surprise that I do not accept that this service should be exempt from the provisions of the 1988 Act and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that is possibly the worst non-reply that I have heard today. It is not a reply to anything. 1 shall not press the amendment but if the Minister thinks she will get away with that she has another think coming because I shall be bringing it back at Third Reading, bearing in mind what I have introduced into this debate. It is a serious situation when people's private affairs are being bandied about and can be bought for £1. It seems a strange way to operate a democracy. Unless the safeguards are taken it could lead to serious trouble. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 28:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on human resource planning
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of human resource planning, employee relations, training and development, and recruitment and retention.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of human resource planning, employee relations, training and development, and recruitment and retention services by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move this amendment which is in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. In view of the Minister's answer to the previous question I am encouraged to think that perhaps these services will be excluded from the provisions of competitive tendering. This is a different area from those services we have been discussing so far under this clause in that personnel matters are very much at the heart of local authority work and they reflect directly on the corporate entity, which is the local authority.
The management, training and development of personnel is at the heart of any organisation and the morale and effectiveness of a workforce is dependent on teamwork and human relations as well as on efficiency and formal systems and contracts. The development of the human resources of an organisation is a long-term investment in staff to ensure commitment to the organisation and its objectives. There is a place for external consultants as advisers and as providers of courses, for instance, to supplement internal training, but the timescale of personnel matters means that obligatory competitive tendering which relies on short-term contracts would be disruptive to morale and disruptive to staff development. Those require long-term strategies rather than short-term contracts.
Confidentiality has already been addressed in relation to Amendment No. 24. Personnel departments also need to maintain confidential and sensitive personnel information which is most appropriately maintained in-house. Details of the welfare and medical records of individuals as well as of discipline and complaints should not be threatened by location within an external and commercial organisation. Staff would have little confidence in their employers if their personnel records might be handed from one contractor to another.
Training can be done by external consultants and trainers in relation to some short-term courses on specific—sometimes general—management areas but local authorities have developed successful in-house training programmes tailored to their specific management needs and their policy priorities. Some of this training—I addressed the House on this matter a week or so ago—has been in response to the never ending procession of new legislation affecting local government. Recruitment and training need to reflect the organisational culture. If that is ignored the result

1285
may be unsuitable appointments or inappropriate and wasteful training. Many authorities already use the private sector in a co-operative way in relation to recruitment, advertising and training, so there is no need for compulsion as envisaged in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a similar issue to the one we have just discussed in that they both deal with people and with records of people. I shall therefore be just a little repetitive. The paper recognises that some aspects of the personnel work such as employee relationships, staff welfare, human resource planning and so on are less well suited for competition. There is a suggestion that a proportion of this work should be put out, but those aspects of the work need to be safeguarded. That is what the consultation paper states and it would be helpful if those views were fed in. The same is true of electoral registration services. But there is still an issue of internal management efficiency. That will apply to the keeping of registers and covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on the previous amendment. However, I cannot agree that these should be exempt entirely from the provisions of the 1988 Act. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what was in general an encouraging response, although not entirely so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 29:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on computing services
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work failing within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of computing services.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of computing services by local authorities of any such order").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to exclude computing from CCT. The consultative document proposes that 80 per cent. of computing facilities should go out to CCT. I find that figure extraordinary and rather worrying. Computing is the knowledge resource of the local authority, the information tool needed for strategic and longer term as well as day-to-day decision-making. It is a key management tool for both senior staff and members alike. If it is put out to CCT, by definition, the contract has to specify the future demands to be made on the system, whether software or the facility's management process itself.
As I argued at Second Reading, no organisation can fully know in advance its future need for knowledge. That is precisely why one has a computer facility. If one knew what one needed to know one would already largely know it. It is because one cannot that one does not. How can one tell what one
1286
will need to know? The Secretary of State made eight or 10 adjustments to the poll tax. All required modifications of software and the IT work of in-house staff.
Local authorities need to be able to respond within days. Indeed the computing sub-committee of my authority quite spontaneously said that if the poll tax computing facility had been out to CCT it would have been impossible to deliver even the not entirely adequate service that most local authorities have provided. Where they have bought software they have had interminable bugs which have been teased out only by in-house staff working around the clock, tweaking the systems, in order to do so. Any CCT requirement involves a minimum of two months or so to tender, brief the company, draw up the specification and award the contract. Local authorities do not have two months in order to get a computing facility in place when they need the information to be at hand within a few days.
No private organisation would cripple itself in that way; that is, to put its knowledge resource at arm's length by entering a competitive tendering situation which means that it has to specify in advance what it may need to know. I suggest to your Lordships that to ask local government to follow that path is a very foolish move. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again the noble Baroness does not make the case for all computer services to be exempt from the provisions of the legislation. We are dealing now with an amendment which is asking for complete exemption from the provisions of the 1988 Act. Given the requirement to consult and the requirement for a recommendation to come before both Houses for consideration, I believe that the powers to extend should remain intact and that exemption should not be agreed at this stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in view of the fact that the consultative document proposes that 80 per cent, of this service is to go to CCT—that is, not the 15 per cent., 20 per cent, or 25 per cent, about which we have been talking in respect of other amendments—I should have thought that the Minister might have cared to respond to the arguments involved and not simply have said that we should await the result of consultation.
The consultative document clearly puts forward the proposition that 80 per cent, of the knowledge resource of local government will be put out to CCT. I suggest that that puts this service in a somewhat different category from the other services which we have been discussing. Nonetheless, the Minister's answer has been noted. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 30:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on accountancy services
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of accountancy services.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of accountancy services by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34 and 44. All the amendments relate to the same principle, the only difference being the services involved.
This range of amendments serves to exclude various aspects of financial services, as detailed in the consultation paper; for example, accountancy services, investment management, pension management and administration, exchequer services, cash collection, payroll administration, internal audit, financial planning and budgetary advice.
Competing for Quality outlines the Government's plans for eventual CCT of financial services, which would be preceded by the requirement to operate internal trading accounts. The Government appear to have decided that that will be enacted by primary legislation after the election.
On Second Reading the Minister said:
"In the longer term we propose to require local authorities to open up to competition core services such as finance, legal, personnel and computing. As a necessary first step, we propose that local authorities should be required to establish internal trading accounts so that the true cost of providing each discrete service within the core services may be identified. We intend to introduce separate legislation for those proposals once we have considered the response to our current consultation exercise".—[Official Report, 18/11/91; col. 713.]
However, there is nothing to stop CCT of financial services being added by the Secretary of State by order under Clause 8, if enacted.
Major changes—for example, LMS, council tax and care in the community—should be installed before CCT is introduced to central services as central services will have a major input into the changes. I could make a detailed speech about why that course should not be proceeded with by the Government; but the case has been made out by my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lady Hilton on the amendments that they have moved.
I am worried that the changes to which I have referred may again be triggered off before the consultation process has been completed. Will we once again see the Secretary of State making the decision and putting the necessary legislation or orders through another place and your Lordships' House, with the people affected being consulted only on the best way to carry out the exercise instead of being involved in the consultative process from the start so that they may advise the Minister more widely than others may do?
As I said, I shall not go into this batch of amendments in detail. They relate to a variety of services, and the argument is the same in principle. I shall be surprised if the Minister's reply is not very much the same in principle.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, at this late hour I know that your Lordships do not want to hear the same thing again; so I shall try to say something different. The spirit lying behind many of the amendments is that to a certain extent a local authority is a corporate body which cannot function without a continuing central mechanism upon which it can rely. I ask the following simple question: would any private firm behave in the way that the Government expect local authorities to behave?
I do not want to be partisan about this issue. The person who won the Nobel Prize for economics this year (Ronald Coase) is a tower of market liberalism. He is not tainted by anything with which I agree. He argued in a good paper written 60 years ago that firms do not put out to competitive tender all their activities; they do them in house because it is economically more meaningful to do things in house. It happens to be the better way of delivering every service. There is a well-established principle in economics. Many of the private firms that we know may tender out tea and sandwiches, but many other services are not tendered out because some activities need continuity. If one does not have continuity one does not deliver an economically efficient service.
For some strange reason, the Government have decided that local authorities should not behave like private firms. If the Government are asked to define the central principle of economic efficiency, I know what the answer will be. It will be the answer that we have already received: that the Secretary of State will consult, and so forth. It remains the fact that that is in total defiance of the elementary principles of economics, and if anyone thinks that what they propose will be cheaper they have another think coming.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I must congratulate my noble friend Lady Hollis on tabling all the amendments that we are discussing, the ones we have discussed and those appearing subsequently on the Marshalled List because they have brought out the absurdity of compulsory competitive tendering. As my noble friend pointed out, how on earth will any organisation be able to control all the activities which could possibly be involved in local authority services? How will members of the council be able to have contact with the people running the services in such a way that they can properly use influence upon them?
I have been sitting here quietly, I hope the noble Baroness will agree, listening and listening. As I have listened, my mind has become more and more boggled at the thought of how local authorities will manage to control and deliver the services to their electorates. They will have to put all these services, which need to be under a centralised form of control, out to compulsory competitive tendering. In my experience and in that of my noble friend Lord Desai, I can think of no private firm which would contemplate operating on that basis. What is good for any private firm should be good enough for a local authority.
The noble Baroness said earlier that we were against private enterprise. I can assure her that I am

