Sitting of 21 June 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Local Government Services
9.35 am
Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move,
That this House notes the widespread discontent with the inadequacies of local government services in parts of Britain, particularly in many inner city areas, as demonstrated by piles of rubbish in the streets of Liverpool and the promotion of eccentric minority interests such as 'gay' advice centres and nuclear-free zones; notes that a number of councils have not collected outstanding domestic rates and have barely started their community charge collection; further notes that this civic disarray is confined to councils controlled by Labour and their allies; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to save the residents of these boroughs by insisting on value-for-money, appropriate competitive tendering and rigorous controls on overspending.
I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that on this occasion I have at least been able to introduce a timely subject, having regard to recent press reports on certain local councils. It was originally my intention to talk especially about rate support grants, local government finance Acts, rating and valuation Acts, and so on. We could have had a detailed debate on those issues. We could almost have taken them clause by clause and in such a way as to suggest that the Mace ought to be under rather than on the Table.
As we have not examined the role of local government for so many years, I hope that my hon. Friends will not be too tempted to detail the activities of individual councils, although that must be very tempting when we see who is here this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) may feel tempted during the debate to mention Derbyshire council's record. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is very close to the scene in Liverpool. If he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is possible that the word "Liverpool" will cross his lips. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who has such detailed knowledge of the loonier London councils, may find that the word "Hackney" just drops from his lips between now and some time later this morning.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend is being grossly unfair to many Labour London councils. If I were to mention only Hackney, a whole bunch of lunatics would feel grossly insulted that they had been left out of the list.
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is probably right. I merely say, however, that I want this to be as productive a debate as possible, in which we examine the full role of local councils—principally as enablers rather than as providers. If, however, my hon. Friend feels that in London there are other examples besides Hackney where they have not got things entirely right, I hope that he will
586
feel free, subject to catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to mention them—and even, perhaps, to mention them by name.
I can hardly say that the Opposition Benches are packed this morning, but unless some Opposition Member wants to admit to it now, I do not believe that the Militant Tendency wing of the Labour party is represented here this morning. There is one potential candidate, but he is busy reading the Orders of the Day, so I do not think that he is claiming to be a member of Militant Tendency.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I could send the hon. Gentleman a copy of a pamphlet that I wrote a few years ago called "The Public Face of Militant", which was an analysis and critique of its politics. It criticised them strongly and suggested a socialist alternative. The hon. Gentleman should be clear about the politics of Opposition Members. Despite the fact that there are some things of value in the Militant analysis, there are mistakes in the way that its ideas are presented. We could have a full debate on those issues, but that would reduce the time available for the motion before us today.
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his position clear and for confirming that there are only some things of value undertaken by the Militant Tendency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's socialist purity is shown by the vivid red colour of his tie. I hope that, while criticising his hon. Friends who are members of the Militant Tendency, he is also criticising them for not being here today. I understand that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) is unable to take part in the forthcoming by-election in Liverpool, Walton.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Why is that?
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) asks why. A Back Bencher is a very busy person. The by-election will last for only about three weeks, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Broadgreen has many demands on his time. I thought—and perhaps my hon. Friend also thought—that Liverpool, Broadgreen and Liverpool, Walton were some distance apart. I looked at a map of Liverpool and found that they are adjoining constituencies, so the hon. Member for Broadgreen must be a very busy man indeed.
Suffice it to say that the subject of "corpy land" will come to the fore in this debate. "Corpy" rhymes with "Gorby" and both try to look after people from womb to tomb. I read with interest an article by Mr. Ronald Faux in The Times this morning. He said that "Liverpool had a red letter day yesterday—it had a visit from the shadow Environment spokesman, our friend, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), whose view of Liverpool is rather different from most. The article reports the hon. Member for Dagenham as saying
"that Liverpool had been ill-served by the Tory government as the city struggled with a legacy of a Militant-dominated council that had allowed problems in the city to fester."
So it is not the moderate or the real Labour party, but the Tory Government, who are to blame. That is one point of view but I shall draw attention to a few comments made by Mr. Keva Coombes and others who were formerly in power for the Militant Tendency in Liverpool. Unlike the hon. Member for Dagenham, even they no longer suggest that Liverpool's ills stem from a Tory Government
Mr. Anthony Steen: I rise in sorrow rather than in anger, having represented the constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree from 1974 to 1983. I was the only Conservative Member of Parliament for Liverpool at that time. I am a tremendous admirer of the Liverpudlian. He has a wonderful sense of humour; he is generous, loyal, supportive, innovatory and enterprising. However, despite this Government having pumped more public money into Liverpool than any previous Government have done, the Liverpudlian has been misled by his leaders.
They have followed extremism, Militant Tendency and militant trade unionism in the belief that that would provide salvation, instead of pursuing capitalism and private enterprise, and instead of giving the Government, who have given them so much money, an opportunity to make progress. Does not my hon. Friend deeply regret that the decent, working-class Liverpudlian has been so badly misled by the left wing and by Militant Tendency, when he could make progress along the lines suggested by the Government?
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose record as the Member of Parliament for Liverpool, Wavertree—as I believe the constituency was called before reorganisation—was remarkable. I am sure that he looked after his constituents well in what was at that time already a fairly difficult area, thanks to the local council's activities. That is proof of what we have always suspected. We believe that, if we are to attract people's votes, people must feel well off and prosperous, but in a Labour-controlled area the reality is different.
I have not been to Liverpool, Walton, but I believe that the theory must be to weld together all the various factions and self-interest groups so that, in the end, everyone relies on the corporation for a job or a house. Unless one is proved to be a committed supporter of Militant or of the Labour party—they are the same thing—one will not get very far. Everyone is sucked into the system, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for confirmation that that is so.
That leads me to my next point. The Roman Catholic archbishop and our own Bishop of Liverpool were tempted to say yesterday:
"We are convinced the present confrontational tactics can achieve only civic chaos and widespread hardship."
In fact, the matter could be cleared up relatively easily.
One of the most pressing problems at the moment is that of uncollected rubbish.
Mr. William O'Brien: We get it here.
Mr. Knapman: The Labour party's Front-Bench spokesman says that we get it here, and I acknowledge that Labour are experts on rubbish. I understand that, three weeks ago, the few Conservatives on Liverpool city council moved a motion to allow private companies to be brought in to take away the rubbish. That motion received no support from the Labour party, from Militant or from the moderates.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: It did.
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman says that it did. All right, we shall leave out any more suggested parties, but I do not see the same nodding from Labour's Front-Bench spokesman. Why did the council not call in a private firm
588
to clear the rubbish three weeks ago? I am sure that we shall find out when the the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) speaks later.
At the moment, the 450 council dustmen are, if not on strike, not doing too much. In fact, I suggest that, to judge from the size of the piles of rubbish, one would have a job to tell whether they were on strike or not. However, help is at hand.
The article in The Times stated:
"UK Waste Control was prepared to interview anyone looking for a job and"—
this is a novel suggestion for the area
"would employ them on their merits."
However, it would not take on all 450 council dustmen even though they do not work very much, because it would need only 250 dustmen to provide the city with a good weekly collection service.
UK Waste Control realises that in the 1990s it is not necessary to recognise trade unions, but said that it would not discriminate against workers who were union members. Perhaps it has the old-fashioned notion that workers are interested in the wages that they will receive, and the 250 workers will be able to share between them the same wages—or similar—as those of the 450 workers.
Mr. Tony Banks: I had not intended to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's speech because, as he knows, I have only just entered the Chamber, and I apologise for interrupting. However, from what I have heard, the hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong so I can only assume that the earlier part of his speech was equally incorrect. The fact is that half the work force will be employed, and I understand that it will receive a reduction, not an increase, in wages.
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for just walking in. The hon. Gentleman will be flattered when I tell him that I wish to quote him at some length because he makes his point as a result of his considerable experience in London and especially through his proposals for a greater London authority. We note his view that dustmen, and presumably everyone else, should be paid according to his social dimension, rather than according to the price that they can readily command. We note especially that he has no fear that having 450 dustmen to do the jobs that 250 could readily do poses any great problem for the modern-day socialist party led by the great economist, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who says that Labour must learn to run capitalism better than the Conservatives do. Labour could make a start by not employing 450 dustmen when only 250 are required.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) plainly supports the system that was in place in Liverpool until the council meeting on Wednesday. Let us be clear what that system is, which the Labour party supports. It was a system in which, quite corruptly, job nominations were given to the unions in the full knowledge that those unions were completely dominated by Militant. People were given jobs by the trade unions—not on merit and not on job application, but through direct placement by unions. Four years ago, the so-called "moderate" Labour party took over Liverpool, but that system is still in place. Labour left it there and knows that it is corrupt, but did not do anything about it.
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is absolutely and characteristically right. This may be the time to draw the attention of the House to an excellent article in The Sunday Express of 16 June. It is headed: "Focus on a Sick City", and says:
"Rotting Borough. Liverpool's Labour-run council is the worst in history".
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South may have something to say about that. Certainly Liverpool is among the worst councils. In the article, Mr. Bruce Anderson says:
"During most of the past two decades, the Labour party has run Liverpool."
That is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West.
The article continues:
"For a time, the Militant Tendency effectively controlled the city's Labour Party and therefore the city's government, but in recent years the so-called moderates have reasserted themselves. That has made no difference to Liverpool."
That is absolutely right. Is the situation in Liverpool now any different from that of 1979?
Mr. Richard Holt: It is worse.
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend says that it is worse, but it must be a close thing. I agree with all the excellent article by Mr. Anderson—except one point. He says:
"If Militant had their way Liverpool would quickly resemble Albania."
That is not fair to Albania, because in the past week or two, the ruling Albanian Labour party has had a three-day congress. The subject of the congress was to debate whether to change the name from the Labour party to the Socialist party. That is making rapid progress and will leave that lot on the Opposition Benches as by far the most left-wing party in Europe.
The hon. Member for Broadgreen is not here to advise us on Militant Tendency. I regret that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is also not here. They were here yesterday during Business Questions, when I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—this is no criticism—to use his endeavours to see that one of them was here. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East would have been so helpful this morning. We could have heard a few emollient words from him, drawing on his experience as industrial relations officer with the Alvis car company. That makes me grateful that I never bought an Alvis car, and I am not in the least surprised that Alvis went bust.
Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend think that the absence of the two illustrious Members is accounted for by the fact that they have taken their place at the front of the massing crowds for the victory parade today after the gallantry of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians in the Gulf war?
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In view of his comment, I am tempted to suggest that someone goes out to see whether that is true. Having regard for the number of hon. Members on the Benches this morning, I think that we had better rely on press reports in due course. There were enough who dissented in the voting Lobbies to show us that neither the hon. Members for Broadgreen and for Coventry, South-East, nor 52 or 53 of their colleagues are likely to be interested in military victory in the Gulf area.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend consider that there is any significance in the fact
590
that today, not a single Labour Member for the city of Liverpool is present for a debate on Liverpool? May not it reflect their sheer embarrassment that Labour government in action is being paraded? They would rather keep a low profile and keep the Liverpool Labour government unexposed.
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I do not entirely agree with him that it is a disgrace that none of the Liverpool Members is here this morning. I have every confidence that, when we read the Monday morning papers, we shall find that they suddenly realised the enormity of the problems of Liverpool and will be pictured with shovels in their hands helping to clear the rubbish away from the streets of Liverpool. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, but I believe that the reason that I have given is the only reason why Liverpool Members could not be present for our debate.
I should hate the debate to be conducted along what might be termed party political lines, and I want especially to mention the rating and valuation Acts. I leave it to my hon. Friends to make political points about individual Labour councils.
One of the most important aims at present is to control inflation. Some £1 in every £4 is now spent by local authorities. Neither this Government nor any other would have the slightest chance of controlling inflation unless they had some control over expenditure by local councils. For 40 or 50 years, we have not looked at the real role of local authorities—what they should provide in goods and services and what they should not provide. In 1946 and 1947, with hundreds of thousands of troops coming back from the war, it was necessary to have a crash building exercise. The laws of supply and demand were so separate then that even a certain amount of Government planning was necessary to meet the demand. Large council estates were built.
For the next 30 years, no one questioned whether councils should be not only the enablers of Governrnent legislation, but the providers of such houses. There were Parker Morris standards, under which a family of two was entitled to 802 sq ft of accommodation. If there were three people, it might be 846 sq ft. It was incumbent on the local council to tell people precisely what colour the front door should be. There was no question of trusting the people to make the really big decisions that affected their lives. None of that has been questioned.
We have had debate after debate about finding some popular form of tax. The reality is that people pay taxes in sorrow and rates in anger. Whatever, form of rates, council tax or community charge that we come up with, there will be people who are not happy because they have been losers. It is time that we addressed not only the way in which councils are financed, but the role that we expect them to play.
Mr. Holt: Was my hon. Friend here in the past few days? If so, he would have heard the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) say that a Labour Government would not cap any local authority unless fraud was involved. Does not that mean that the Government's announcement yesterday about the potential £35 billion overspill in spending was a gross underestimate because they did not include the environmental increases that would result from a return to the rating system?
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The sayings of the hon. Member for Dagenham never cease to mystify me, although I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to know what an interest I take in them in case he should consider it a form of flattery. Having consulted the hon. Gentleman's collected works, I can only come up with one suggestion, although I should first point out that I have relatives in New Zealand and Australia. It can only be the fact that the hon. Gentleman was born down under that enables him to turn the truth on its head with such ease.
I was saying that local councils need to be enablers and not providers. We have debated the various methods of funding local authorities but not what we expect them to do. I look forward to hearing the Minister's speech in due course. I know that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be considering not only the financing of local authorities but the paper recently published on the structure of local authorities. I ask them please not to lose sight of what we expect authorities to do. When local authorities are providers rather than enablers, they are always monopoly providers. That means socialism, and socialism means queues, as exemplified in the case of Liverpool—but I leave it to my hon. Friends to talk about Liverpool.
I am fortunate to represent a most attractive part of the country. There is some lovely countryside around Stroud. I have considerable respect for the vast majority of councillors and council officers at Stroud and it saddens me when they come in for criticism. When they do, it is always for the same reason: it is when they decide to be providers as well as enablers. It is because of that that they are permanently short of money. There is always a reason why they need more money. I examined the council's spending record this morning, and I have to say, that, even in Stroud—which is no Liverpool, thank heavens—the district council has trebled its spending in nine years, while Gloucestershire county council has doubled its expenditure in five years. That is a substantial increase. I repeat that, now that £1 in every £4 throughout the country is spent by local authorities, we must consider the matter very carefully if we are to control inflation.
Criticism of the council saddens me because I believe that the vast majority of councillors and council officers at Stroud and in the shire hall at Gloucester do their very best —although one or two Green councillors occasionally do silly things such as debating until 2 am whether a local park should be called Chico Mendes park. I wonder why no one asks what is the cost to the charge payer of the full council, with all its officers present, meeting until 2 am. That is something that local newspapers could well take up and question.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Knapman: Now that the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber for several minutes, I shall give way to him again.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is making a critical point about Stroud council and the cost of holding council meetings. Has he considered what is the cost of our all being here today to hear the debate that he has initiated? I suggest that it would keep Stroud in council meetings from now until the end of the decade.
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman was on his feet within a few seconds of walking into the Chamber and there is no doubt that any shortlist of those who detain the House most often would include him. I remember only one brief speech from the hon. Gentleman, which was when he walked in one day and said, "We need a revolution"—a statement that appeared in the day's headlines. I do not know whether he meant that we needed a revolution in the whole country or just in Liverpool. We may be a little wiser if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, although personally I doubt it.
Mr. Holt: As the only hon. Member present who represents a constituency in the north-east of England, may I ask the House to note the dedication of the man who was shot and killed yesterday while carrying out his work for his local authority—albeit a Labour-controlled authority? It would be nice if the House took note of that, and I should be grateful if the Minister took it on board.
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Those of us who watched the news simply could not believe that that was happening in this country, and our thoughts are very much with that man's family.
Before I was so rudely interrupted by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, I was criticising not my council, as the council officers and the majority of councillors have the best needs of the area at heart, but two or three Green councillors who thought it necessary to debate the subject of Chico Mendes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will remember well who Chico Mendes was, although, happily, many of us do not.
Mr. Tony Banks: Another man who gave his life for a good cause.
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman says that he was another man who gave his life for a good cause.
Problems with councils arise time after time. In the past day or two, I have read extensively in the Library and have consulted the debates in 1979, when the last Labour Government were going under. At that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) initiated an Adjournment debate on why it was necessary to have direct labour organisations. If councils seek to be both providers and enablers, their enabling function must involve putting services out to tender, and that process is not very convincing if one of the groups of people who are tendering has a direct interest with the local authority.
On the shortlist of services that should not be permitted to be run by any council are leisure centres, which seem to soak up money at a rate of knots. For the life of me, I cannot see why local councils need to run car parks and shopping malls. If my hon. Friends or I decide that we want to invest in a shopping mall, it should be our decision, subject to negotiations with our bank managers. If we make a wrong decision, it is our fault. But when local councils go into property development and make a bish of things, they merely send the bill to the community charge payer, which is just not good enough.
Mr. O'Brien: What about members of Lloyd's?
Mr. Knapman: Having taken the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill through the House the other night, I am used to references to the council of Lloyd's. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have