1289
not against it. I ran a private firm before she was born—a very small one—so I know the difficulties of private firms. I am certainly not against them, they have their place, there is no question about that. However, what the Government are trying to inflict upon local authorities is a system which no private firms would contemplate under any circumstances because they know it would be ruinous to their business.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, there seems to be a lack of knowledge of private firms on the opposite Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that he would try something different; he certainly did. He tried an academic view of the private sector which practice does not bear out. Some of the most successful companies are led by small centre head offices where people know what they are doing and know what is the strategy. They use other people; they devolve.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that one cannot devolve and use competitive tendering but it is done in the private sector. She said that one cannot stop and take time to write a specification for computer technology. I suggest that in-house or out-of-house, if one does not stop to write a specification, one is merely piling up problems. It seems to me that we have a complete philosophical difference over the fact that a small core where the continuity is essential can operate with great success.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that interjection. Despite what noble Lords said, it is right that there seems to be a misunderstanding of the private sector and an antipathy towards it. I repeat that almost everything I have heard is no argument, it does not support exempting the services from the possibility of extension to CCT. This is an area where we regard the introduction of internal trading accounts as a necessary first step towards any extension of CCT. If a proportion of financial services were to be exposed to CCT, 25 per cent. is suggested by the consultation paper. I invite noble Lords to make sure that their views are known as part of the consultation exercise. In the meantime, I ask that they withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, once again we have heard the same response from the Minister and from her noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield. I have deliberately tried to shorten the debate on this amendment because, as I have said, the argument here is mainly one of principle. However, I take issue with some statements that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for example, has referred to her experience as the deputy chairman of the Black Country Development Corporation. I am sure she is a capable deputy chairman. My noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington is, I believe, the deputy chairman of the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation. He is not in the Chamber at the moment. However, I hope the noble Baroness is not suggesting that development corporations are like private companies. That is not the case.
1290
Development corporations are answerable to no one other than the Secretary of State. They have no shareholders to discipline them. The leaders of the development corporations are there by the grace and favour of the government of the day, irrespective of whether they do a good job or a bad one. The chairmen of the residuary bodies are in a similar position. They did not all do a good job. Some of the reports those chairmen produced would not have borne close examination. Therefore I do not think one can make a valid comparison between development corporations that operate under the protection of the Secretary of State—that is due to their political philosophies—and other organisations. Development corporations are another form of public body. They are not answerable to the electorate; however, local authorities are answerable. There is a fundamental difference there.
One could have debated each of the amendments that we are discussing at length if one wished to explore the details of the privations each service will suffer through the imposition of compulsory competitive tendering. The Minister has referred to fire service vehicles as though they were just another form of private transport. They are no such thing. They constitute sophisticated, complicated pieces of equipment that happen to run on four wheels. The frontiers of mechanical engineering move forward quickly and the only bodies in a position to purchase those kind of vehicles are local authorities. Those local authorities have the responsibility for saving people's lives in the event of fire. The Government should seriously consider whether they should insist that local authority services are put out to tender. If anyone is going to take a short cut as regards the maintenance of a vital piece of equipment, that will be done by an organisation in the private sector.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Dean of Beswick: No, my Lords.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I intervene on a point of order. We are on Report stage and the noble Lord is way off the subject we are discussing. He is referring to a matter we discussed a long time ago. At the moment we are discussing a very different matter which does not concern fire service vehicles. As this is Report stage we should discuss the current amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister is entitled to her opinion. I was about to draw to a conclusion. In some of her replies the Minister has ranged far and wide over a number of issues, as has her noble friend seated behind her.
I still wish to make the point that there has been insufficient time to discuss these amendments in appropriate detail. Each amendment could have been discussed in far greater detail regarding the effect of the Government's proposals on each service involved. The provision concerning architects was skated over quite outrageously. However, a deal has been done

1291
and the Government's will has been imposed. The Minister is rolling these matters through as if she is working a Roneo duplicator.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should remind him that he has not referred to Amendment No. 44 which concerns the effect of competition on the management of pension funds. I hope he will say a few words on that matter bearing in mind some of the scandals that have occurred in recent days and weeks.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am not an expert on either the management or the mismanagement of pension funds. I do not wish to be drawn on that matter as a serious case is being investigated at the present time.
It is a tragedy that people have lost their pension rights after spending all their working lives in certain companies.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart asked me about local authority employees' pensions. I recall that when the metropolitan district councils were formed in 1971 or 1972 there was very little for the metropolitan counties to do. The metropolitan districts wanted to continue to manage their own pension schemes. However, that responsibility was removed from them by the then Secretary of State—now the noble Lord, Lord Rippon—and transferred to the metropolitan counties. Since then there has been a change of heart. However, management of the pension schemes has not been handed back because machinery had been set in motion. They are now managed by joint committees representing the metropolitan districts which formed the old metropolitan counties.
I believe that the record shows that in the main the investment in pensions by local authorities on behalf of their employees has stood the test of time. They may not have obtained the highest returns for the investment but they have always been sound. I see no reason why any change is necessary in that area, irrespective of what is taking place elsewhere, the extent of which we do not yet know. I should have thought that that would have sounded a warning to the Government.
Naturally I shall withdraw the amendment. Those points needed to be made because I am sure that those matters will return to this House and another place in the not too distant future when the truth about what has taken place emerges. However, I do not want to comment on an isolated case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 35 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 36:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on research, secretarial, clerical and other support services
—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined
1292
activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of research, secretarial, clerical and other support services.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of research, secretarial, clerical and other support services by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief. The amendment seeks to exclude from CCT committee administration, secretarial, research and associated services. There are three basic reasons. The first is that those services are intimately involved with the operation of democracy. They are central to the democratic decision-making process. The staff play a central co-ordinating role in local government. They need to know how local government works and the relationship of committee structures and of the political parties, all within the Widdicombe framework.
Secondly, committee administrators and associated research staff need to exemplify a high standard of integrity and impartiality and to act throughout the authority as enablers for committee decisions. Thirdly, committee administrators, and in particular committee clerks, need to be very aware of the high demands of confidentiality. Time and again in committee when my colleagues and I have been dealing with a very sensitive subject members have asked all the officers except the chief officer and the committee clerk to leave the room. Never once has their discretion been questioned.
For all those reasons—their involvement in the democratic process, the key demands of impartiality, the expertise required of them and the confidentiality which is rightly expected—I suggest that those services cannot be provided by an array of temporary staff coming in and out of city hall. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish to place on record my reason for not wishing to discuss the detail of the amendments. I believe that the appropriate place for those views is as part of the consultation process. When and if my right honourable friend decides to recommend that CCT should be extended the matter will be put out for consultation and will require parliamentary approval.
The services referred to in the amendment are among the corporate services for which we believe the introduction of internal trading accounts would be a necessary prerequisite for CCT. However, if a proportion of those services were to be exposed to CCT, 15 per cent. is the amount suggested in the consultation paper for contracting out. Nevertheless, no argument has been made for exempting these from the provisions of the 1988 Act and I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I note the Minister's reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 42:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on property management
.—(1) No order shall he made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of property management services.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of property management services by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 46 which seeks to take both property management and development planning out of CCT. Leaving aside the core services of finance and law, these two services are probably the most sensitive in local government.
Perhaps I may first deal briefly with property management. Some of the issues involved spill over into issues of planning. Property management can generate a conflict of interest between negotiations and valuation. Essentially, property management involves a corporate view of the estate of the local authority as a major resource. One must therefore consider the longer term environmental and developmental objectives of the local authority. As with other services, it involves a high degree of confidentiality, from deeds to purchase inquiries, and continuous contact with the public. All those reasons—the issue of conflict of interest, the corporate view and the issues of confidentiality and public access—suggest that this is an inappropriate service to put out to CCT.
If that is true of property management, how much more is it true of planning. That is because, in planning, in development plans and in development control, one not only seeks to predict future pressures, but planning is the point at which existing pressures focus. Planning umpires between motorists and residents; between developers and open space; between one man's wish to enlarge his property and his neighbour's wish to stop him in order to conserve the street scene.
I do not see how that kind of activity—that umpiring, regulatory function of local government—can be properly sent out to the private sector and, so to speak, loaned to local government sovereignty. That activity requires regulatory power and embodies council policies, yet, on the other hand, those decisions must stand up to judicial review.
The second reason why planning is so sensitive is that there is a strong possibility of conflict of interests. Almost uniquely, planners can make millionaires of other men; for example, when a field becomes a housing estate. Private consultants are unlikely to be regarded as acting genuinely in the public interest. They will be suspected of bias towards private sector development and, as both district plans and development control attach values to land, it is a field ripe for corruption. As a leader of a local authority in the past, planning was the one area that I watched like a hawk. I required that no officer or member ever had
1294
a private, solo interview with any private developer simply because of the potential for conflict of interest and corruption and the high stakes that are involved.
Associated with this is the issue of confidentiality. It is often concerned with detailed negotiations about planning, and the anticipated profits are commercially sensitive.
Finally, like law and finance, planning is a core, corporate activity at the heart of a council's strategic work. It must draw on scattered information right across the local authority and it must interlock with other services. Because planning is a corporate activity like property management, because it deals with confidential and highly sensitive information, like property management, because such high stakes are being played for, as in property management, and because, above all, planning has a regulatory, quasi-judicial role, planning, like property management, is an inappropriate service to go out to CCT at any stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should like to make one point on development plans. Without disagreeing for a moment with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has just said—I too have had to be sure that greater circumspection is shown in the circumstances which she outlined—I believe that we are in danger of forgetting the role of the member in this matter. Decisions about development plans after all are not simply matters for officers. This service is unlike other services that we have been discussing in that it is for the members to make decisions rather than being a management function carried out on a day to day basis. We are in danger of becoming rather swept away with all the exclusions that there might be.
While I support the thrust of what has been said, we are beginning to move away somewhat from what might be at the heart of the issue.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the consultation paper, as is known, suggests that the operational management of buildings and indeed the management of commercial estates are very much activities for which a commercial market exists and which could be readily specified. However, the paper also goes on to state that the preparation of asset management strategies is less ready for exposure to CCT.
Again, given the links with the central corporate processes, we have no plans at present for the introduction of CCT to planning services. However, we still have not had good arguments for wholesale exemption from the provisions of the 1988 Act. Again, I ask the House not to accept these amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when the Minister considers that she has not heard good reasons, she means that she disagrees with them, which she is entitled to do. That is not the same as saying that she has not had good reasons. I should have thought that the case was put on all the amendments, in fact powerfully put in terms of the resource information coming through from the local authority associations, quoting from the Audit Commission, CIPFA, the local authority associations and the like.

1295
The Minister may consider that their views are not good reasons but that would not be the view accepted in the local authority world or the professional world. It ill-becomes the government side to suggest that those views are not good reasons. The Minister may disagree with them, but it is beyond doubt that they are legitimate, need to be put and that they are shared by a wide body of responsible professional opinion. However, given what the Minister said particularly about planning, with the leave of the House, I am more than willing to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 43:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on vehicle fleet management
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of vehicle fleet management services.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of vehicle fleet management services by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may say very briefly that this amendment raises a different issue—in my view the confusion that exists in this proposal between the role of the local authority's client and the local authority's contractor. The maintenance of local authority vehicles, whether for education, housing rent collection, or community or social services is already out to CCT. The client for that CCT contract is the vehicle manager who, on behalf of the local authority's service department specifies operational needs.
It is suggested, though admittedly rather half-heartedly in the consultation paper, from which one takes some hope, that the client role of managing the vehicles and placing CCT contracts should itself be subject to CCT. So instead of, as in the past, local authority education departments running their own vehicles, local authorities are now to put out to contract the specifications to manage the specifications of maintenance. In other words, from a direct responsibility, as of a couple of years ago, there would now be inserted not just one layer of CCT maintenance but a second layer of CCT specifying the contracts which go out to maintenance, with all the cumbersome, bureaucratic and time wasting procedures involved.
In practice, few companies are interested in management if they do not have maintenance contracts for vehicles. The liaison between the two is interlocked. But if, for example, there should be different contracts because the vehicle maintenance is already out and someone else is tendering for the placement of those contracts, who then becomes accountable for what? Who is responsible for what and at what cost? It produces chaos.
Indeed, the whole push of the Audit Commission paper on home to school transport asks that vehicle and transport organisers be regarded as a corporate
1296
activity with perhaps shared resources and perhaps the capacity to piggyback on each other's services. That would be impossible if it were combined with separate departmental vehicle maintenance contracts. It is not even suggested in the paper that it is feasible to have this double layer of contracting. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is her view. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, with respect, I am nervous about the brief of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She wondered about the double layer of management. A whole industry is based on that double layer. It is known as the fleet management industry. Throughout the country companies with 3,000 cars in their fleets do not bring vehicles back from, say, Aberdeen. They have someone to undertake maintenance wherever those vehicles are. There is a double layer system which works without chaos. It is a system that is used by most large companies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may add to the point that my noble friend made by saying that system often works to the advantage of the company.
No good reason has been given throughout the debate for wholesale exemption of any service in advance of consultation—a consultation process that is not yet complete—and in advance of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State extending CCT to a particular service. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I note the thinness of the ministerial reply. Nonetheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 47:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of competition on maintenance of police vehicles
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act by virtue of which work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act includes the provision of the maintenance of police vehicles.
(2) Before making any order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities, and such other persons as appear to him to be concerned with respect to any effect on the quality of provision of the maintenance of police vehicles by local authorities of any such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 48. These amendments relate to the role of police vehicles and the cleaning of police buildings. They suggest that both should be exempt from CCT.
I refer first to police vehicles. Like fire vehicles, police vehicles are pushed to the limits of their performance. I shall not rehearse yet again the arguments that we adduced in favour of not putting fire vehicles out to cheap private contracts. However, police vehicles too require the best quality maintenance not only to avoid breakdowns during emergencies but also when involved in high speed

1297
action in order to prevent the sadly all too frequent risk to pedestrians and other road users such as we have seen in the past.
Secondly—it is a different point from that relating to fire vehicles—there is the problem of security. Vehicles for surveillance or for armed response must remain anonymous while being serviced. When standard police cars are serviced they contain sophisticated radio equipment which must not be left unguarded with private contractors. That equipment has to be stripped out and replaced each time the car is serviced, maintained or repaired, with uncalculated resource implications—unless the Minister has those figures available at her fingertips.
When the issue was raised in 1988, as with fire vehicles, the Government were persuaded at that time that because of the high specification requirements and security risks police vehicles should be exempted from CCT. Since then the cost-effectiveness and value for money performance of maintaining police vehicles have continued to rise. The Audit Commission reviewed the position with regard to police vehicles in May 1989. It made a number of suggestions. However, it did not suggest that it was either functional or financially sensible to put the service out to CCT.
Perhaps I may cite the Norfolk example. With the exception of vehicle recovery, its vehicle maintenance is undertaken in house. A business consultancy group in 1989 reviewed workshops. Far from encouraging Norfolk—a traditional Conservative authority—to go out to competitive tendering, it advised the authority that certain vehicle maintenance carried out by external private garages in rural areas should be brought back in house on grounds of high specification and security. Happily, that was also the most cost-effective solution. It was not what the county council expected to hear; it was not what the county council particularly wanted to hear. But it was the professional advice.
I understand that the Home Office is consulting ACPO. The worries about standards of security are shared by the chief constables. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the issues of specification and security will be taken on board.
The issue also relates to Amendment No. 48 dealing with the cleaning of police buildings. Given that other cleaning activities above the de minimis rule are out to CCT, if sending the cleaning of police buildings out to private contractors offered value for money no chief constable would walk away from it. He would rather recycle the savings into other forms of police activity. Indeed, many police authorities put a considerable portion of their cleaning out to voluntary competitive tender; for example, training and headquarters buildings. However, there is the need to exempt buildings where a security issue is involved; for example, a special service, or drugs, or fraud, or buildings which in rural areas may for a long period be unstaffed. In those cases the police would not wish the service to go out to CCT. Most police buildings are not designed to separate sensitive and less sensitive areas when it comes to cleaning. Given that contract cleaning notoriously offers low wages, poor conditions and a heavy turnover of casual labour and that
1298
the responsibility of vetting and checking such staff will be highly intensive, I believe that it is unnecessary to include this service. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us.
When the Minister of State in the Home Office, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, often reminds the House that police time is not available easily to check the criminal and security records of drivers of public service vehicles, those working with children or school caretakers, why should it be presumed that they have the time, capacity and inclination to check the high turnover of casual labour which is staffing cost-cutting cleaning contracts in unmanned or highly sensitive buildings? If any area of service should he excluded from CCT on grounds of sensitivity and security I suggest that this is it. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure that I am not alone on this side of the House in standing back in astonishment at some of the comments that have been made about competitive tendering. Already some 30 forces contract out vehicle maintenance to some extent, including vehicle recovery, accident repairs, the replacement of tyres and a great deal of routine maintenance work. Limited exemptions might of course be necessary in respect of vehicle maintenance on the grounds of security. However, that is no argument against competitive tendering on building cleaning. Already many forces contract out cleaning. We believe that it is an area well suited to CCT.
However, there may also he exemptions on security grounds. That is not an argument for doing what the amendment asks; that is, to go for wholesale exemption from the provisions of the 1988 Act in advance of all the discussions about it. Furthermore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would have to come before Parliament for approval. It is also worth noting that in almost every case, whether it is police cars, fire service vehicles, ambulances, hospital equipment or whatever, the equipment is made by the private sector. People working in the sector are not demons with horns but are working on high security equipment. Much of the specialist equipment is serviced by the companies which made it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I do not believe that there is much between us. No one is denying that it may well suit police forces to have their vehicles and buildings cleaned by private firms. Where it is cost-effective, chief constables who are concerned about their level of resource do so. The dispute between us is whether that competition should be compulsory even when, according to the advice that we are receiving, the chief constables would resist doing so.
The difference between us is not that the private sector may not, entirely properly, carry out vehicle maintenance or cleaning. However, there are areas which should not go out to competitive tendering. In the past, chief constables through police committees have resisted that. If local authorities are asked to accept the operational judgment of chief constables,