593
been generous in allowing a wide-ranging debate and I realise that wide-ranging speeches can be taken in a number of ways, but the debate would need to be very wide ranging for the hon. Gentleman to bring in the council of Lloyd's. Perhaps he thinks that rather than being self regulating, that, too, should be brought within the ambit of a council, in which case the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will make the case for him, albeit not very well.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman said that people who make business deals should stand by their decisions. I was merely asking whether that should not also apply to Lloyd's.
Mr. Knapman: As I have a direct interest, I have not formed a particular view on the subject.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Boateng has.
Mr. Knapman: As my hon. Friend says, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made an eloquent speech on the subject in the Finance Bill Committee. If the hon. Member for Normanton has strong feelings about it, I suggest that he reads that speech, because everyone tells me that it was excellent. As I said, I have a direct interest in the matter, so I do not especially wish to know what the hon. Gentleman said. I see that the hon. Member for Normanton is nodding. I suspect that he has already read that speech, in which case I do not understand his intervention.
Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made yet another pledge on behalf of the Labour party. He proposed to spend more than £50 million on bailing out rich people who had put their money into Lloyd's and accepted the risk. It was very interesting—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The motion is wide-ranging, but the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has just made it even wider. We must now return to the matter before us.
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I would not put it past the Labour party to think of the corporation of Lloyd's as an essential feature of local government provision. I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton for his intervention. I am fortunate that, in Stroud, we have committed councillors and council officers. Many people want to come to live in the Cotswolds. I wish that I could say the same about other areas.
The right hon. Member for Islwyn is trying hard to get people to believe that Militant now suddenly is one party, and that the Labour party is another. In particular, he want us to believe that about Liverpool. In past months, when the headlines were different, he would have had us believe it about London—that all bad councils were under the separate Militant influence. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to ponder a few facts.
I wonder whether hon. Members remember Linda Bellos, the former leader of Lambeth council. I was surprised to find that, in a speech at Brunel university, she admitted that the people in Lambeth had been
"failed by the education system, failed by the anachronistic rating system, and, yes, failed by municipal housing."
594
I expect that that will come as news to Labour Members. Ms. Bellos also commented on education:
"The dozen education authorities with the worst GCSE results in maths and English are all Labour-controlled."
On housing, she said:
"The twenty authorities with the worst rent arrears are all Labour-controlled."
All that was best summarised by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who said:
"If you have a council that is as monumentally incompetent as Brent's been in the last few years, it rightly gets a major vote of censure from the public."
Referring to Camden and Haringey, he said:
"I think that people running things now are just like the Vichy regime in France under the Nazis."
That is a nice statement from the Labour party.
Just in case anyone thinks that the hon. Gentleman was not correct, the Queen's counsel report on Islington council stated:
"Having the cash office staffed by the innumerate, the filing done by the dyslexic and disorganised, and reception by the surly or charmless seems to us a recipe for administrative chaos."
That has been the position in London for some years.
Mr. David Wilshire: Do not the examples quoted by my hon. Friend prove the truth of his earlier point about monopoly service provision? When Labour councillors become obsessed with playing politics and chasing their loony left ideas, they take their eye off the real reason why they are there—which is to deliver services. They can get away with that because of the monopoly provision that they enjoy. They play at their politics and could not care less about local people.
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend makes his point exceptionally well. Any sensible person will realise that monopolies are bad, yet there has never been a speech from Labour Members admitting that—at least, not while they have been in office. That is why I chose the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, East. Once he had left office as leader of the former Greater London council, he proved that he had always known precisely what had been happening.
I hope that someone will follow up the criticism currently levelled at Lambeth, where head teachers are to make an unprecedented appeal to the Government to intervene in the running of the education system in that borough.
I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate, but I want briefly to make a few points about Labour reform. I shall deal first with London. The Evening Standard said about Londoners:
"They have suffered too long under loony-Left councils that charge record poll tax bills and then leave the streets unswept and the schools unstaffed while wasting millions on corruption, excessive expenses, inefficiency, waste, equal-opportunities, thought-police and lesbian and gay raffia-work co-operatives."
Is it any wonder that I am confused between London and Liverpool? That quotation is apposite to both.
It was not until I saw the ranking of authorities by percentage of vacant dwellings that I realised that I had to say something about Liverpool. At 8·1 per cent., its percentage of vacant dwellings is well ahead of anywhere else in the country. The council is a complete shambles. The right hon. Member for Islwyn says that it is not the fault of the Labour party—it is the fault of Militant. Of course, he did not always say that. The Sunday Times may