1299
then government should also accept that judgment. It is for the chief constables to decide whether they wish to trade what may be cheaper costs, by use of private companies, for the greater security offered by in-house employment. The difference between us is whether this should be compulsory or voluntary. I am sorry that the Minister continues to address the issue as to whether or not this should be subject to CCT and not whether or not it should be compulsory. We argue for the second and not the first.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if that was the only principle involved, one amendment could have dealt with that. For hours now we have dealt with individual amendments. On every single amendment the noble Baroness has chosen to address the detail of, for example, cleaning by private or cleaning by public. One amendment could have dealt with the principle of compulsory competitive tendering.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no doubt that would be more convenient for the Minister but our job is to scrutinise legislation. The Minister has chosen to bring forward legislation in advance of the responses to the consultation papers. That would have informed us of the views which were being taken. In the absence of failing to observe a proper timetable, my view is that it is our duty—and I am sorry to use such a high-falutin word—to attempt to scrutinise legislation as best we may. That is what we are doing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Application of competitive tendering to professional services etc.]:
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 8, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision whereby a local authority may include in any contract for work falling within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of the 1988 Act such terms as it considers appropriate relating to the promotion of equal opportunities and equal employment practices.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendment No. 59. I shall not move Amendment No. 62. These amendments deal with contract compliance. In general we welcome the first part of the Bill, dealt with earlier this afternoon, which is concerned with improving the quality of public services by measuring not only input and costs but also output and performance. On behalf of these Benches the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, dealt with the first part.
The second part of the Bill has dealt with compulsory competitive tendering. I repeat that in the Government's eyes, the private sector has not been winning enough contracts. Therefore, the Government seem doggedly determined to weight contracts still further in favour of private contractors by disallowing ongoing costs from plant to staff which would fall on the local authority as a client if the local authority as contractor lost the contract.
In Committee the Minister accepted that as a result the additional costs falling on local taxpayers could well outweigh the financial gains from private cheaper contracts. Instead of ensuring that local authorities got more for less, which is meant to be the point, it was not only likely but apparently acceptable that local authorities would have to pay more to get less, provided that that less came from the private sector.
In other words, the whole thrust of the debate both in Committee and today is that private contracts should he artificially cheapened and therefore secured by the private sector by switching costs which should properly be borne by the contractor and offloading them on to the client—the local taxpayer. That has been the line of the Minister throughout Committee stage. If she is happy to accept that as a summary of her views, I am sure that that will be noted.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 59 address the issue of contract compliance. They are the points at which the quality concerns of the first part of our discussions and the compulsory competitive tendering of the second intersect.
Amendment No. 50 calls for promotion of equal opportunity policies in employment practices for two reasons. First, it works. In the United States between 1974 and 1980—if we look at a comparison between government and non-governmental contractors—where contract compliance was standard government contractors were made up of 20 per cent. of ethnic minorities compared with 12 per cent. where it was not. Fifteen per cent. of women were under government contract with only 2.2 per cent. of women under private contracts without contract compliance.
Similarly, in the UK where contract compliance was used by local authorities in the early 1980s they found it a highly effective device to ensure that it expanded equal opportunity practices. For example, Sheffield City Council worked successfully with companies tendering for the World Youth Games by requiring contractors to employ certain percentages of local and black labour and trainees.
The second reason for Amendment No. 50 is that it is necessary. Unemployment among ethnic minorities is 60 per cent. higher than among whites. For example, women earn only 78 per cent. of the average hourly manual rate for men. The Government themselves practice those policies in Northern Ireland under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. The amendment asks that the Government extend to the rest of Great Britain what they have already conceded and administer in Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 52 refers to Sections 17 to 23 of the Local Government Act 1988. That part of the Act requires local authorities to exclude what government deem to be non-commercial considerations when approving private tenders. The Minister listed them much earlier this afternoon. They include such considerations as the terms and conditions of employment; sub-contracting, and therefore often the loss of health and safety protection; industrial dispute records; the financial strength of the company and the like—in other words, the "non-commercial considerations" which I suggest determine quality and mark the difference between cheapness and value for money.
The Minister for Defence, in relation to physical security for military installations, said that those guards who are paid the lowest wages are unlikely to provide the highest standards of service and cheap can ultimately turn out to be costly. "Cheap can ultimately turn out to be costly"—quite so! That is exactly the experience of local government since 1980. Local authorities therefore developed contract compliance not only to ensure good employment practices—opportunities for women, the disabled and for training—but also to ensure quality of service delivery.
Forgive the anecdotal story but again I found in local government that under competitive tendering private firms frequently used to sub-contract work to labour-only contractors. Where that happened, painting was skimped; men were not available for remedial work and they were unhelpful to tenants. Only contract compliance remedied that. Contract compliance in the hands of local government before 1988 sought to check shoddy work, corner-cutting, dangerous working conditions and the rapid turnover of staff. In other words, it helped to ensure the delivery of quality for which the Citizen's Charter belatedly calls.
In two years in the mid-1980s the existence of Lewisham's contract compliance unit meant that 53 firms improved pay and conditions; 31 firms set up training schemes; 124 firms contributed to the Construction Industry Training Board, and 320 firms improved health and safety practices. The quality of public satisfaction as surveyed shot up in consequence. Without contract compliance and with compulsory competitive tendering, as we have seen in the NHS and elsewhere, one finds 25 per cent. cuts in hourly pay on what were already low wages, the loss of paid holidays and terminal instead of yearly contracts.
Without the safeguard of contract compliance CCT has found out how little people are prepared to work for and how low a standard of service the local taxpayer is prepared to put up with. We have seen that reflected in the refusal of the Social Charter at Maastricht. I fear that without contract compliance and the support of this amendment, cheap will indeed turn out not only to be costly, but also nasty. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is a great deal in these two amendments and I should like to cover them fairly fully. Amendments Nos. 50 and 59 have related purposes. Amendment No. 50 is designed to give local authorities the power, if they wish, to include in contracts they make under the competitive tendering procedures provisions designed to lay down conditions as to equal opportunities or other employment practices to be followed by contractors. We believe that to allow this would be to allow authorities to import into the tendering process entirely irrelevant considerations which would undermine the effectiveness of that process as a means of ensuring that local taxpayers get the best possible value for money from
1302
their services. We believe, on this side of the House, that competition is about efficiency in the provision of services, not social engineering.
The kind of provision envisaged in the amendment would, of course, be quite contrary to the provisions of Part II of the 1988 Act, which is expressly designed to prohibit the inclusion of such "non-commercial" matters in contracts let by local authorities. Noble Lords opposite have made it clear in tabling Amendment No. 59 that they fully appreciate this and they indeed argue that the whole of Part II should be repealed. It will come as no surprise to the House that we reject such arguments entirely. We believe that Part II is necessary to protect contractors against unfair and irrelevant interventions in the way they run their own businesses.
The main purpose of local government tendering must of course be to ensure that authorities get the best possible value for money in the supplies and services which they purchase on behalf of their local taxpayers. I must emphasise that Part II of the Local Government Act 1988, which Amendment No. 59 is designed to repeal, is intended to ensure that authorities are in a position to do just that. It applies not only to those services which are subject to CCT but to all the goods and services which an authority buys.
The main provision of Part II is contained in Section 17, which prescribes a number of "non-commercial" matters which it is improper for an authority to take into account in the contractual process. These include the terms and conditions of employment of the contractor's own workforce; the involvement of contractors with irrelevant fields of government policy, such as defence contracts; the conduct of contractors in relation to industrial disputes; the county or territory of origin of supplies; the political or other affiliations of contractors; and any financial support they might provide to institutions which happen to be out of favour with the authority concerned.
There is specific provision in Section 18 to allow for the responsibilities which authorities have under the Race Relations Act. Under that section the Secretary of State has authorised authorities, if they wish and believe it appropriate, to ask contractors, for example, whether they have had any finding of unlawful discrimination made against them or been the subject of investigation by the CRE in the previous three years; how their policy on race relations has been promulgated; and whether they observe as far as possible the CRE's code of practice for employment.
There is also a requirement to ensure that approved lists of contractors do not break the requirements of the Act, and that no charge is made for inclusion in such lists.
We on this side of the House believe that these provisions are necessary to protect contractors against unfair and irrelevant interventions in the way they conduct their own business. I know that some noble Lords opposite believe that authorities should be allowed and indeed encouraged to intervene in this way. They see contract compliance as opening the way to all sorts of hopeful developments in the field of

1303
social progress. It also gives authorities an indirect power to intervene in industrial disputes against the interests of employers. We believe that such social engineering—for that is indeed what it is—is not and never has been the proper function of local authorities. I must therefore ask the House to reject these amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord in his response twice used the words "social engineering" in his rejection of these proposals. His social engineering would, on our side, be the commitment not only to equal employment opportunities but to quality service. That is what social engineering means and we on these Benches are happy to accept that label.
The point is that social engineering is about quality and quality of service. As we tried to explore when we were discussing the role of compulsory competitive tendering in the qualifications for maintenance engineers for fire service vehicles, the Minister was very insistent that that quality could not be achieved through contract compliance. That was the point that she rehearsed and which the Minister has now repeated on some of the content of contract compliance regulations. She insisted that that quality could be ensured through detailed specification.
On this side we pushed quite hard to try to find out what local authorities were permitted to ask about training and the like. The Minister insisted that we could establish competence, if not training, through specification. The noble Baroness will be aware that her honourable friend in another place, Mr. Robert Key, said in a speech that detailed specifications inhibited competition and stopped contractors submitting innovative and entrepreneurial tenders. Equally, Paragraph 141 of the White Paper Competing for Quality states:
"Wherever possible, of course, specifications should be simplified so as to set out essential requirements, leaving the details of delivery to the contractor".
I hope the Minister will tell us how, on the one hand, he can argue that local authorities can achieve quality through detailed specification while, on the other hand, his honourable friend and the White Paper itself say that that is precisely the activity in which the local authority should not engage. If that discrepancy is there, how can we best resolve that concern for quality except through contract compliance? With the leave of the House, I invite the Minister to comment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not see how the noble Baroness can argue that quality of service has anything to do with the terms on which the contractor's workforce is employed. What is important is that there is a specification against which performance is measured. That is the standard to which the local taxpayer will ultimately look.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, contract compliance ensures that the staff in a private company meet appropriate standards through training, employment practices and the like. In the process the local authority can find out the company's degree of
1304
turnover, its level of pay rates and its conditions of health and safety. Without that contract compliance specification those services that are dependent for their very existence on the quality of service and therefore on the quality of staff are jeopardised. That is the point of contract compliance. It ensures that staff are recruited and retained with good management practices, which in turn ensures that the services to the local taxpayer footing the Bill are of sufficient quality. That is the reason for contract compliance. Despite the Minister's earlier comments, it looks as though his honourable friend would not recommend that local authorities follow the path that he recommended to us. It is clear that the Minister may speak the words of quality but is in no position to recommend to local authorities how best they may ensure it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 8, line 32, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. With this amendment we return to one of the most erudite discussions we had at Committee stage. I pointed out that the provision in Clause 8 differed ever so slightly from the provision in Clause 9. Clause 8 could be much more simply expressed as "The Secretary of State shall do what he likes". The clause provides that the Secretary of State may make an order which makes different provision for different cases, including different provision for different localities and for different authorities. But in Clause 9 a comparable provision says that he may make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different localities and for different bodies. The Minister gave us a quite interesting explanation. He said that in Clause 9 "authorities" was not quite enough because bodies which are not authorities were included in the clause. I have no quarrel with that.
However, in response to my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon who put the point that such provision was really quite unnecessary and far too wide-ranging, the Minister said that she could give him the assurance that, if she was advised that the words were superfluous and that the Secretary of State would be able to act in a flexible way, and if she believed that the words should be removed from the Bill, they would be.
Having read Clauses 8 and 9 again, I cannot believe that such provision as contained in these paragraphs is required and that the powers of the Secretary of State are not wide enough as they stand. Having given mature reflection to the points raised by my noble friends and others in Committee, I hope that the Minister will now be able to tell us that the provisions are superfluous and that it may be possible for the Government to agree that they should be taken out of the Bill. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I made clear in Committee, CCT legislation applies to many different types of defined authority. It may be that the consultation process will suggest that provision for separate evaluation of quality and cost would not be appropriate for all types of authority. The procedures might also need to differ according to the value of the contract and the size of the authority.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, argued during Committee that these provisions were unnecessary. I undertook to take advice on them and remove them from the Bill if that were the case. As I explained to the noble and learned Lord—and I have met with him in the meantime—I have come to the conclusion that they are indeed necessary, not least because of the existence of similar provisions in other Acts. In that context I point to the provisions in Section 15(5) and Section 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1988.
Some concern may have arisen over the fact that the wording in these clauses differs from the wording in the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act. I am advised that, although the drafting of these provisions is different, their effect is the same as those in the earlier Act. These powers would not be used in a discriminatory or unfair way against individual local authorities, as has been suggested. Even if such arbitrary use were made by a future Secretary of State, it would in any case be subject to review by the courts. It is, however, essential that the Secretary of State is able to take account of legitimate differences when framing orders or regulations under these clauses.
I must reassure the House that I presumed always in favour of taking such provision out of the Bill, if I could not be convinced otherwise. However, I am assured by counsel that it would be very conspicuous by its absence and that we would in fact be subject to challenge in the courts. It is in that light that I have been persuaded that it ought to remain part of the Bill. With the assurance that I have actually done my homework since the Committee stage, I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not have the faintest doubt that the Minister would have done her homework. Moreover, having heard the noble Baroness in Committee, I did not doubt that she genuinely would have wished to take out these parts of the Bill if she had found it possible to do so. Having been in close contact with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I am bound to say that he did listen to what she said and he was not at all convinced. I believe that the noble Baroness would acknowledge that that is the case. He is a far greater expert on such matters than I am.
Having heard what the Minister said, it seems to me to be an extraordinary piece of gobbledegook; in other words, you might as well put such a provision in every clause of every Bill which comes before Parliament. If to leave such a provision out would seriously damage the effect of the Bill and the power of the Secretary of State to do what he wants—which is what the legislation is all about—then we have come to a pretty
1306
pass. I think that we might go through past legislation over the centuries and put this sort of provision back into previous legislation.
I have not noticed any Secretary of State—I should say that I am much more afraid of the interfering propensities of the present Secretary of State than I am of the next one—having any scruples about making orders or regulations which apply to individual local authorities rather than to others.
If we look at the history of poll tax capping over the past few years, we will see that it has been conspicuous that Secretaries of State of this Administration have gone out of their way to penalise Labour-controlled local authorities and to find formulae which discriminate in favour of Conservative-controlled local authorities. They will be unable to keep it up this year, but they have been having a good go at it.
I am not convinced objectively by the Minister's arguments. But in view of the transparent integrity of her approach to the issue it is not a matter upon which I wish to take the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Power to define conduct as competitive or anti-competitive]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 52 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 53.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 8, line 39, leave out from ("may") to ("guidance") in line 36, on page 9 and insert ("issue").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 54 at the same time; and, with your Lordships' leave, also to Amendment No. 53. I am not sure that I can, but I propose to do so if your Lordships agree. This cluster of amendments relates to the issue of anti-competitive behaviour, and with these amendments we return to an issue upon which we pressed the Minister in Committee.
The amendments seek to maintain the current legal position whereby local authorities are responsible for making decisions, subject to the Secretary of State's sanction, on the award of contracts on condition that they are not behaving anti-competitively. That is the existing position.
Clause 9 would remove the ability of the local authorities to interpret what anti-competitive means in the local context, and instead require them to comply with the Secretary of State's directive. I move the amendment so as to avoid that situation. Clause 9 therefore is based upon the assumption that there is widespread abuse in local authorities' contracting. There was talk of level playing fields ad nauseam in Committee. However, if one looks at the facts - they bear repeating - out of about 3,000 contracts awarded since 1988, the Secretary of State has used his powers to seek an explanation of anti-competitive behaviour from an authority on fewer than 33 occasions. I understand that he has used his sanction powers to require re-tendering in relation to anti-competitive

1307
behaviour on fewer than 10 occasions out of those 3,000 contracts. He has used his sanction powers once only for anti-competitive behaviour under the 1980 Act
I understand that no action has been taken by district auditors against any authority over the award of a contract. No charge payer or dissatisfied tenderer—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—has challenged an authority on the ground that it acted unreasonably in awarding any contract. In the three cases we quoted in Committee relating to CCT which have gone before the courts—Knowsley, Leicester and York—the authorities were found to have acted reasonably by Mr. Justice Popplewell, although ultimately the cases revolved around the Secretary of State's behaviour.
In Committee, when I sought to press the Minister in the light of that information, she was unable to give us one example of anti-competitive behaviour that would have been caught had the Bill been in force. The Minister may since have found many more examples, but her response then was that if only one example existed, that would be enough to justify the whole of the parliamentary procedure coming into play.
The Minister then said that the Government needed to take that stance because they were the guardian of the public interest. However, I am sure that the Minister will recall that under the Wednesbury rules the Master of the Rolls said:
"It is clear that the local authority is entrusted by Parliament with the decision on a matter which the knowledge and experience of that authority can best be trusted to deal with".
That sense of trust in the local authorities was reflected by the Secretary of State in a DoE Circular 19/88 which stated:
"it is for individual authorities to decide, according to the circumstances of particular cases".
Since the Wednesbury rules and DoE Circular 19/88, the Government have changed their mind. They cannot have changed their mind, because there is evidence of abuse. As I have explained to your Lordships, there is no such evidence. It can only have been because of the evidence of the palpable failure of the private sector to win contracts.
To come back yet again to the metaphor of the level playing field, it is clear that the game is being played fairly; it is just that the Government's side, the private contractors, are not winning. So let us make the Secretary of State both the 12th player and the umpire at the same time. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness continues to use statistics—given that the statistics are relatively small—as an argument against the Secretary of State's powers to determine whether behaviour is competitive or anti-competitive. The very fact that there are sanctions, with the occasional threat of the application of those sanctions, is frequently sufficient to persuade a local authority to conform to proper procedures. Sometimes we are aware physically of that instance and many times we know that local authorities, simply because the sanctions are there, conform to the proper procedures.
1308
Many authorities have complied with both the letter and the spirit of the 1988 Act in putting work out to tender during the past three years. But too many have failed to do so. Since October 1989, we have given directions to 12 authorities because we considered that they had acted anti-competitively. Such anti-competitive behaviour has included weighting the price tendered by private contractors with extraneous costs, such as overheads, or the disruption that would result from a change in operator; offering work in contracts of such large value that few, if any, private companies were capable of tendering for it; failing to provide essential information about the quantities of work to be done; and imposing unusual and onerous liability conditions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have claimed in previous debates that there has been little use of sanction powers, and I have already referred to that. We do not embark on the use of these powers lightly. Their employment, through preliminary investigation of a case, to the serving of a notice and the consideration of the authority's response, and finally to the giving of a direction, is a very serious and time-consuming process. That we have completed this process in the case of 12 authorities should be seen as evidence that there has been a significant extent of non-compliance with the 1988 Act that we have wanted to address.
In our view, however, it would be greatly to the benefit of all involved with the CCT process if a clear and consistent basis for tendering exercises could be established in advance so that the need for later intervention by the Secretary of State would be reduced, if not removed altogether. That is the reason why we have placed this clause before Parliament in order to enable us to clear away the uncertainties over tendering practices. We have set out our proposals for regulations to be made under this clause in our CCT consultation paper published on 5th November.
I presume that the intention of the noble Baroness in tabling Amendments Nos. 52 and 54 has been to limit the power conferred on the Secretary of State by Clause 9 to the issuing of guidance on the avoidance of anti-competitive behaviour under Part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and Part I of the Local Government Act 1988.
These are of course wrecking amendments. Your Lordships will recognise that Parliament does not need to be asked to approve such a power. The Secretary of State is already empowered to issue guidance on this and on other matters relevant to the performance by local authorities of their functions. Indeed, in March this year the Secretary of State issued Circular 1/91 which dealt in considerable detail with aspects of anti-competitive behaviour.
The Secretary of State's power to define competitive and anti-competitive behaviour under the 1980 and 1988 Acts is considerable, as was demonstrated in the Knowsley case, which was mentioned in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. But that case was not heard in your Lordships' House, and so the Government see a clear need to be able to provide greater certainty in the operation of CCT procedures and to do so by means of regulations

1309
which would address those aspects of CCT procedures which need clarification or where there are differing views such as tender evaluation and the timing of stages in the tendering process. That is why we seek your Lordships' agreement to Clause 9.
The Secretary of State has set out his views on aspects of anti-competitive behaviour in Circular 1/91. I know that many local authorities have been guided by this circular in their handling of CCT exercises. Others have pointed to advice offered from other sources and claimed that conflicting advice allowed them to make up their own minds and to ignore the views of the Secretary of State. The result has been diverging practices which have caused confusion and uncertainty.
Subsection (3)(e) of Clause 9, which this amendment seeks to delete, addresses this position by enabling the Secretary of State to use regulations to underpin the issue of guidance. The guidance in question will not necessarily be guidance already issued; it will more likely be revised guidance whose issue would follow the making of regulations. However, the underpinning through regulations will make it quite clear to local authorities and private contractors alike that the guidance in question will be taken into account by the Secretary of State in considering whether local authorities have acted anti-competitively.
I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said there had been little action on anti-competitive behaviour. She suggests that because few anti-competitive directions have been given, there is little anticompetitive behaviour. In the past three months my department has received no fewer than 43 complaints or indications of anti-competitive behaviour. Until investigations have been completed, I cannot say how many of those cases will justify taking action but they are a measure of the lack of certainty which this clause is designed to address. As I go about the country, I frequently receive complaints, or at least am on the receiving end of people's perceptions, that local authorities are behaving anti-competitively. It is important that we have measures in place to ensure that does not happen and to do whatever we can to ensure there is certainty on this matter.
It is surely not necessary for me to stress that the way in which the Secretary of State would exercise these powers would of course be ultimately reviewable by the courts, and that he would neither wish nor be able to exercise them in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion. If he did so, he would be found wanting in court. We have seen this year the judicial review of the Secretary of State's use of his powers under Sections 13 and 14 of the Local Government Act 1988, a use which was based on his view of anti-competitive behaviour by certain authorities. The Court of Appeal found that the Secretary of State had made proper use of his powers. Nonetheless, we recognise that there are continuing uncertainties in local government about what may or may not be anti-competitive. Clause 9 would allow us to settle these doubts. This amendment would impede that process, and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press it further.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I had expected to move separately my Amendment No. 54A because in the groupings which we usually follow—although we are not obliged to do so—Amendment No. 54A is listed separately. As the noble Baroness has already trespassed upon it in what she has just said, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak now to my Amendment No. 54A.
Here we have a furtive attempt on the part of the Executive to gain power for itself at the expense of Parliament. The Bill contains the following proposition. It states:
"there has been a contravention of guidance".
Mr. Woody Allen once said that military intelligence is a contradiction in terms. I should imagine that if he were here he would say that a contravention of guidance was equally a contradiction in terms. That certainly was the opinion of the Committee when we discussed this matter at some length. In opening the debate in Committee on 3rd December the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said at col. 133 of Hansard:
"There is a clear distinction between guidance which must be taken into account and regulations which must be given effect to".
At col. 136 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said:
"Parliamentary democracy, like any human institution, is not perfect. But it is well tried. There is no reason why we should give up all the safeguards and all the value that it has shown over the centuries and submit to government by future letters of guidance".
Let the noble Baroness mark the words, "government by future letters of guidance". The noble and learned Lord continued:
"At this stage we do not know what the guidance will be; it is insufficiently denned. I therefore suggest to the noble Baroness, who has thus far conducted the Bill to general admiration, that she consider how far we are travelling down the road of bureaucratic rather than democratic government".
Further down that column the noble Baroness herself said that,
"it is easier to change guidance than to change primary legislation".
That was the wisest thing that the noble Baroness said in the course of the debate. At the end of the debate, in his closing speech, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that,
"the status of guidance is very clear. Local authorities have to have regard to it and if they are challenged they have to show that they have had regard to it and that they have acted reasonably. That is what guidance means".
If the Minister wishes to issue instructions let her do so by statutory instrument, bringing the matter before Parliament and allowing Parliament to exercise some control over what is happening. If she is content to rely upon guidance and if the guidance is wise the local authorities will follow it.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said about Amendment No. 54A. I prefer the wording of the Bill because there is a considerable difference between that and a local authority contravening the guidance issued by the Secretary of State, which is quite serious. If the proposed wording were to be substituted the subsection would read:

1311
"regulations under this section may … require the extent … to which there has been a failure to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State"
That reminds me of the awkward expression "driving without due care and attention" which invariably leaves the driver of a motor car guilty of an offence because there is almost no chance of proving otherwise. It would be in the interests of the local authority to retain the words in the Bill, which are more favourable.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that this is no furtive attempt to secure a power for the Secretary of State. It is very overt. The Bill is before Parliament and it is for Parliament to take a view on the matter. Indeed, we are discussing an amendment to a Bill, which is a very democratic way of expressing anxiety about such matters.
There are elements of guidance to which local authorities or the Local Government Commission must not only have regard but on which they will have to take action. I have picked up at random the guidance for the Local Government Commission which states with regard to functions in paragraph (9) that the commission should consider arrangements for law and order services—police, magistrates' courts and probation services along with others—in formulating its recommendations about local government structure. The Secretary of State will instruct the Local Government Commission to have regard to the guidance. It will be a breach if it has regard to the guidance and does not consider arrangements for law and order. It must positively do that because to have regard and simply ignore will simply not be acceptable to Parliament.
The tabling of this amendment has given us an opportunity to consider matters which were raised in Committee. I listened then, as I have listened today, to arguments put forward that guidance issued by the Secretary of State cannot be contravened or, if so, that it cannot be regarded as guidance.
I must urge your Lordships to read carefully the provisions of subsections (3) (e) and (3) (0 of Clause 9. They make it clear that the regulations which the Secretary of State would be empowered to make under Clause 9 would provide for guidance to be issued and would require any contravention of that guidance to be taken into account in determining whether an authority had acted anti-competitively. In the case of an authority acting competitively it will have had to have regard to the guidance and, if the guidance has been disregarded, it will be considered to be in breach of the guidance. That would be part of the information that would allow the Secretary of State to make a judgment. The guidance in question would therefore be clearly underpinned in regulations and would thus be given a different and more formal character than circulars of guidance which the Secretary of State customarily sends out to local authorities on a range of matters.
As I explained in Committee, making provision in regulations in this way would mean that the guidance
1312
in question would be as objective as possible. It would be reasonable and appropriate to expect local authorities generally to act in accordance with the guidance. By the same token, it would be reasonable and appropriate for the Secretary of State to consider whether they had acted in accordance, or had contravened this guidance, if and when he had to take a view of whether they had acted anti-competitively, as he must do in considering the possible use of his sanction powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988. It would also mean that there would be a test for the courts to apply if they were required to decide whether or not an authority had acted anti-competitively. That would help authorities to be certain of their position in the event of any legal challenge by an aggrieved contractor.
We have considered the points which have been made about subsections (3)(e)and (3)(f) of Clause 9. For the reasons that I have given, we consider that the present drafting is right. I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour and hope that the amendments will not be pressed, but I understand that we must return to the original amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do indeed. I do not wish to divert from the rules of debate for Report stage, but, as my noble friend moved the original amendment, another amendment to which she did not speak has been spoken to and replied to by the Minister without any of us having an opportunity to intervene on the matter. I regret that the Minister has raised on this second debate within a debate the issue of guidance and instructions and has raised it in the way that she has because her argument is attempting to pull itself up by its own bootstraps.
The Minister says that subsections (3)(e) and (f) provide that guidance can be contravened and that contravening guidance is an offence. Whether it is a sin or a crime, I am not quite clear. However, she has not answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that, not just in common sense and in the common understanding of the English language, but in the legislation before us, guidance has not been used in that way. It has not been thought to be automatically wrong to contravene the guidance. You cannot contravene guidance; you can only fail to have regard to it.
The Minister chose to use in support of her argument the guidance given to the Local Government Commission rather than the guidance given to local authorities. She said that it would be wrong of the Local Government Commission to fail to give the consideration to the guidance that is required by the guidance. We might go that far. We might well say that the Local Government Commission or a relevant authority could well be required under law to give consideration to guidance, just as it might be required to have regard to guidance. What it cannot do and what this Bill should not say is that anybody, whether it is a local government commission or a local authority, should be required to adhere to guidance

1313
and that there should be such a thing as contravention of guidance. Otherwise the English language is being distorted beyond all recognition.
As I said, this matter has come up in a somewhat unusual and unorthodox way at Report stage. We have a debate within a debate which I should have preferred to have taken separately. Clearly my noble friend Lady Hollis must do as she thinks fit with the amendment before the House. But I give notice that this is a matter to which we shall certainly return at Third Reading and certainly we shall frame it in such a way as to seek to return in legislation to common sense and democratic principles, because they are being contravened in the legislation that is before us now.
11 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I suspect that I am out of my depth procedurally, but I believe that what I should do, subject to the House's guidance, is respond to Amendment No. 52 and to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 to which I spoke but not respond to Amendment No. 54A. If I am wrong on that, I shall be guided by the House.
Despite the late hour, I should like to thank the Minister for a full reply. That is a pleasant change after the abbreviated answers that we have so far been privileged to hear. There are two points that I should like to make. The Minister said that because the sanctions were there under the Act that was the reason why the statistics were so low. In other words, the local authorities did not present themselves because of the existence of the sanctions. I feel that that would be a fair comment on the Minister's reply.
In that case, if the existing sanctions are so effective in depressing anti-competitive behaviour, why change the law? If the sanctions are working exactly as the Minister would wish and they have, so to speak, been internalised by local authorities, why do we need any further change in the law?
The Minister went on to quote that there had been 43 additional complaints in the past few months. I do not know. Again, I stand to be corrected, but that does not seem to be to be a lot. I understood that there was a large number of complaints after the first round, partly from PULSE for propaganda reasons and partly from disgruntled contractors saying that it was not a fair cop. What happened was that when the Secretary of Stage reviewed the complaints, he chose not to act because those complaints were not regarded as valid. I understand that the Minister could only properly cite in aid valid complaints. If they are complaints that one has failed to win the contract, that may say much more about the state of the economy and the desperation of contractors to win any business than it does about the state of competitive tendering.
The second point that the Minister raised, which I thought was rather more worrying, was the implication that the Government needed the power to ensure consistency of practice between local authorities. Ministers have spoken—indeed, the Minister did tonight—of standardising documentation, for example. That is a very short step from requiring standard specifications and nationalised tenders. I suggest to
1314
noble Lords that it should be for each local authority, as both the client and the buyer of services, to decide how it wants to engage in a contract to purchase services from either its own DSO or a private contractor.
I suggest that ensuring standardisation among local authorities is a clear attempt to change the law by the back door as it stands in the 1980 and 1988 Acts. Changing the law by the back door should not surprise us because, after all, that is what the Henry VIII problem was all about. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 54A:
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("contravention of) and insert ("failure to have regard to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already had a good discussion on this amendment. I do not therefore propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 54A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 9, line 45, at end insert:
("( ) No regulation may be made under this section which requires, or may have the effect of requiring a denned authority to:

(a) disregard its fiduciary obligations to its taxpayers or chargepayers; or

(b) accept a tender which does not reflect the full costs to that tenderer of carrying out the work; or

(c) accept a tender which in the opinion of the authority presents an unacceptable operational or financial risk;

and where a defined authority is acting reasonably in not accepting a tender in respect of (a), (b) or (c) above (that may otherwise be considered by the Secretary of State to be conduct which has the effect of restricting, preventing or distorting competition) that action by a defined authority shall be a full defence to any action by the Secretary of State under section 14 of the 1988 Act or section 19B of the 1980 Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58. Both amendments relate in slightly different terms to the issue which the Government, with a remarkable lack of enterprise in their metaphors, insist on calling the level playing field.
Let us consider what the level playing field means and consider the 1988 Act as well as the proposals in the Bill. With regard to the 1988 Act, a good deal of time was spent arguing against Opposition amendments which sought to remove the strict definitions of what were commercial and uncommercial considerations. Noble Lords who were unfortunate enough to sit through those debates may recall that on many occasions we believed that it would be proper for a local authority to take account of such matters as the training provided to the staff of those submitting tenders to a local authority, the minimum wages, the compliance with health and safety regulations, the adequacy of their pension fund and the adequacy of their performance bonds. There are many examples of ways in which we sought to ensure that compulsory competitive tenders were not won almost solely on