595
have quoted him saying that last Sunday, but it has not always been the case. Back in 1981, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"The Labour Party needs to be more left wing than it's ever been before."
By 1983, he was saying that:
"people over emphasise the Militant danger."
By 1985, it was:
"I am deeply antagonistic towards Militant. I want nothing to do with it. I want them out of the Labour party … we shall act very toughly."
Avid followers of the right hon. Gentleman's quotations will appreciate why I have found it necessary to precis some of his remarks.
By 1990, the right hon. Gentleman made one very direct remark—that
"there is no room for them"—
that is, Militant—
"in this Party."
He did not think then that Militant was a separate organisation. Is the lady who is standing under the title of the "Real Labour Party" really separate from the Labour party?
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: She was not six weeks ago.
Mr. Knapman: Indeed, she was not even five weeks ago.
We have plenty of information about Militant. I am grateful to the 103 colleagues who signed early-day motion 992, which condemns the so-called moderate Labour party for its record in Liverpool. My only criticism is that the early-day motion states that:
"the two Labour parties bicker about who is to blame."
There are not two Labour parties—Militant is part and parcel of the Labour party. Labour and its Militant wing are responsible for the terrible records on housing, education, ethnic groups and so on.
Councillor Keva Coombes—it it Mr. or Mrs?—[Hots. MEMBERS: "M r."] It is Mr. Keva Coombes. Apparently, he was a prominent Labour man. He has admitted that the council fiddled the figures to ensure that its work force, rather than a private sector company, won a contract put out to compulsory tender. The present leader of the council said:
"We know we are over-staffed. We know we are inefficient."
According to Mr. Coombes, Liverpool's last major management report was made in 1965:
"It took us twenty-one years to implement and even then we didn't do it all."
The council bought a very fancy computer, but nobody knows how to work it. I therefore do agree that for them actually to privatise a certain part of their business—and I say business instead of local government—is excellent news.
The council is now to arrange for its rubbish to be cleared by a private firm, at a fraction of the usual cost, yet only three weeks ago not a single Labour councillor would support such a motion. That is a great step forward, although I imagine that it sticks in the craw of Labour Members.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that it is rather sad that the private company that will do that work is French? The
596
implication canvassed in the Liverpool newspapers is that no local company would dare to take the contract for fear of intimidation by the trade unionists in the city.
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point.
As I said earlier, I do not believe that councils should any longer be providers rather than enablers. Part of the business of enablers is to put contracts out to tender, but who would go to the bother of tendering—which can be both expensive and time-consuming—when they suspect that the contract is already sewn up by people who live in some annex of the city council offices? That has happened for far too long. I read out the admission by Councillor Coombes that the council fiddled the figures to ensure that its work force won the contract. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South was right to point out that people may tolerate that one, two or even three times, but they will not be fooled for ever. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Liverpool is a ghastly socialist mess. The aim of politics is to produce not problems but solutions. That is why I was in the Library for so long this week—reading the fascinating debates in 1979 about strike after strike throughout the country. Along came Lord Callaghan, who said, "Crisis? What crisis?" People did not appreciate his remark, or his sun tan.
People under 35 do not remember socialism. They do not remember when the unions were constantly on strike or 1979, when hospital porters decided whether a person was really ill and would have an operation. They do not remember when dock committees decided whether commodities were perishable and therefore whether they would be given permission to be unloaded.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: That finished Liverpool off.
Mr. Knapman: Yes. People under 35 do not remember grave diggers going on strike.
Mr. Barry Porter: I have listened courteously and carefully to my hon. Friend's comments about Liverpool. Much of what he said about the Liverpool branch of the Labour party is entirely correct, but Liverpool has never been finished off and will not be finished off while I have anything to do with it.
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is right. There is nothing wrong. There is nothing different about Liverpool, except that it is in the stranglehold of socialism and monopoly public provision.
Mr. Fearn: I agree that Liverpool is definitely not finished. The hon. Gentleman referred to the port. Does he know the figures? Liverpool port, which is in my area of Sefton, trebled its profits over the past three years. I agree that the dock labour scheme was probably one of the solutions. Should not the hon. Gentleman be saying what a good job the Liverpool docks are doing?
Mr. Knapman: Indeed. The Government have introduced many excellent financial and legislative initiatives to ensure that one day Liverpool will overcome the Militant Labour menace. I think that the hon. Gentleman could agree with that.
Just in case people re-elect Militant, I suggest that there is a way forward. I have one solution: we could make Liverpool into a holiday area. People under 35 and, for that matter, those who are older who need to be reminded

597
what it is like in a socialist area may be interested in visiting it as a living museum to socialism. At one stage, I had hopes for Albania, but the Albanians are changing their ways.
I wonder whether Trusthouse Forte could be prevailed upon to offer hotel accommodation—two days of dinner, bed and breakfast and a tour of "corpy land", carefully landscaped with mountains of rubbish and teeming with wildlife. Of course, the package would have to be provided at a preferential rate because when one goes to Liverpool, Walton in "corpy land", one is subject to "out-of-pocket" expenses. When a contract says, "Subject to availability", it means, "In the unlikely event that no one is on strike."
The reality is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford says, that socialism is brain dead and only the odd limb still twitches. The odd limb is still twitching in Liverpool, and it is time it was cut off.
10.24 am
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We have heard quite a lot about Liverpool, about which I may speak as well, but we are talking about local government services. I have much sympathy with the motion, although not all of it appeals to me. Some people believe that local government is simply a system of services. Some believe that local government services should be those involving no significant national interest. I reject that view. We believe that local government's role is and must remain deep seated.
It is essential in the negotiations to have liaison and communication between local government and national Government. Since 1986, there does not appear to have been much negotiation or co-operation between the two, probably because of the intervention of the notorious poll tax. The rift became clear when the poll tax came on the scene. I am pleased that lately there has been a truce. The Prime Minister met members of organisations and associations representing local government, and I sincerely hope that from now on there will be the co-operation to which I have looked forward.
It is a pity that the poll tax came on the scene. It was a crippling blow to local government, and will remain so for at least the next 18 months to two years. It means that local authorities have to withstand the effect of £800 million in total on their budgets—that is according to Audit Commission figures, not figures that anyone has cooked up. There is a widening gulf between local government and national Government because of the poll tax. The sooner the poll tax is out of the way, the sooner local government budgets can operate effectively.
Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the burdens imposed on local government, why is his party resolutely opposed to any form of capping?
Mr. Fearn: We should not at this stage speak about capping. When we think of it, we think of extra burdens on the poll tax payer, or on the ratepayer of the distant past. Figures cited in a debate the other day showed that Liverpool people were having to pay £79 more because of non-payment of the poll tax. In Bootle, because of non-payers, £31 has been added to the bills of people who pay regularly. The authority should get rid of that imposition as soon as possible.
I used to be a banker—
Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman was not a banker—he was an assistant bank manager.
Mr. Fearn: I am sure that the hon. Lady reads "Who's Who". There should never be such an imposition on those who pay their debts.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fearn: Yes, I shall give way—for the second time.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point —for the second time. Recently, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) conceded to me in a debate that in no circumstances would a Liberal Democrat Government impose capping on local authorities. For the second time, I ask the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) how he can complain about impositions on local taxpayers when his party has pledged to have no capping structure?
Mr. Fearn: I do not believe that we would ever cap an authority. Capping is an imposition on people. It depends whom the people elect. They have great choice about whom to elect, and capping is no doubt a factor when they make that choice.
Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the Liberals' position on central Government control of local finance, or is there to be no such control? And if so, how would he control the rate of inflation, the money supply and all the rest?
Mr. Fearn: I like to think that local government can get on with the job that it has been asked to do and that central Government will not continually pull the strings and restrict its resources.
It is a pity that the Government have commissioned a three-month study into the wholesale privatisation of white collar services in local government. The study, which has been well reported, is to be carried out by the PA Consulting Group. It is looking at the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to libraries, finance departments, engineering services, environmental health departments, trading standards departments, building-related services and personnel departments. Services in those areas, and especially health and safety standards, would be bound to suffer as spending cuts would put at risk more than a million local authority jobs. Those are services and jobs for which local authorities are definitely responsible. As has been recorded, there has already been a 19 per cent. cut in the number of health and safety staff in some authorities.
The public are not helped when museums struggle to survive. We need Government clarification on the status of local authority art collections to prevent the sales of works of art that are of benefit to the public. I believe that Derbyshire county council found a loophole which enabled it to make such sales. That loophole should now be closed.
Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Gentleman would help my hon. Friends and me if he could tell us whether the Liberal party is opposed to the contracting-out of services. Having said that the port of Liverpool has been saved by the abolition of the dock labour scheme, why on earth can he not recognise that Liverpool might be saved by the Conservative policies that are advocated by this Government instead of continuing to suffer the

599
socialist degradation that has been going on in Liverpool not only under the control of the Labour party, but previously under the control of the Liberal party?
Mr. Fearn: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. As he is aware, I served on what was at times the notorious Merseyside county council under the pleasure or otherwise of the leadership of Keva Coombs. Naturally, I did not agree with a terrific amount of what went on, but one thing with which I did agree was that the council recognised the degradation in Liverpool's housing stock and did something about it. However, with the exception of some minor measures, I cannot say that I was ever in wholehearted agreement with anything that happened in Liverpool under socialist rule.
As has been well reported in the Chamber, about 700,000 houses are now standing empty in the country, but it is rarely stated that 600,000 of those houses are in the private sector. Central and local government must tackle private housing deterioration by an efficient and fully resourced improvement grant programme. I sincerely hope that the Minister will comment on that in his reply. Council tenants should receive an improved repair service as that would help to achieve the consumer satisfaction that has so far not been achieved in Liverpool, where estate residents have been badly let down by the council. Liverpool city council admits that 5,733 local authority properties are vacant and that some have been empty for four years. About £4·5 million in rental income has been lost in the past 12 months. That is bad management and of little service to the public.
In my authority of Sefton, which covers Southport, services to the holiday and shopping industries have been affected by a north-south war. In 1974 Bootle was lumped with Southport, Crosby and Formby as part of an unnatural local government reorganisation which we described at the time as gerrymandering and which has been referred to in similar terms since. Communities as different as chalk and cheese were unsatisfactorily lumped together. Since then, for 17 years, the people of Southport have been making their views known to the Boundary Commission. Polls have consistently shown that between 92 and 97 per cent. of local people want to be part of Lancashire. Recently 11,000 of them wrote individual letters to the Boundary Commission which had initially acted favourably, reflecting the wishes of the people in the first provision of the Local Government Act 1974. However, the commission now appears to have turned a double somersault and stated that the borough of Southport should remain part of Sefton. It appears to the people of Southport that the Boundary Commission has become political. I hope that that is not the case. Many say that the boot has been put in as a result of interventions from a higher authority. Again, I hope that that is not the case and that the Boundary Commission, which has worked well in the past, will continue to do so in the future. The wishes of the people must always be adhered to in the provision of local government services.
Liberal Democrats perform well when they get into local government. Having gained 520 seats at the last local elections—more than was gained by any other party—many more councils are now controlled by Liberal Democrats. Councils are big spenders of public money and are often the largest employer in an area. They have
600
statutory duties and powers relating to a large number of services, many of which have a direct environmental impact. Councils can also be opinion formers and pace-setters for the area's community and businesses—not least as a result of their purchasing policies and publicity facilities. Liberal Democrats believe that the protection of the world environment must be a major priority at every level of government. That priority must be reflected in political and economic action at every level in society. It follows that, where feasible, we want local authorities, through the provision of their own services, to take action to protect the environment. Councils can bring direct influence to bear on those who might otherwise damage the environment and can raise the consciousness of the population that they serve.
Local government can provide recycling services. About 80 per cent. of household rubbish could be used again. Throwing it away is a total waste of all the energy and raw materials that went into producing it, yet only 1 per cent. of Britain's annual 43 million tonnes of household waste is recycled. Liberal Democrat councillors have long argued for recycling schemes. Where we hold power, that lobbying turns into action. Adur district council has introduced a door-to-door kerbside collection service for recyclable materials.
Local authorities should also provide nature conservancy services. Our minority administration on Colchester borough council has taken several initiatives to conserve the environment and has purchased a large landholding, Lemton lodge farm, to protect it from development threats and to open it up to the public. Adur and Somerset district councils have full programmes to ensure the protection and conservation of the environment.
Mr. Nicholls: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to remind the House that when the Liberals were briefly in control of Devon county council, they planned to recycle the county's remaining grammar schools by abolishing them because that was the price that the Labour party demanded for keeping the Liberals in power. Had the hon. Gentleman intended to mention that bit of recycling?
Mr. Fearn: I do not believe that that enters into recycling.
Concern about the side effects of pesticides has already galvanised Liberal Democrats on South Somerset district council, who have adopted comprehensive nature conservancy strategies, banned the use of many pesticides and substituted safer management methods. Purchasing policies should be geared to the service of consumers. There again, Liberal Democrat groups have successfully proposed environmentally sensitive purchasing policies.
Adur has banned the purchase of aerosols with CFCs and has called on manufacturers to label their products so that consumers can make informed purchases. Swale borough council is implementing lead-free petrol policies.
Britain lags behind its European neighbours when it comes to greening and protecting residential areas in towns and cities from fast rat-running traffic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): That is a bit rich. It is bunkum to think that it is only tightly knit groups of politically motivated Liberal Democrats who are interested in recycling, conservation, environmental good practice and the protection of the environment. It would be just as reasonable for the Labour party to suggest that

601
it is doing the same or for me to suggest that Conservative groups are. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that none of those Liberal cliques would be able to make such claims if it were not for the introduction of legislation by the Conservative Government on vital matters, notably the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Mr. Fearn: I would like to agree with the Minister. Perhaps as the debate continues many instances will be given of Conservative councils that are doing that. I have been a member of a council for 25 years and I still am. We had a tough time in the earlier years as there were only three of us, but during that time we suggested using recycling methods and policies that would not harm the environment. The Conservatives suggested nothing.
I used to go round the country 25 years ago, and I never found Conservative groups suggesting anything of the sort, apart from in rural areas where people spoke about hedgerows, even in those days. I never heard anything until seven or eight years ago, when the Greens made us start thinking about the environment and it became fashionable.
Mr. Holt: On the subject of the environment and the Liberal Democrats, I have been a member of the Select Committee on the Environment for six years. There is no Liberal Democrat on that Committee because of the way that this place works, but neither has a Liberal Democrat ever sat in on a meeting or submitted a paper. No Liberal Democrat has ever expressed agreement or disagreement with our reports. In the House, the Liberal Democrats take no interest in the environment unless it is for cheap popular political reasons.
Mr. Fearn: I cannot believe that. A document called "Shared Earth" was submitted to the Committee and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not read it.
I am not saying that Conservative councils will not jump on the band wagon and introduce such measures—
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fearn: I have given way eight times, which is a lot for such a debate. There are not many of us on this side of the House today—[Interruption.] I am a great percentage of our party here today.
I am talking about customer services. I am not haranguing or criticising too much, although certainly some criticism must be levelled at Liverpool. We have always been a party of action rather than words. We stand for value for money and for service. The best thing that could happen to the proud city of Liverpool is for the sensible and friendly people of Walton to give both Labour parties a boot up the arse and elect a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament.
10.44 am
Mr. Barry Porter: I do not think that I am capable of following the witty rhetoric arid the vulgarity of the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), and I have no intention of so doing.
Mr. Fearn: The hon. Gentleman speaks of vulgarity, but I looked in the dictionary to find that that was a good old English word.
Mr. Porter: The fact that it is old fashioned does not make it any the less vulgar.
602
I am not here to take part in the Walton by-election and I am definitely not here to indulge in a Liverpool-bashing expedition. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) with some interest. One of our troubles is that the people of Liverpool—as shown in the leader in the Liverpool Daily Post—rightly or wrongly take exception to people from Dagenham, Stroud and other places, who have probably never been to Liverpool, thinking that Liverpool is a sort of Albania of the north. It is not.
I am not criticising, as they obviously have other things to do, but I am sorry that some of the Liverpool Members of Parliament are not here today. I was born on Merseyside, I have a family there, and have worked there as a solicitor and am not unknown in the courts of Liverpool—as an advocate, I hasten to add. I have had a ringside seat of what has been happening in the past decade. I have watched the fight for the soul of Liverpool and I do not like what I have seen any more than anyone else. As a Merseysider, and as someone with relations who earn their living in the city of Liverpool, I have a right to try to set the record straight, as far as I can and as a friend of Liverpool.
Every city has its difficulties. Liverpool has geographical problems—it is on the wrong side of the country because patterns of trade have changed. Corn and cotton have gone and the port has had to be reduced in size. The population has reduced. I wonder why Liverpool has gained its reputation when Glasgow, which has suffered equal geographical historical difficulties and has suffered the decline of its basic industries, does not have the same reputation and is called the "city of culture". Glasgow pulled itself up by its own bootstraps, largely under a Labout administration, and the man who led that renaissance was Provost Kelly. If Glasgow and other cities that have faced decline could do it, why not Liverpool? That is why I have to make this attack, because the blame for what has happened to Liverpool in the past decade lies with the politicians who are purported to lead that city.
The first political statement that I made was at school when Mrs. Eilzabeth Braddock, the then Labour Member of Parliament for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, came to lecture the sixth form. I offered the vote of thanks and I remember saying that I trusted that she would remain as a Member of Parliament and a member of the Opposition for many years to come—I was right about that. I wish that Elizabeth Braddock and her like were in Liverpool now, but they are not.
One only had to look at the leader of the Liverpool council on television the other night—he was in tears. He is the alleged moderate. I felt sorry for him. However, it is fair to say that he and those who follow him have connived in doing little to stop the hard left, the broad left or the narrow left, or whatever one wants to call it. Such labels mean nothing to me and are part of a parlour game played by people of socialist inclination. The people out there do not care what faction one belongs to or even what they are or what they do. They are interested in a clean city, a city with decent schools and a city which is prudently run. Sadly, in the past 10 years, none of those aims has been achieved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred to the breast-beating of councillor Keva Coombes. I do not propose to repeat that, but, to encapsulate what Coombes said, it was simply, "We failed."

603
I do not mind people failing if they have tried to the best of their ability and worked hard with great honesty, but, no, it was not like that. They did not try. They did not want to succeed. They wanted confrontation, not just within the city, but with the Government of whom they disapproved. The way to achieve that was to make the city ungovernable.
People thought like that and, sadly, still think like that. If any Labour Member thinks that Militant will fold up its tent and steal away into the night, think again because it will not. I know, because we have heard some windy rhetoric about it, that the Labour leadership wishes to see such people out of the Labour party. Think again. It will not be so easy. Besides, I am not entirely certain that every Labour Member wishes that to be the case.
Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend is making a most interesting speech. As so many Members wish to speak, I do not expect to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I intervene briefly. I, too, represent a seat which is on the Mersey and is about 30 miles from Liverpool. When the people of Stockport look at Liverpool, they wonder whether those living there realise what an appalling advertisement for Liverpool the council is. Industrialists are deterred from investing in it by what they read in the newspapers and watch on television. I know the Liverpool people. Recently I visited Halewood and was impressed at what was going on there, but many people do not know. The people of Liverpool should realise that their councillors are the worst possible advertisement for that city which was once great.
Every year I used to go to the Isle of Man for my family holidays and I used to see the port of Liverpool full of great ships. At that time it vied with Manchester. It was a great thrill for me and part of the holiday to go there. Now Liverpool is notorious purely as a result of the activities of its appalling left-wing council.
Mr. Porter: If that was a question, I think that the answer is yes. Clearly, there is a problem with inward investment in Liverpool, but we should not overstate it. The politicians there have the effect that my hon. Friend described, but it is not something which cannot be overcome. It will be overcome. There are still major industries in Liverpool. There is Littlewoods. Royal Insurance has its head office there and will not move. General Motors is investing a further £200 million. There is the Tate gallery of the north and the Albert dock. If hon. Members have a moment, they should pause at the Albert dock, which is absolutely marvellous. Why is it there? Because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in a previous incarnation, went there and started the Merseyside development corporation. What is the advantage of the MDC? It does not have to bother with the council which has let Liverpool down.
Liverpool is there for all to see. It is not a once great city; it is a great city. It is a city of humour. I assure the hon. Member for Southport that Liverpool is environmentally aware. It has more lead-free churches than anywhere else in the kingdom. That is the sort of self-deprecating joke which people on Merseyside make about themselves. What is a scouser with a collar and tie called? Answer: the defendant. What is a scouser in a four-bedroomed, detached house called? Answer: a
604
burglar. The people of Liverpool make jokes like that about themselves. I like that. They are not pompous people. They are willing to work. When I hear attacks on the city close to which I was born, I do not like it because the vast majority of its people do not bear out the view that some people in the rest of the country have of them.
Over the past years the people of Liverpool have chosen to elect the sort of representatives that I have described. They are now beginning to realise that that was an error. Obviously, I think and hope that the Conservative party's fortunes will revive there. We have put money into that city; we have not abandoned it. Conservative principles will work in a place like Liverpool.
I represent part of the Wirral, two miles over the river. This year, slightly to my surprise, there was a swing on the Wirral in favour of the Conservative party. We gained seats and defeated the local leader of the Labour party. Why? Because our campaign was based on the question, "Do you want Liverpool over here?" We did not mean the city, but the politicians. The answer was and is a resounding, no, we do not want such people running our local authority.
It is for the people of Liverpool now to determine what sort of city they want. Do they want a city where the streets are swept and the schools are good, and of which they can be proud? If they do, it is available for the taking, but never while the men that I have described still run the local Labour party. Mistake me not, they think that they are the Labour party, they will remain in the Labour party, whether Walworth road or the national executive council says so, their spirit is in the Labour party, they have to an extent taken it over and they will not go away. It would be the leaving of Liverpool if those men were allowed to continue.
10.55 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: The introductory speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) was astonishing. It was supposed to deal with the problems of local government, yet he deliberately avoided the whole problem of local government finance. He mentioned it only in passing to claim that the financial position facing local authorities was in some way irrelevant. Liverpool has been hit as much as any authority by the financial game that the Government have been playing since 1979.
It was my privilege to address a meeting together with the former hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, Eric Heifer, whom we wish was here today to take part in the debate and share with us his vast experience and understanding of Liverpool. The meeting was to consider what was to be done in the light of the assault on local government. The tactics of that assault were being set out as early as 1979 and were followed by continuing cuts in grants, fiddles in standard spending assessments and the poll tax, which the hon. Member for Stroud managed not to mention. He can claim that he did not vote for the legislation on Second Reading because he happened to get himself into the wrong Lobby. He was locked in, and there were points of order about the fact that he was stuck in the No Lobby when he wanted to be in the Aye Lobby. His speech today revealed that his confusion on that occasion is continuing.
Mr. Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman re-examine the matter? The confusion must be with him, because that incident certainly did not involve me.
Mr. Barnes: If it was not the hon. Gentleman, I certainly apologise, but my understanding is that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised a point of order and said that the hon. Member for Stroud was locked in the No Lobby, hiding behind the curtains and could not be persuaded to come out. He added that it would be a long time before his release. It may have been one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues.
Mr. Knapman: It was one of my colleagues, but modesty forbids me to say which one; it was not me. The hon. Gentleman's research is not what it might be. If he cannot get that right, what on earth can he get right? I look forward to his apology.
Incidentally, will the hon. Gentleman ask his Front-Bench spokesman to cover the point about Lloyd's because Labour's resident expert is here to speak for himself? If the hon. Gentleman wants a copy of that excellent speech, I am sure that the author will be happy to oblige.
Mr. Barnes: I apologise if I referred wrongly to the hon. Member for Stroud. My confusion was caused by the presence on the Government Benches of a host of Thatcherite clones. I confused the hon. Gentleman with whichever clone happened to get locked in the No Lobby. Clearly, the whole issue of the poll tax must be considered as part of this debate, and the hon. Member for Stroud avoided referring to it as having caused difficulties for the operation of local government services.
It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 ( Friday sittings).