1315
price but on a range of relevant considerations which anyone in normal business would expect to take into account.
We hear no more of goods commercial and uncommercial. There is a new phrase for that in the 1991 Bill. The phrase now is competitive or anti-competitive activity. The whole clause is devoted to defining competitive and anti-competitive activity. Those factors appear directed towards the objective of securing that local authority services are privatised rather than of securing that they are undertaken in the best possible way.
The Minister was not at all friendly to my noble friend Lady Hollis when she quoted from the chief executive of the Conservative county of Norfolk at Committee stage. He asked the Government to come clean about their objective. Do they really want the best services or do they simply want privatised services? I ask the question again because the Minister earlier today reminded us of one of the most wicked provisions of the 1988 Act. It provided various protections for quality but they applied only when it was competition between a local authority's own internal direct labour organisation and an outside contractor. Where the local authority did not wish its direct service organisation to compete for the tender none of the conditions of quality applied. A classic example of that was Bromley. The local authority decided to privatise a service. I regret that I do not have the details before me; it is not an example that has come to mind since 1988. The local authority allowed a management buy-out of the service that was being put out for competitive tender so that the tender was not between the local authority's own internal service but a number of outside contractors. Therefore, none of the quality provisions was required which would otherwise apply to a tender between a local authority's own services and outside potential contractors.
The 1988 Act is not being repealed in that sense. That unfairness continues. Different standards are being applied when a local authority's own services are being considered from those applied when the competition is between different external contractors. As a result it is not surprising that we feel it necessary to include in the Bill the protection that a local authority must maintain its fiduciary obligations to taxpayers, the protection against it being required to accept a tender which does not reflect the full costs of carrying out the work and the protection against it being required to accept a tender which presents an unacceptable operational or financial risk.
In tabling Amendment No. 58 we believe that the local authority should be reimbursed if it is required by regulations laid by the Secretary of State to:
"disregard matters which incur actual costs … take account of matters in a manner or to an extent which do not reflect the actual cost … or assume notional saving figures which are not achieved in practice".
These are real threats. They are ways in which regulation by the Secretary of State can upset what is called the level playing field. They can secure that outside contractors have an unfair and unreasonable advantage. I do not say that we want that advantage
1316
to be removed for the sake of the local authority internal service providers. We want it removed because the people who use the service require the tendering procedure to be genuinely fair. The procedures proposed by Government in this legislation, like the procedures of the 1988 Act, are not fair. They are designed to secure privatisation even at the expense of efficiency, effectiveness and good service. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, these amendments seek to limit the regulation-making power sought in Clause 9. Amendment No. 55 would provide that regulations could not require an authority to follow an approach to the financial evaluation of tenders if that approach diverged from the authority's own assessment of what was financially appropriate; and it would provide that an authority's pursuit of the latter would be a defence against the use by the Secretary of State of his sanction powers under the 1980 and 1988 Acts.
I do not propose to spend too long debating what is the fiduciary duty of a local authority. Of course, it is fundamentally important that authorities have regard to their obligations to act as wise stewards of the funding that comes to them from the Exchequer, from local charge payers and from other sources. There is no conflict between that and the need to comply with specific legislation such as the Local Government Act 1988. The making of regulations such as are foreseen under Clause 9 will remove uncertainties in this area and thus make it easier for local authorities to discharge their obligations. Indeed, it could be argued that local authorities have a fiduciary duty to encourage competition.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment provides that an authority should not be required to accept a tender which does not reflect the full costs to that tenderer of carrying out the work. How are we to assume that a local authority would be able to judge that? It is of the essence of competitive tendering that external tenderers have the opportunity to submit bids to carry out work based on their special knowledge of the tasks and techniques involved. That special knowledge often will not be shared by local authorities. If local authorities were able simply to impose their own assumptions about working methods and productivity levels on tendering exercises the point of competition would be lost.
Finally, paragraph (c) is a sneaky part of the amendment. It would provide that an authority should not be required to accept a tender which it judged to present an unacceptable operational or financial risk. I cannot stress too strongly that we do not see the effect of compulsory competitive tendering as being to involve local authorities in unacceptable risk. However, we cannot allow local authorities to overstate risk factors to the effective exclusion of all but the in-house tenderer. If that were to happen, there would be a very real risk of a different kind; namely, that the charge payers of an authority would be forced to pay over the odds to support a workforce that was cushioned from any competitive challenge.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords—
Earl Howe: The noble Baroness may groan but that is the consequence of what she proposes.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl tempts us to intervene. Will he not recognise that, even in the limited number of competitive tenders which have gone out to private organisations, there have been a substantial number where there has been an unacceptable operational and financial risk, where contracts have had to be withdrawn and where the contractors have gone bust? I can think of a number of sports centres where that has happened. If we want to bandy figures, does not the noble Earl agree that the numbers of private contractors who have gone bust who are unable to fulfil their obligations under their tenders are substantially larger than the numbers which have had to be called in by the Secretary of State, and which a few moments ago the Minister cited as a reason for stronger controls over local authority tendering procedures?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot comment on the statistics. Of course, it is important for a local authority to judge whether there is an operational or financial risk. That is part of its duty. However, this amendment proposes that it could fall back on that as an excuse at any time that it did not wish to go out to tender. We take exception to that.
Amendment No. 58 seeks to insert a new subsection in Clause 9. I take that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that if Clause 9 is used to make regulations along the lines set out in the consultation paper Competing for Quality it should not result in local taxpayers being out of pocket.
Paragraphs 1.19 to 1.21 of the consultation document set out the treatment proposed for some of the items which are not integral to the cost of doing the work but which are, nevertheless, commonly considered in tender evaluation by local authorities. The aim of the Government in prescribing this treatment is to ensure that local taxpayers are given the opportunity to benefit from the efficiency improvements which may be available from accepting an outside bid if the outside bidder can do the work at a lower price than can the in-house team. Of course, the acceptance of an external bid may result in up-front costs such as redundancy costs for in-house staff.
It may be difficult for a local authority to reduce overheads quickly if it stops doing the work itself, but the Government believe that such matters should not be used as an excuse by authorities to decide not to make the change from in-house to external contractor when the latter can do the work more efficiently. What is needed is a balance between any short-term costs and the long-term benefits to local taxpayers. That is what our proposals seek to provide.
Against that background regulations under Clause 9 will seek to ensure that the right balance is struck. I can see no case, therefore, for the national taxpayer to subsidise the transition to more efficient provision
1318
where the external bidder is able to do the same work at lower cost. The transition will be in the local taxpayers' interests.
We cannot accept either of the amendments and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not press them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, listening to the noble Earl I am reminded of when I first joined Hornsey Borough Council in Middlesex in 1963. The first meeting which I attended, of the general purposes committee, was concerned with the standing orders for contracts. We had a sensible and useful debate in that Conservative-controlled council. At the end of it we recommended to the council various amendments to our standing orders for contracts. It was never suggested to us that the standing orders for contracts which we adopted should be laid down by the Secretary of State or should be subject to his overriding control. It was thought that our job was to secure the best interests of our ratepayers when we were issuing contracts in the private sector. Everybody—Labour and Conservative alike—thought that that was the case. There was never any difficulty about it.
Since that time of course successive legislation by the Government has progressively reduced the scope of local authority discretion in standing orders on contracts and the way that they carry them out. It started, as we were reminded by Ministers earlier, with the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 but continued apace with the Local Government Act 1988. That was the stage at which central government control of the contracting procedures of local authorities became virtually complete. It is almost inconceivable that further legislation should be required to extend that control over contracts, but that is what is being proposed.
It is not being proposed by legislation; it is being proposed by regulation. As the Government continue to remind us, there is a consultation document out and the replies to it are not required until 31st January. Therefore the way in which the Government respond to that consultation will never be adequately considered by the House. It is just conceivable that they may be considered by another place, although I doubt it.
Therefore we have enabling legislation which seeks to take away the last tiny spot of responsibility of local authorities to their poll tax payers, electors and the users of their services. It seeks to impose upon them conditions which will inevitably result in tenders going out to private contractors who will not provide as good or as efficient a service as could be provided in other circumstances by the internal resources of the council.
It is no good the noble Earl saying that there must be a balance between long-term and short-term interests. Of course there must be. If he had read Amendment No. 58 closely he would have realised that that amendment was not seeking to overturn contracts which made the balance in the way that he would want it to be made. All we are saying is that when it is clearly to the disadvantage of the local

1319
authority and its residents, the Secretary of State should reimburse that local authority for the losses which will be made by the procedures he has imposed.
The amendments are modest. They do not require any extension of principle. They do not provide any huge loophole for even the most malevolent local authority to leap through. They simply attempt to achieve in practice what the Government falsely claim to achieve in the legislation—a level playing field.
I am sorry that it is inappropriate at this time of the night to pursue this matter to a vote. I am totally unconvinced by the arguments used in response to the amendments, and it may be a matter to which we shall wish to return at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 55.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 9, line 45, at end insert:
("(3A) No regulations may be made under this section which have the effect of limiting the size of a performance bond reasonably required by a local authority.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it will not take me long to move Amendment No. 56. It follows on from the issues explored in previous amendments. It is simple. It has always been recognised in building and engineering contracts that one needs performance bonds. I have seen those bonds drawn on when, for example, a private house-building company involved in timber-frame housing went bankrupt. At enormous expense the local authority had to pick up the contract half-way through and complete it.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, we recently saw the collapse of two major leisure companies—Crossland's and Clifford Barnett—affecting around 19 leisure centres and 1,000 staff. We have seen dozens of contracts for cleaning and the like which have had to be called in.
Performance bonds necessarily exist because there is a risk in going out to a private firm, especially where that private firm has no track record and may have bought the work as a desperate last throw to stay in business. In other words a performance bond is both a guarantee of the financial and trading probity of the company, on the one hand, and on the other an insurance for local government—and therefore its local taxpayers who are all too often ignored in this equation. The less experienced the firm, or the more it has had to undercut in order to buy the work, the more necessary is that performance bond.
All that this amendment seeks is to ensure that the Secretary of State will not unreasonably limit the size of performance bond that the local authority may require. A local authority's judgment is still open to judicial review and appropriate safeguards, but it allows a local authority to make a local judgment and to protect the interests of local taxpayers. The fear that lies behind this amendment is that the Secretary of State may unreasonably limit the size of performance bonds to allow the marginal, the cowboy, the inexperienced or the financially insecure firm to compete unwisely for contracts.
As we have seen too often in discussions on this Bill, if the local authority does not protect the interests of local taxpayers it is clear that the Government, in their pressure for CCT, will not do so. As a result we have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this amendment, like a number of others put down in Committee and Report stage, seeks to restrict the Secretary of State's power to use regulations under Clause 9 to define anticompetitive behaviour. Clearly the Government find such attempts unacceptable. Nevertheless, it would no doubt help the House if I set down the Government's attitude to performance bonds generally.
We accept, first of all, that it is legitimate for authorities to require performance bonds. Circular 1/91 issued by my department in March of this year, and the more recent consultation document, accept that. But we consider that it is possible, through excessive bonds, to discourage competition. We believe that the value of the bond should be related to the costs which an authority would incur in remedying defaults by a contractor and/or finding another contractor in the event of total failure. We have suggested, in the circular, that bonds should not normally amount to more than 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of contract value. We may wish to express in regulations a maximum bond or we may simply wish to repeat the advice on the size of bonds in Circular 1/91 in the guidance to be issued under Clause 9 and to be referred to in Clause 9 regulations. This amendment would prevent us from making such regulations or issuing such guidance.
As a separate issue, we note that the cost of any performance bond required will be reflected in the contractor's bid. There will be no similar sum in the DSO's bid even though there is a risk of default by a DSO, or even of total failure if it fails to meet its financial objective and is closed down by the Secretary of State, using his powers under Section 19B of the 1980 Act or Section 14 of the 1988 Act. This disparity between internal and external bids distorts competition. It is for this reason that we propose in regulations to require the cost of providing a bond—which is, in effect, the contractor's insurance premium—to be deducted from his bid when it is evaluated by the client.
I hope this explanation has been helpful. The amendment is an unacceptable limitation on the Clause 9 power. In particular, it would prevent us from limiting performance bonds in the regulations or even from repeating the advice in Circular 1/91 in the guidance we shall issue under Clause 9. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again we note the Minister's reply. In some senses by enlarging the concept of what he deemed as acceptable performance bonds that was useful information. But the suggestion of an unfair playing field and therefore the deduction of performance bonds from the bids—an issue we discussed at Committee stage—is not actually the amendment under review at the moment.