Chieftain Tank Replacement
11 am
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the replacement of the Chieftain tank.
In his statement to this House on 20 December 1988, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), announced the Government's intention to replace the Chieftain with a new tank. The Challenger 2 tank being developed by Vickers was to be given the opportunity over the next two years to demonstrate that it could meet three demanding milestones.
At the same time, my Department has conducted an extremely thorough assessment of three other contenders —an improved version of the United States Abrams tank, manufactured by General Dynamics; an improved version of the German Leopard 2, manufactured by Krauss Maffei; and the French Leclerc tank manufactured by GIAT. That work has been greatly helped by the full assistance we have had from the companies concerned and their Governments.
In reaching our decision, we have had to take into account a wide range of factors, many of which did not apply two and a half years ago. Chief among those is the major political and military transformation within Europe which will mean that, by the mid-1990s, over 30,000 fewer tanks will be ranged against NATO in Europe. That has led to our study of "Options for Change" and allows us to make significant reductions in the size of our tank fleet.
But the main battle tank remains at the cutting edge of a modern army and, without it, high intensity conflict would be impossible. Indeed, the Gulf war demonstrated the continuing importance of the tank in the land battle.
A decision of this magnitude requires a wide range of factors to be carefully weighed and taken into account. Our appraisal has now been completed. We have reviewed the progress of the Challenger 2 programme, in which Vickers Defence Systems has achieved all the performance criteria, known as milestones. We have also assessed the competing claims of the Leopard, Abrams and Leclerc tanks.
I can inform the House that, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory contract terms, we have decided to go ahead with the Chieftain replacement programme and to place the order for the new battle tank to replace Chieftain with Vickers for Challenger 2.
In making the choice of the new tank, an important consideration has been the advantage of maintaining a single ammunition type without the smaller fleet. In addition to this order for Challenger 2, and taking into account the lessons of the Gulf war, we intend to proceed with a substantial upgrade programme for the Challenger 1 fleet. In particular, this programme will significantly increase the firepower of the Challenger 1 fleet by the fitting of a new and more powerful gun.
As a result of the acquisition of Challenger 2 and the enhancement of Challenger 1, the British Army's tank fleet will be well placed to meet its new commitments, both within NATO's Rapid Reaction Corps and elsewhere.
The choice of Challenger 2 testifies to the skills and capabilities of British industry and will deservedly ensure jobs at VDS and its sub-contractors. It is an excellent tank and likely to command close attention among our friends

607
and allies. I am confident that it is exceptionally well placed to compete in the important overseas markets where there are genuine defence needs.
This announcement carries forward the process announced by my right hon. Friend in July last year. As he then made clear, our aim is to achieve smaller but better forces. The Government are determined to ensure that our armed services receive the equipment that they need to do the job. This decision is an important step in that direction. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Minister for that long-awaited but somewhat thin statement. The whole House will welcome this vindication of British technology and skill. While we understand why the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the price of the new tank or the cost of retrofitting the existing tanks, will he reveal the size of the order, at what rate the tanks will be purchased and over how long the contract is expected to run? Will he confirm the number of Challenger 1 tanks that are likely to be retrofitted?
While I do not wish to carp unduly this morning, I should tell the House that yesterday afternoon, during business questions, at about 4.30, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked the Leader of the House whether there would be a statement about this matter. He was told that a statement would be made before the end of the month.
It would appear that a number of Conservative Members have not been detained by legitimate constituency business, as have been my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy), for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), for Leeds, Central, and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), all of whom have played an active part in campaigning on a cross-party basis to secure the order for Vickers.
It is extremely regrettable that the courtesy that was shown to me late last night—and clearly was extended to Conservative Members—was not extended to the House as a whole. That has meant that some of my hon. Friends are not present today to welcome the order and to give it the sort of support that they have shown since December 1988, when the statement was first made about the milestone procedures. I must make that point because, while I welcome the order, I regret the somewhat unparliamentary way with which the matter has been dealt.
Mr. Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I apologise to him and the House for the fact that the statement is being made on a Friday. The House will appreciate when I explain that negotiations with the company were completed only late yesterday afternoon, so this is the first opportunity I have to disclose the matter to hon. Members.
This has been for many months the subject of widespread concern and comment, inside and outside the House and in the press. Much of that comment has not been well informed, so I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that, had we left the matter over the weekend, the likelihood of leaks, uncertainties and comment,
608
inaccurate or mischievous, would have multiplied. For that reason, I felt it appropriate to come to the House immediately to make a statement.
It is our intention to re-equip completely two regiments of Chieftains. We believe that after the Options arrangements are fully in place, there will remain two regiments of Chieftains. They will be replaced with the new tank. The numbers in this contract will be up to about 130, which is larger than required to equip two regiments but includes tanks for training and logistical support.
The number of Challenger 1 tanks to be retrofitted under the improvement programme will depend on how many Challenger 1 tanks remain in service under the finalisation of the Options arrangements, but it is our intention that every Challenger 1 remaining in service should be retrofitted.
Mr. Neville Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is great news not only for the British Army but for the north-east, with thousands of jobs being secured? Can he confirm that Vickers won the order on merit against great international competition? Does he accept that great credit is due to the Vickers work force for their achievements in connection with the Gulf and in bringing this design to a successful fruition?
I know that the work force would want me to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who helped them. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who have been gagged in public by serving as Whips. They have helped enormously behind the scenes in putting our case.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this vote of confidence by the British Army should help to pave the way for export orders and further job opportunities in our region?
Mr. Clark: I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to colleagues who have worked behind the scenes and spoken on this subject on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend says, although my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) must, technically, remain silent in the Chamber, he has played a significant part in concentrating our minds on this issue.
Every tribute should be paid to the work force, especially for its help to the 1st Division in the Gulf. It provided thorough, continuous and effective maintenance of the Challenger 1 tanks, which enabled them to perform so effectively throughout the war. That performance augurs well for the quality of workmanship that we expect to find in the new tank.
Mr. Stanley Orme: We welcome the Minister's statement, as to the trade unions that have been involved in the campaign, including my union—the Amalgamated Engineering Union—the Transport and General Workers Union, Manufacturing Science Finance and many other unions concerned about employment in the two main companies in Leeds and Newcastle and the subsidiary companies that supply other components for the vehicle.
We accept that we must have such weapons, but it is essential that we buy British. The Government have taken long enough, but we welcome their decision. Will the orders be sufficient to maintain employment at both the major plants and in the subsidiary companies involved?
Mr. Clark: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. The House will be pleased that our decision has resulted in buying British. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we took into consideration a wide number of factors, of which the maintenance of an indigenous tank production capability was only one. It took a long time to weigh those factors carefully, but that passage of time allowed us to make a thorough examination of all the factors. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on work loading in the factories. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, York university carried out a study and attached a figure of 2,400 jobs to the order.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his important statement is good news for Britain, Britain's technology, our famous armoured regiments and the soldiers who may one day be required to take these sophisticated tanks into action? What will my right hon. Friend do to encourage our embassies and military attachés abroad to ensure that the tank is widely perceived by the world tank market as a desirable purchase?
Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. A number of countries among our friends and allies are considering re-equipping their armed forces, particularly in the light of the lessons of the recent conflict. As I said in my statement, Challenger 2 is excellently placed to take advantage of that demand, subject to the appropriate scrutinies of the supply of heavy armaments to countries overseas. Although our embassies and posts abroad require no urging from me, they will know about what has been said in this place.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn:: Although I welcome the decision in favour of Vickers, especially the sub-contractors who have been anxious about this order, will the Minister say whether the export market will be considered by Vickers—he said that there will be fewer than 200 tanks—and, if so, will the Ministry of Defence have an input into that decision and into deciding where the tanks will go?
Mr. Clark: Of course. All exports of arms are subject to detailed scrutiny by ourselves, the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. That would always be a factor in determining whether a sale could be allowed. We are well aware of a considerable demand for new armour from many countries that we regard as friends and allies.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: My right hon. Friend will remember that I wrote to him on behalf of my constituents who work for the steel makers, F.H. Lloyds of Burton-on-Trent. May I convey to him their thanks for the decision? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news not only because we are buying British but because we are buying the best in the world? That augurs well for the engineering and metal-bashing industries of the midlands and the rest of the country.
Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. She wrote to me in persuasive terms, and I am sorry that I could not at that time give her a fuller assurance than the stage of our negotiations allowed. My hon. Friend's points are valid, and I hope that the order will give a considerable boost, not only to direct
610
employment—including employment for the sub-contractors—but in illustrating and enhancing the prestige of the closely-related trades in metal working and high technology.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In deciding the contract, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with his colleagues the number of Challenger tanks that were left to rust at the end of the Gulf war? Has he read the report that, of the 157 Challenger tanks, the vast majority were inoperable because, as a senior officer said, there was vandalism by neglect? As a result, the repair bill ran into tens of millions of pounds.
Will the Minister comment on the fact that the Germans offered to loan 130 Leopard 2 tanks to replace the defective Challengers only on the basis that they would receive the contract that he has just announced? Yet the Germans call themselves allies.
Will the Minister accept that some of us believe that the decision was delayed unduly because the Tories thought that there would be a June election and somebody else would have got the contract?
Mr. Clark: I am always delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place and I pay tribute to the fact that he is such an assiduous attender, even on Fridays. On an occasion such as this, when the entire House welcomes the Government's decision, I looked to the hon. Gentleman to supply a note of discord and I was not disappointed.
I am well aware of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is entirely groundless—there is no truth in it whatsoever—and was published in one provincial paper. The national papers that inquired into the issue were rapidly disillusioned, as there is no substance in the allegation or the figure that the lion. Gentleman quoted.
The German's offer to loan Leopard 2 was unrelated to the alleged deficiencies in the remaining Challenger I fleet. It was a move in the contractual negotiations and was carefully considered, as was every aspect of all offers and every detail in a long and complicated series of negotiations with several different suppliers. However, we reached our conclusion having weighed all the factors.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise decision and the goods news that it will bring for jobs in Burton-on-Trent, particularly at F. H. Lloyds already referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I appreciate the care with which my right hon. Friend made the decision. It is all too easy to be chauvinistic for chauvinism's sake. I appreciate that he had a difficult decision to make and made it as a result of the particularly good technology that has been put into those tanks. This will also help to boost the morale of our troops if they ever have to go into battle again because they will know that they are riding proudly on a British product.
Mr. Clark: Certainly the Government will always ensure that, if our service men have to go into battle, they have the best equipment available. I am confident that, in this case, we have made the right decision. However, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, a large number of factors had to be taken into account, including technical merit, risk, contract conditions, time scale, cost, the balance of inter-operability considerations, stretch potential, logistical

611
implications, employment and overseas sales. It takes considerable time to equate all those differing factors and place them in the context of the operational lessons that we learnt in the Gulf war. I am entirely satisfied that we have come to the right conclusion.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is it a complete coincidence that this important announcement was timed to take place at just about the same time as the victory parade for the Gulf, despite the fact that, when the Leader of the House was asked yesterday when the announcement was to be made, he could not tell us? Surely the Minister would not expect us to believe that the information was not very much in the mind of the Leader of the House yesterday.
Obviously, because of the job implications, I welcome the statement, but why does it appear that British industry is capable of leading the world in producing the arms of death and destruction, but is bottom of the league when it comes to consumer goods, machine tools, computers and motor vehicles?
Mr. Clark: I completely reject the allegations with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his question, which offered a good example of the insatiable appetite of some Opposition Members to welcome bad news, talk down British achievements and try to attach an unhappy side to anything.
On the hon. Gentleman's main question, yes, the timing of the announcement is a complete coincidence. As I have explained, we were in negotiations until late yesterday afternoon. If we had not been, I would have attended the parade myself.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: On behalf of everyone in Leeds who campaigned for the Challenger tank, may I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the decision announced today, both in respect of the order for the new Challenger 2 and the upgrading of Challenger 1, which vindicates the view that we have produced the best tank in the world—an opinion which the campaigners have expressed from the beginning.
This project opens the way for significant exports to secure the future of the Leeds and Newcastle factories. Is it not clear that the only threat that remains to the future of the factories is the prospect of a Labour Government, committed to further deep defence cuts in order to fund their profligate expenditure on other programmes?
Mr. Clark: I welcome what my hon. Friend said, and I should like to single him out as one of the most energetic and tireless advocates in helping us to reach the right decision.
Yes, it is perfectly true that many Labour Members are quick to complain about cancellations and redundancies in the defence sphere, when they think that they can protest with impunity, but when they hear of substantial defence orders they tend to stay away or avoid the subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] It is not true of the hon. Members now present, but we have heard examples of such behaviour. If Opposition Members are honest with themselves, they will know that what I say is true and applies to many of their colleagues. However, I certainly exclude those hon. Members who have spoken in support of today's announcement.
612
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is entirely right to say that the decision reflects great credit on the factories involved, and will enhance their prestige and substantially improve their overseas sales prospects.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning's tremendous news is a vindication of the beliefs of all those who have always maintained that British is best, and who now have the proof of it? Can he confirm that the decision announced today was largely brought about by the work of the many defence sub-contractors in constituencies across the country, including my own, Swindon, and the efforts put in by the contractors' employees during the recent Gulf war?
Mr. Clark: Yes, the sub-contractors have played an important part in contributing to the specification which has won the competition and led to our decision. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) raised the issue because I always welcome an opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless work of a number of sub-contractors during the Gulf war, when they worked continuous overtime, seven days a week, in many cases during the Christmas holiday. That was a good example of the resources and quality from which we can draw in crisis from our widespread, and exceptionally skilful and diverse sub-contracting industry.
Mr. Richard Holt: May I join other hon. Members with constituencies in the north-east in congratulating my right hon. Friend? I am sure that what he has done today will bring great encouragement for jobs and industries in the region. Now that my right hon. Friend will have some spare time on his hands, will he lend some assistance to his junior colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is having great difficulty in announcing a date when the Ministry of Defence quality assurance directorate will move to the north-east of England, as his predecessor, now the Minister for Trade, promised nearly two years ago?
Mr. Clark: I did not expect to hear the closing passages of my hon. Friend's question. I shall refer the subject to my colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will appreciate that, as someone with responsibility for procurement, the subject is not one on which I would wish to make an off-the-cuff comment. I know that he is greatly concerned about the issue, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will read the report of this statement to which I shall personally refer him.
Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister will know that the announcement that the order is to be placed with British industry is welcome to the Opposition, especially those of my hon. Friends who campaigned for months and years to achieve the order. However, as a matter of parliamentary courtesy, will the Minister state whether, after the decision was made last night or when it was realised that a decision was to be arrived at, his office or his Whips' Office contacted Conservative Members who might have an interest in the announcement? If that was done, were Opposition Members similarly alerted to the fact that the announcement was to be made today?
Mr. Clark: I cannot answer for my colleagues in the Whips' Office, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman

613
that, as soon as the decision was confirmed, we were at pains to advise the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Any other arrangements that may have been made were outside my control or knowledge.
Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making this important announcement as soon as he could. I know that my colleagues on the Select Committee on Defence will be disappointed not to be here today. Some of them are participating in the Gulf parade and others, like me, were not informed about the announcement this morning. I can assure the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that Conservative Members were not asked to be here today. I did not know about the announcement until I saw it on the annunciator and came straight to the House. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I should have thought that I would be one of the first to be informed by the Whips if they were notifying Government Members.
I am sure that my colleagues would want to say how delighted they were at the announcement and, probably, would also want to ask how large a part experiences in the Gulf played in the decision-making process. I am sure that the way in which Challenger 1 performed in the Gulf had a profound effect on the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister. He mentioned that Challenger 1 was to have a new gun designed for it. Will he confirm that that gun will use British ammunition? One of the annoyances of the Gulf conflict was to find that, when we looked for extra supplies of ammunition which were to come from another country in the Common Market, our soldiers were deprived of the ammunition due to some political decision taken by the Belgians. We do not want that to happen again. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, please confirm that any weapon that is mounted on Challenger 2 will have British ammunition supplied to it?
Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having returned to this important point, to which I referred in my statement. The intraoperability of ammunition was at the forefront of the factors that we considered in coming to our decision. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for his swift retort and effective repudiation of the accusations levelled against this side of the House by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). My hon. Friend is a colleague whose opinion and expertise I value greatly. Although he is a member of the Defence Select Committee, he told us that he had not been advised that a statement was to be made and that, simply because he is a regular attender on Fridays and saw on the annunciator that a statement was to be made, he came to the Chamber.
Mr. William O'Brien: I welcome the decision to place an order for the Challenger 2 tank. A
614
number of my constituents work in the industry. However, will the Minister of State say how many tanks will be delivered to the forces each year? That will have a significant bearing on the length of employment in the industry.
I am sure that next week we shall experience the wrath of Members of Parliament in my area, especially those with Leeds constituencies, who have been pressing all this week for information. It is sad to think that, after trying all week to obtain it, they have been denied the opportunity to make a contribution today. The Secretary of State for Defence will, rightly, have to reply to questions that were put to him. Regardless of what Conservative Members may say, the Labour party has been fully behind the programme to acquire the Challenger 2 tank for the United Kingdom services. It is very disappointing, therefore, that those who have a keen interest in the matter have not been allowed to make a contribution on this statement.
Mr. Clark: I have already apologised to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) for any apparent discourtesy on this subject. I ask the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that this has been an extremely sensitive topic in market terms. If there had been any authoritative leak or communication that might have led to the recipient knowing what had been decided, there would have been an immediate reaction on the stock market—either way. Companies that were not going to get the order might have suffered weakness in the value of their equity, while those that were going to get it might have suffered a run of speculative buying. The decision, therefore, had to be closely protected. We could only say that the matter had been conclusively decided at a very late stage yesterday afternoon.
I am not responsible for, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on, the Opposition's internal arrangements for alerting the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, or putting his colleagues on notice of the possibility of a statement relating to their constituencies being made. It is desirable, as far as possible, to do that, but such discourtesies as may be thought to have occurred were unintended and related to the need for absolute secrecy until the very last moment. Once the decision has been made—again to prevent speculation and uninformed comment of various kinds—it was thought right that a statement should be made to the House immediately.
As to the delivery rate of Challenger 2 tanks each year, we anticipate up to about 40. As I told the hon. Member for Clackmannan, we intend to re-equip two Chieftain regiments. That will involve a total buy of up to about 130, including training tanks and logistic support vehicles.

Local Government Services
Question again proposed.
11.34 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: The motion relates to the delivery of local government services and the inadequacy of those services. The point that I was making was that we cannot discuss those issues unless we discuss local government finance—the grant system, the formulas used in determining those grants and the problems that local authorities face in raising money, due to the poll tax which has seriously affected their revenue.
The poll tax is still with us. Legislation is going through Parliament to deal with its latest consequence, which will be to poll-tax-cap the smaller authorities—those with budgets of under £15 million. The poll tax was, and is, the unfairest taxation system that has ever been introduced into any western democratic system at any time. It is a flat-rate tax, apart from the exemption of certain people, but no decent principle has been devised to decide who should and who should not be exempt. Apart from the rebate system, everybody pays the same, which leads to massive savings for the wealthier people in our society. That bill has to be picked up by others, including many of those who have rebates. That was bound to have a devastating effect on local government in terms of the services that it is able to provide.
The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has just published statistics showing that one of the consequences of the poll tax as it affects local authorities is the collapse, by about 1 million, in the number of people on the electoral register. The impact of that collapse has nowhere been more serious than in Liverpool. At one period, 10 per cent. of Liverpool's electorate disappeared from the electoral register. Only slowly, through the operation of the poll tax and the interlinking of the two registers, have some of those people reappeared on the register during the last two years, but there is still a collapse of 6 or 7 per cent. in Liverpool's electorate.
That also means a collapse in the number of potential poll tax payers. Apart from its problems over collecting the poll tax, because many people cannot pay it, Liverpool does not have, as a result of the Government's legislation, correct information about the number of people to whom it ought to send poll tax demands. That problem is repeated throughout the country.
Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman is one of my neighbours in Derbyshire. Bearing in mind what he says about people who cannot pay and also what he says about people who have removed themselves from the register, does he think that it was wise to encourage and set an example to people who could pay the poll tax by not paying it himself?
Mr. Barnes: I am happy to discuss why, for a period, I did not pay my poll tax bill. As a Member of Parliament, I believed that I had a duty not to pay it because of the points that I have just made about it being a contitutionally odd measure that attacks the operation of the electoral system—something that the House seems not to be concerned about. I never asked other people not to pay the poll tax. I said that however poor or desperate people were, they could be put to an even worse position by the draconian measures included in the Bill.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
Mr. Barnes: I shall give way in a moment.
I wanted first to go to the magistrates court to use the argument of constitutional oddity in the operation of the poll tax. Unfortunately, it was so long before the case was brought before the court that we moved into the new financial year. I was then not subject—as I could have been —to the criticism that other people would then pay poll tax moneys on my behalf. I was in a genuine dilemma about the problem of electoral registration. [Laughter.] It is a disgrace that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) finds the matter humorous, as she is one of the people who has helped to inflict the problem on the nation and on the people of Derbyshire, when she is a massive gainer from each measure that is passed on the poll tax.
Mr. Arnold: What amount are the charge payers of Derbyshire, North-East having to pay this year because people such as the hon. Gentleman did not pay their charge last year, let alone this year?
Mr. Barnes: That does not relate to me because I paid the money to prevent that from happening. However, some people face that situation, through no fault of their own. Masses of people simply found themselves in great difficulty.
Reasonable estimates were made for nort-east Derbyshire about the number of people who would be able to pay. One hundred and two per cent.—the highest in the area—have paid. North-east Derbyshire is a decent, honest—[Laughter.] Hon. Members should listen. The estimates were of people who were going to pay, and those estimates were exceeded. In such circumstances, it is possible to have 102 per cent. The fact that Conservative Members are statistically ignorant does not mean that those figures are impossible.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is worth noting that the Labour party does not need lectures from Tory Members, 250 of whom moonlight in other jobs and who, because of the effects of the people at Lloyd's and elsewhere, come to this place only to feather their nests. Does my hon. Friend accept that thousands and millions of people wanted the poll tax killed, and it was killed because millions of people did not pay? The Conservatives passed an Act that provided them with a massive reduction in rates, but the British people would not wear it.
As a result of the efforts of those who refused to pay, poll tax mark 1 has been killed. Why are Tories now condemning people outside the House who refused to pay, when the Act for which they voted is now dead on the ground? The millions of people who refused to pay performed a public service in getting rid of a vile piece of legislation.
Mr. Barnes: The poll tax will have been defeated and removed by the massive opposition to it around the country. That opposition includes people who organised "don't pay" activities, the masses of people who would have paid if they could have done so, the people who demonstrated, marched and organised, and hon. Members who outlined an alternative position in the House.
That was reflected in the electoral system, despite the fact that the poll tax had been deliberately used to interfere with electoral registration. A million people have disappeared from the electoral register, but the trick has