1321
On that amendment we agreed to disagree as to whether or not it was an appropriate cost to be charged.
We are seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State does not limit the size of a performance bond in such a way that should that company default—and increasingly in the present economic climate companies are doing so—the local charge payer, or taxpayer, is not protected from the cost of remedying that default. It may be that the indications given by the Minister will be sufficient to prevent that situation occurring. Nonetheless, in CCT there is a risk for the local authority in terms of inexperienced firms buying work as loss leaders to stay afloat, then defaulting and that cost being passed on to the local taxpayer. It has nowhere else to go except to them. The point of the performance bond is to secure that position.
I suggest to the Minister that local authorities are in a much better position than the Secretary of State can ever be to decide what level of risk is therefore acceptable and what level of performance bond is therefore appropriate. However, I note the noble Earl's reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 60 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Publicity for tender specifications]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 10, line 36, at end insert ("and under section 2(9) of the 1988 Act, the Secretary of State shall prescribe a de minimis provision of £250,000 in any financial year to be uprated at regular intervals in line with inflation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to raise the current de minimis rule from £100,000 a year to £250,000 a year. I suggest that £100,000 is too low. A rise to £250,000 would help small authorities which would otherwise have to put out their services to competition at considerable expense. We discussed this issue in Committee, but Report stage gives us an opportunity to query the Minister again. Since then it has become clear from the PA Consulting Group Report, as reported in the Local Government Chronicle, and from the comments made by Mr. Howard Davies on behalf of the Audit Commission at a recent conference that both bodies recommend a de minimis rule.
The de minimis level of £100,000 exempts only very small-scale operations employing few people. Perhaps a comparison with provisions under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is relevant here. They exempt from competition small DLOs with fewer than 15 employees, a level far more valuable and generous in monetary terms than that allowed for activities defined under the 1988 Act. In Committee the Minister, on behalf of the Secretary of State, offered no explanation of why the value of the exemption set at £100,000 in 1988 should fall in real terms in succeeding years. Local authorities' fiduciary duty to charge payers is increasingly threatened as the value reduces through inflation and they are forced into uneconomic tendering exercises for small scales of work. Oxfordshire is extremely worried about this. In
1322
Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quoted the evidence from Scotland, where 50 per cent. of the contracts received no competitive bid and the local authorities in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, Nairn District Council and the Highlands Regional Council were all put to considerable and unnecessary cost.
Does the Minister expect to inflation-proof the £100,000 rule? Is he prepared to meet our suggestion that it should he raised to £250,000 as a realistic, sensible and cost-effective sum under the present circumstances? I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Baroness stated correctly that a de minimis exemption already exists in the legislation governing CCT. The 1988 exemptions order made by the Secretary of State under Section 2(9) of the Local Government Act 1988 provides that work to a value of less than £100,000 per annum is not a "defined activity" and is therefore exempt from CCT. That provision applies, as would orders made in accordance with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, to activities already subject to the discipline of competitive tendering, and unless altered or limited in scope by my right honourable friend would also apply to any new activities added under the provisions of this Bill or existing legislation.
As my noble friend Lady Blatch explained in Committee, the existing £100,000 de minimis rule reflects a judgment as to the point at which it would not be right to oblige an authority to comply with the accounting and reporting requirements of CCT and not any belief that there are no benefits in putting work of a lower value out to tender. On the contrary, tendering, properly managed, gives opportunities for savings regardless of the size of the authority concerned and regardless of the size of the contract. I have to say that we have as yet received no evidence to suggest that the £100,000 limit is too tight.
It may be the case that in the light of new evidence my right honourable friend would revise his judgment, or that in the case of new activities a different judgment would be appropriate. It is quite right that that sort of judgment should be the subject of secondary legislation. The amendment would, however, prevent the exercise of judgment and would prevent any revision to the real level of a de minimis provision—which is exactly what the noble Baroness seeks to do—except through primary legislation. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness is at least partially reassured and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to be able to say at this time of night that I find that to be a helpful response. I did not think that I would be saying so today. The Minister accepted not only that the figure needs to be kept under review, but that we can also realistically expect to see the figure adjusted, should local authorities bring evidence forward to the Secretary of State that the de minimis rule is increasingly a handicap. I am sure that local authorities and local authority associations will take the hint—indeed, it was more than a hint—from the Minister seriously and that they

1323
will produce the evidence that he needs to bring the figure forward in a realistic way. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 62A:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Public service contracts and EC legislation
. The exercise of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by and under sections 8 and 9 above shall he without prejudice to the exercise by local authorities of discretion in the selection of contract award criteria within the framework of the rules laid down in European Communities legislation relating to the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have pleasure in moving the last amendment tonight. The amendment is a revised version of that which we moved in Committee. We were not entirely persuaded by the Minister's response then or by subsequent comments. However, unlike the amendment moved in Committee, this one is premised on the Minister's comments at that time on the supremacy of European law over national law.
Article 32 of the EC directive states that when applied to the priority services category of professional and technical services—for example, the very ones which we have been discussing tonight such as finance, computing, R&D, architecture and engineering—there should first be a qualitative selection analogous to the quality threshold in the White Paper; and, secondly, that local or regional bodies are free to choose either the economically most advantageous tender, including consideration of such items as delivery dates, technical service, technical merit, or, rather than the economically more advantageous tender, the lowest price only. In other words, every local and regional authority in Europe as defined in Article 32 has the choice between the most advantageous tender or the lowest price.
Similarly, DoE Circular 16/90 states:
"There arc only two alternative criteria: 'lowest price' and [the] 'most economically advantageous tender'. The criterion chosen should normally be the latter as if the 'lowest price' is chosen, contracting authorities may not necessarily obtain value for money as defined in the Government's consolidated guidelines on public purchasing policy".
I am simply asking the Minister to confirm, first, that, following the draft of EC legislation, British local authorities should have the same choice between the economically most advantageous and the lowest price when choosing which tender to accept; and, secondly, that not only should they be able to follow EC law or directives but they should also be able to follow the DoE's own guidance on purchasing policy where this is clearly in the best interests of the local taxpayer. In moving the amendment, I invite the Minister to clarify the situation. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Blatch made clear, during the debate in Committee, we fully accept that European Community law must always take precedence over UK legislation when there is a conflict between the two. But there is no such
1324
conflict in this case. The draft directive on public services contracts, like the existing directives on works and supplies, provides that, so far as EC law is concerned, local authorities may (I stress the word "may") have a choice between two alternative types of criteria: lowest price tender only or economically most advantageous tender. But there is nothing in that to prevent UK legislation from restricting that choice to only one of those two criteria if there are good reasons for doing so in the circumstances of any particular situation. We have explained why we believe that there are strong and sound reasons for so restricting it in certain cases. That is why we have suggested a double envelope tendering procedure which amounts to lowest price only following a quality sift. Nor is there anything in the EC legislation which would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations about the treatment by authorities of costs extraneous to the bid when comparing the in-house with the external bidders, as proposed in the consultation document.
I should add that the current wording of the draft directive itself would appear to make my point quite clearly, although it must be remembered that that directive is still only in the comparatively early stages of its development, and that the wording may change over time; but as it stands at present, the wording of the relevant article opens with the words,
"Without prejudice to national law".
I also remind your Lordships that the situation contemplated in the draft directive will normally be different from that with which we are concerned in the Bill. The draft directive was framed with the kind of circumstances in mind where the competition is between different external contractors and the authority's own workforce is not involved. In the circumstances envisaged in our legislation, however, the DSO is involved, and it is that that leads us to believe that in some cases it might be appropriate to limit the criteria on which contract decisions can be made. It is for that reason that we believe it is justifiable, indeed essential, to limit the discretion allowed in those circumstances to local authorities. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is a pretty sorry answer, if I may say so. If I understood him correctly, the noble Earl was saying that in Europe local authorities, having gone through a quality consideration, may have the choice between the economically most advantageous and lowest price tender, but in Britain there will be no such choice open to local authorities. The Secretary of State will decide for us. The Secretary of State will decide what, in the rest of the EC, is regarded properly and appropriately as a matter for local decision making.
I shall query the difference between the lowest price and the economically most advantageous tender. What the Minister says this has been at the core of the debates on CCT—is that he recognises that there can be a distinction between the economically most advantageous and the lowest price tender. What is the difference? The lowest price is the difference. We are aware of that. The economically most advantageous tender is what optimises the position of the local

1325
authority client; that is, taking into account not just the savings from the tender but the continuing costs that may fall upon the taxpayer. In other words, the economically most advantageous tender, by definition, benefits the local authority as client, and therefore the local authority in its role as custodian of the public interest and therefore the local taxpayer.
The Minister is saying that local authorities will be directed by the Secretary of State to accept the cheapest or the lowest price tender even when—as my noble friend has already said this evening—that is not economically most advantageous. They will be paying more to obtain less. The Secretary of State will be requiring local authorities, in their capacity as client, on behalf of their taxpayers to pay more to obtain less. They will be required to take the cheapest tender, even when that is not the most economically advantageous one. That is utterly deplorable. How can local authorities look after the money that they are raising
1326
from local taxpayers if they are told by the Secretary of State to spend it in ways that are not economically most advantageous? At that point, the local authorities' whole fiduciary duty collapses.
I hope that between now and Third Reading the Minister will reflect upon this issue and the difference between the economically most advantageous and the cheapest price tender, and still see whether he will require local authorities to spend more to obtain less, as his remarks suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before midnight.

  IMMIGRATION: DNA TEST
  IMMIGRATION: DNA TEST
  PEAT IMPORTS FROM THE IRISH REPUBLIC
  PEAT IMPORTS FROM THE IRISH REPUBLIC
  INTERNATIONAL SPACE YEAR FORUM: REPRESENTATION
  INTERNATIONAL SPACE YEAR FORUM: REPRESENTATION
  SOVIET AND RUSSIAN REPUBLICS: MEDICAL ASSISTANCE
  SOVIET AND RUSSIAN REPUBLICS: MEDICAL ASSISTANCE
  EC STAFF
  EC STAFF
  TURKISH BASES: COALITION FORCE
  TURKISH BASES: COALITION FORCE
  IRAQ: EXCLUSION ZONE
  IRAQ: EXCLUSION ZONE
  EAST TIMOR
  EAST TIMOR
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: UN CONVENTION
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: UN CONVENTION
  DENTAL SERVICES
  DENTAL SERVICES
  GAS SUPPLY
  GAS SUPPLY
  ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY COUNCILS, 12th AND 13th DECEMBER
  ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY COUNCILS, 12th AND 13th DECEMBER
  ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT: UN CONFERENCE
  ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT: UN CONFERENCE