617
not worked: people rumbled it. That has been shown in by-election results and in the action that has been taken throughout the country. Therefore, pressure activities and the processes of democracy have led to change, and that change has left devastation in its wake.
The Government must now face the problem of electoral registration. Are we to have an election next year with a million people missing from the electoral register? Does that not bother Members of the House which passed the great Reform Acts of the 19th century, and which extended the franchise and ensured that it should be the birthright of everyone over the age of 18 and not dependent upon one's position in society and upon one's wealth?
The franchise was undermined by the poll tax, which was constitutionally peculiar. Had I been given the opportunity in court, I should have used Dicey to prove that. The reason I did not was that, in politics, different issues must be balanced. One was the fact that the poll tax was on its way out and was beginning to be removed by the processes to which I referred.
Another issue was people's perceptions of the fact that their Member of Parliament would have had to have his poll tax paid by others who had been driven to pay it. That was a genuine consideration. The fact that one knuckles under does not mean that one accepts the measure. I was involved in the campaign to highlight the issues and to make changes. I am proud of the role I played, which contrasts sharply with that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, who has done nothing but feather her own nest through the operation of the different measures.
It is not only the tax that is important, but the amount of money that must be raised by local authorities. That meant that the poll tax became far higher than people had estimated. During debates on the poll tax in the House and in Committee, we were told that we should have a nice system under which 50 per cent. of the grant would come from central Government, that only 25 per cent. would have to be raised by local authorities and that 25 per cent. would come from the new national business rate. That system did not operate at any time, apart from in one or two luxurious authorities which managed to get that 50 per cent. Level—authorities such as Wandsworth and the city of Westminster, which had 57·8 per cent. before the £140 was knocked off some people's bills.
What is the position elsewhere? There is information in the Library, based on the answer to my written question of 5 December. It breaks down the percentages of different authorities into the money that came from revenue support grant and from the business rate and the amount of poll tax that was expected to be raised under the standard spending assessment. That was before people went above that level because they were driven by circumstances.
This is relevant to the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill which is currently going through Parliament and on which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South spoke on Second Reading. However, she managed not to mention the plight of South Derbyshire, which, under the standard spending assessment—based on the revenue support grant before the £140 is taken into account—receives only 13·5 per cent., not the supposed 50 per cent. Most authorities in Derbyshire are in the same difficult position.
The areas in north-east Derbyshire which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover represent receive merely
618
11·3 per cent. Only 20 authorities receive less money. I know that somebody has to be bottom of the league table. However in my area, the social deprivation, the loss of jobs and the services that need to be provided by the local authority to compensate for that and to provide growth and stimulation make that figure ridiculous.
The standard spending assessment per poll tax payer in North-East Derbyshire makes that authority the second worst-off out of 336 authorities in England and Wales. The worst-off authority is East Dorset. It is a solid Tory area and has all the middle-class characteristics that go with that. It has less need of funds than various areas in Derbyshire, such as Chesterfield borough. Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I cover part of that area. Other areas in Derbyshire that need funds are Bolsover and North-East Derbyshire. All those authorities are at the bottom of the list.
The reason for the position of those authorities is the fiddled formula. The Government are brilliant in the way in which they have managed to get through a nonsense formula—the standard spending assessment. There should be a public inquiry into that, before the amount of money that people are allowed to spend next year is worked out and before legislation goes through Parliament.
Early-day motion 1000 which has been tabled by me and some of my hon. Friends, points out the need for such an inquiry. It stresses the need for us to know quickly what the SSAs will be so that authorities can take action and the need for the removal of the poll tax. If the matter is investigated, the fiddle involved will be revealed.
How are district authorities such as South Derbyshire, North-East Derbyshire and Bolsover affected by the operation of the SSA? Three major items determine the money available. The first is the effective population. North-East Derbyshire and Bolsover are areas from which people have to move for employment. North-East Derbyshire is a C-shape around Chesterfield. People work in Chesterfield, move into the pits in the Bolsover and Chesterfield areas or go to Sheffield for work. The authorities in the area lose grant because of that. The shape and position of an authority determines the level of grant.
The density and sparsity of population comprise the second factor. A densely or sparsely populated authority may receive more grant if the grant is assessed ward by ward. North-East Derbyshire is a massive area the size of Malta and it has differing areas within it. When the areas are combined, they are not judged to be densely or sparsely populated. However, the area is difficult to get round. The district authority operates in Chesterfield at the centre of the C-shape, but outside the authority area, and many services have to be directed through Chesterfield and from one end of the authority to the other. Yet the authority loses grant when it should be gaining it. Bolsover is affected in a similar way because of the shape of the area and because of its closeness to other county boundaries.
Social characteristics also affect the money given. North-East Derbyshire fails to score on that criterion, because in rough and ready terms, the eastern section is solid working-class territory with some social deprivation, whereas the western part contains large elements of the middle class—rural and other. When the figures are combined, the area fails to score.
If the Minister has listened, he will understand the story, especially as I have put this argument to the House before. The matter must be investigated. In North-East

619
Derbyshire, we have a great deal of expertise about the operation of the standard spending assessment and about the problems that it causes for local government finance. I hope that we can meet at some stage to discuss that and that we can at least influence the Government to make a minimum of decent provision while we plough ahead with the vast injustices of the poll tax.
Liverpool has been discussed a great deal this morning. I mentioned that I visited Liverpool in the early 1980s and had the privilege to attend a meeting organised by the Labour Co-ordinating Committee, at which Eric Heller spoke. We were aware then of the assault of Thatcherism, how it would create further unemployment and devastation, and how local government especially would be hit. The issue of the time was not the poll tax but the cutting of grants. Something had to be done to fight that.
The Labour movement had a problem about how to engage in the fight. Some people adopted an adventurist position and wanted to get into the struggle immediately. I believed that they were in danger of being solidly defeated. Another group was more collaborationist. They believed that they should do the best they could and that they had not reached the stage when they should fight. I thought that a third position, which realised the strengths and weaknesses of the Labour movement, should be adopted. I believed that people should be willing to ask the adventurists to pull back and to say that those who favoured collaboration should push forward. If a threat had been made and a line of defence established, there would have been a chance of uniting the whole Labour movement, local authorities and others in defence against the assault.
The Government were clever. They advanced in monetarist areas in which they found it easy to advance, and they were careful in other areas. It was not until the mid-1980s that the major clash with the miners took place. On one occasion, I was in the House with a group of Yorkshire miners who had come to the House at the time of a pit closure programme. By the time that they got home, the pit closure programme had been dropped because the Government were not ready to tackle the miners, although they were ready to do so later.
It is only recently, although there has been some preparation, that the health service has been at the forefront of the struggle against the Government because of their trusts policy. The Government have engaged in a clever policy of going quickly when they can and for the rest of the time building up to a time when they can strike —or at least that was true until a couple of years ago when the tide began to turn. The tide is turning—
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate concerns local government services. We seem to be moving rather wide of the motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a genuine point of order, although I must make the point that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has only just come into the Chamber and has not listened to what has gone before. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will oblige me by returning to the motion.
Mr. Barnes: All the factors with which I have dealt and the whole programme in which the Government have engaged—their monetarism, their general economic policies and the privatisation programme—are directed to undermining working-class people. Part of their tactic was to hit local authorities and those who have struggled to defend working-class people—the trade union movement and the Labour party, including the Labour party in local authorities. People have now understood that. That is why the Government are on the way out and why we can now start the slow process of correcting mistakes made on local government finance and introducing a decent system of raising money based on people's ability to pay and on property.
We shall also be able to move to put right the devastation that the Government have inflicted on democracy by causing the removal of masses of people's names from the electoral register. It is astonishing that there is no movement in the Conservative party that is worried about the fact that 1 million people have disappeared from the register. If that had happened in the 19th century, there would at least have been one or two Tory radicals at the forefront of a movement to defend democracy. I have been defending democracy but the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South as not—nor has she defended South Derbyshire or said what grant it needs.
12 noon
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I found that a most enjoyable and engaging speech. I hope that it receives wide circulation and receives as much attention as possible. I have to say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), speaking as one experienced politician to another, that I have rarely heard such bare-faced brazen check. It is quite extraordinary for someone who receives an income of more than £29,000 a year to stand up in the House and say with a straight face that he was justified in hanging on to his poll tax money for just a little longer. A Bill has gone through both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent—it is a law of the land. I regard it as quite extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman can say, "The charge is a constitutional oddity so if you don't mind I'll hang on to my superior earnings for just a little longer."
Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the poll tax in Derbyshire last year was more than £450, which means that if the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) kept the money and put it in the bank or building society he will have ended the year about 50 quid better off?
Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The problem with being a socialist is that one has to earn at least £29,000 a year if one is to be able to afford to enjoy the luxury.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I should like to point out that, when I got round to paying my poll tax, Derbyshire county council had been poll tax capped, and there was a reduction of £52. I paid that extra £52 so any money that I may have earned in interest in the meantime was more than compensated for. I asked the district authority to transfer that money to the much-maligned Derbyshire county council. It was a minor amount, but it meant that there was nothing dishonourable in what I did.
Mr. Nicholls: The poor and huddled masses—the down-trodden and horny-handed proletariat—of the hon. Gentleman's constituency must have been delighted to hear that he could spare an extra £50 out of his £29,000 income to contribute to local government services. His was a most extraordinary performance. As I said, I hope that we shall he hearing a great deal more from the hon. Gentleman in future.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the extra £52 that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (M r. Barnes) paid over for the year will be as nothing compared with the £50 that someone on his income will have to pay over weekly if there is ever a Labour Government?
Mr. Nicholls: Yes, but we can give the hon. Gentleman some comfort. It may be a little while yet before he has to contemplate that idea. When the hon. Members for Derbyshire, North-East and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pretend to champion the rights of the working classes, I sometimes wonder whether those so-called working classes realise just how well those hon. Members are paid in comparison.
Having allowed myself to be seduced for a moment by what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, let me explain that I propose to deal principally with the question of local government finance. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) for framing his motion in such wide terms to enable us to discuss these matters. I have no doubt that, as we lead up to a general election, whenever that may be, the people of Britain will want to think more about local government matters and local government finance. The House owes it to them to give them every opportunity to consider the full range of options available. I know that the Minister will be seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have written to him at some length suggesting one or two ways in which the banding arrangements for the council tax might be dealt with and about the discount. I do not want to go on at great length about those matters today and I certainly do not expect an especially detailed reply from my hon. Friend. I see that he is nodding. I am grateful that he has been thinking about the suggestions that I have made to him.
There is no ideal way of raising local government finance—or national finance, for that matter. No one likes parting with his money, especially the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East. But in an imperfect world we have to find a mechanism. Having had experience of these matters both inside and outside government, I have no doubt that the council tax is the best available way of raising the money that has to be raised locally. It will be even better if the Minister takes on board the points that I have made to him, but it is pretty good as it stands.
Ignoring all the details that might be put in place, the essential point about the council tax is that it acknowledges the fact that the share of finance that was expected to be raised locally was too large. It is when one strikes the right balance between central Government's contribution and what should be raised by local electors that a proper system begins to emerge. For the reasons that I have given, I have no doubt that the council tax achieves that balance.
I could go on at length about Labour's proposals. It seems that it is not only Labour Members who do not take
622
their policies on local government finance seriously. It is fairly clear to me from my postbag and from those whom I meet in my constituency that many people do not take them seriously either. That is hardly surprising given that we are talking about a pledge to return to the rating system, with rolling yearly valuations based on what would appear to be four sometimes contradictory methods of assessment. Even the Leader of the Opposition has described the rates as the most unfair of all taxes. To suggest a return to the rating system is simply not a credible alternative. I do not feel that I am doing the policy an injustice by merely mentioning it and dismissing it.
One of the other ideas about the way in which local government finance could be raised which receives a fair degree of attention and prominence is the idea of a local income tax. I waited in vain to hear from the Liberal Democrats—I see that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) has now left us—about their local income tax proposals. One does not like to be unpleasant to colleagues on either side of the House, but I must say that if the hon. Gentleman's speech had ever managed to ascend the heights of grinding mediocrity it would have been an improvement. No matter how preposterous one's pretensions to office may be, one owes it to the House to advance a coherent argument and, even if it has been scripted for one by someone else, to read it with a degree of panache or aplomb. I was absolutely staggered—given the comments made nationally by the Liberal Democrats about how the local income tax is a solution to all our local government ills—to hear a speech that was so banal and pathetic. I should like to think that it is mere embarrassment that has driven the Liberal Democrat spokesman from the Chamber. I suspect that he just popped in and then had a train to catch. The House deserves more than that.
Although we do not have the benefit of the intellectual rigours and powers of analysis of the hon. Member for Southport, I have brought with me a document called "Local Income Tax—The Best Way—How it Works" produced by the Liberal Democrats. It contains the sparkling headline "Shaping Tomorrow—Starting Today". I shall quote just one or two sentences from the publication. Those hon. Members who, like me, do the football pools will recognise that the copywriter for the publication must have been the same person who writes for Littlewoods, and sends letters saying, "Would you like to own a nice house and a nice car and be able to go on holidays?". One's name is inserted by typewriter, slightly askew. Such letters are not written by the most inspired of script writers, but we still open them just in case that elusive cheque is in the envelope.
The Liberal Democrats have obviously employed just such a copywriter to produce a marvellous document called
"Local Income Tax—The Best Way—How it Works".
To encourage us, it begins by saying that some countries have moved successfully from a poll tax to a local income tax—and it mentions the country that has done so. I hope that I do not cause my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office any difficulties by saying that, when the Liberal Democrats draw attention to the fact that Papua New Guinea has made the transition successfully, I do not find that to be the most persuasive authority. [AN HON. MEMBER: "And a head tax."] My hon. Friend may be right to suggest that that country also has a head tax.
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman as I am anxious that he has maximum exposure.
Mr. Barnes: Why did the hon. Gentleman support the Government when they introduced the poll tax, which was the system in Papua New Guinea at that time? I find it amazing that the hon. Gentleman should make such a point in an attempt to attack another party. He was guilty because he supported the Government.
Mr. Nicholls: I am not the slightest bit surprised that the hon. Gentleman should rally to the defence of an SLD document. It is worth remembering that every time that the Liberal Democrats have had an opportunity to enter into an alliance with another party they have always chosen the Labour party. It is interesting to note that the seeds of the next alliance are being sown.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman why, having been in favour of the community charge, I am now in favour of the council tax. As a politician, I have never found it embarrassing—although it is sometimes uncomfortable —to admit that I am wrong and that I have not carried the argument. The arguments in favour of the community charge were powerful. However, I have to admit that, in the end, we could not convince sufficient numbers of people of the case. For what it is worth, I suspect that that was because the whole structure of the community charge depended on local government raising too high a proportion of the money that would have to be spent. Once we had that wrong, there was no way that it would be accepted as being fair. If the Labour party were able to show the same contrition for the appalling way that the so-called moderates have run Liverpool for the past three years in the way that the Government have shown contrition with the community charge, there might he a little more hope for the Labour party.
The interesting Liberal Democrat document about a local income tax continues in the same chirpy style when explaining how it will work. It says:
"Collection happens like this: everyone, wherever they live, pays a uniform rate of LIT—for example, 4 per cent. At the end of the year, each taxpayer's actual liability is assessed, depending on where they live and their overall taxable income. Those living in areas where the LIT is below 4 per cent. get a refund; those living in areas with higher LIT rates pay the difference. In practice, 70 to 80 per cent. of people get a rebate."
Nothing could be simpler than operating a system for local government revenue on that basis.
Just a moment's thought—and even a moment's thought by the SLD spokesman today, the hon. Member for Southport—would make us realise just how barmy that proposition is. Is Britain really to have a system of local government finance where a local authority can set any income tax rate that it wants, people then send their money to the authority in advance, and perhaps at the end of the year the authority returns some of it? We have heard about the bureaucracy created to run the community charge—just imagine the bureaucracy that would be involved with cheques coming in and out.
Since when has it been a sensible proposition that people should pay tax in advance of knowing what their tax computations might be? Why should either national or local government be entitled to sit on people's money for a year until it works out how much it intends to charge? What would happen in areas such as Eastbourne, which is
624
represented by the Liberal Democrat spokesman on local government—the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti)? I imagine salaries are relatively high in Eastbourne, but no doubt housing costs and mortgages are also high. How will those people feel if, suddenly, a local income tax rate is set at a high level, but they are told, "Don't worry about it—at the end of the day we might return some of your money."
I try to work out my budget for the year so that I can meet my commitments and aspirations and those of my family. I can usually estimate what my tax will be. I would be appalled if I thought that I would have to pay a sum of money in advance and that, perhaps, one day some of it might be sent back. It is a ridiculous and ludicrous idea. The fact that Papua New Guinea has followed that route is not something that I find especially encouraging.
Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend has emphasised the 4 per cent. mystical figure, which might result in a rebate at the end of a year. Of course, it could be that, having paid one's 4 per cent., the council is profligate, uncapped, and spends 6 per cent.—and so retrospectively one has to pay another 2 per cent. How would people cope with that?
Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think that people would be very miserable. It is impossible to budget our family finances in such circumstances.
There might be a case to be made—and I say this in my usual spirit of fairness—in favour of local income tax if there were to be some form of capping as well. However, the hon. Member for Southport had clearly been briefed —in so far as he was briefed at all—to confirm that the SLD is not in favour of capping. I am reminded of a debate in the House a couple of weeks ago when the hon. Member for Eastbourne was in his place, and I mentioned that his party was committed to not having any form of capping. I asked whether it was true. The hon. Gentleman nodded, and Hansard recorded it as "indicated assent". Anyone who saw him would realise that that did not for a moment do justice to the hon Gentleman's enthusiasm for the idea of no capping. He was positively bouncing. Indeed, he looked like a whippet on steroids. He was obviously trying to put across the message that there would be no capping under an SLD Administration.
Today, the hon. Member for Southport justified that by saying that people should be entitled to vote to pay that sort of money. That appears marvellous until we pause and think about it. We must face a central point about local government, and that is that it is the creation and creature of this House. It is this House which has set up structures for local government; it is this House which has the ultimate responsibility for it; it is this House which, in the end, has to change the arrangements. I do not discharge my constitutional duty by saying to someone in a constituency where the local government levy is wrong and unreasonable, "I am sorry, but it has nothing to do with me. If you want to, you can move out of the area." That would be monstrous. This House has an ultimate obligation to protect charge payers, ratepayers, council tax payers and so on.
Even if the hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that it should be a matter just for local government, imagine what the consequences would be. Better still, let us remember what the consequences were when left-wing authorities were able to levy rates without any capping. It drove out those who might have been able to afford to pay

625
them. It drove out businesses and left those remaining in a vortex of despair. That is what happens when we say that it is no part of national government if local government chooses to act irresponsibly. The idea that Britain could have a system of local income tax but no capping is monstrous.
As with all Liberal Democrat ideas, the local income tax is intended to appeal to the nice people's society. Their ideas are always squeaky clean. The late Lord Stockton said that the trouble with the Liberal Democrats was that they always produced sound and original ideas, but none of the sound ideas was original, and none of the original ideas was sound. That is true about local income tax.
It was interesting to note that when the SLD's shadow Chancellor—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—gave a press conference to launch the publication of their bizarre document, he came under some pressure from The Independent, a very good newspaper. It is probably common knowledge that that newspaper is not wholly uncritical of the Government. In an article headed
"Liberal Democrats promise 'fair' local tax",
Nicholas Timmins said that households with incomes above £20,000 a year, whether with one earner or two, would pay more. Mr. Timmins stated:
"Mr. Beith said, 'We do not attempt to hide that. Those on higher income will pay more; that is the principle of fair taxation.'"
Indeed it is. I wonder how many people who were beguiled by the prospect of a local income tax realise that a husband and wife who earn £10,000 a year each and who are assessed for local income tax will be among the wealthy of the land. Although in some places £10,000 a year will be above average income, as many hon. Members know, that is not a lot of money in the south-east or the south-west, although it is certainly better than not having that amount. The idea that it is so much money that it qualifies people to pay more is bizarre.
Yesterday, we found from costings of the Labour party's policies that its proposals will mean an extra 15 per cent. on income tax for someone in that bracket–£20 a week more.
Mr. Paul Boateng: That is bunkum.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman who speaks for Lloyd's for the Labour party thinks that that is bunkum. He knows as well as I do that those proposals have been properly costed. That will be the effect. The hon. Gentleman can shake his head as much as he likes, but he knows that those proposals have been costed.
The Liberal Democrats have identified people with a joint income of £20,000 a year as ready to be soaked. Is it not interesting that the figures tie in neatly with the Labour party's proposals?
Under questioning, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed admitted that his proposals could lead to a local income tax of 17·3p in the pound. His justification was that national income tax might fall to 11 per cent. —perhaps it might. He then misread his figures. In working out what the average local income tax rate would be for the time being, he forgot that he was taking advantage of the transfer back to central Government in the £140 reduction which was made possible by an increase in VAT. Having voted against the Government's proposals, he then took advantage of them. Taken together, we are talking about a standard income tax rate
626
of more than 30 per cent., just to implement the proposals and have a standard tax rate. The local income tax does not bear examination.
I do not suggest that there is an ideal way of raising of tax locally. If anyone has any illusions about what a crazy, barmy, nightmarish system the Liberal Democrat proposals would provide, he could do a lot worse than read "Local Income Tax—The Best Way—How It Works". Its best point is probably the Papua New Guinea example. After that, it is downhill all the way.
12.23 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: This is a significant motion. People who have served on local government are best able to contribute to a debate on local government services. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has experience in local government, so one must give credence to some of his points. I support some of his comments on why a local income tax would not be an acceptable way of funding local government. I wish that I could say the same about the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who moved the motion. I cannot find much information about his local government experience. It is sad that such people criticise local government without having served in it and without having helped to provide the services upon which many people rely.
The hon. Member for Stroud asked why local authorities should provide recreation facilities. A couple of years ago, the hon. Member for Teignbridge and I shared a platform, when we discussed sport and recreation with a national association. We were at one in our belief that local authorities need to provide such services. Many schoolchildren and elderly people rely on local authorities to provide those facilities.
The hon. Member for Stroud said that the provision of local government services had not been considered in detail. He wanted to have a productive debate, but the outcome of his speech was less than productive. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) made a more productive contribution than the hon. Gentleman.
During the past 12 years, the House has passed a substantial number of Bills targeted at local government. The way in which the subject was introduced today was not in the interests of local government services; it was a further attack on local government. After 12 years of ruling this country, the Conservative party appears to have nothing constructive to offer people in terms of local government services. More than 52 Acts of Parliament have been directed at local government. There have been reviews and consultations. There has been no request for the views of elected representatives, although we are told that that will be the subject of a review in due course. I hope that there will be consultation on the role in local government of elected representatives.
Over the past 12 years, there has been greater centralisation of local government services as they have been pulled into the centre. In 1979, the Government campaigned for more freedom for local communities. Departmental committees and quangos costing more than £11 billion to administer were set up. However, it costs less than £42 million across the country for local councillors to run our local authorities. We should compare the cost to the country of the elected members who serve in local

627
government and who are responsible to their electorate with the costs of the quangos that have been appointed by the Government.
In addition to those 52 Acts of Parliament, the review of local government services, greater centralisation and all the quangos, we now face capping. We also have a Minister who is responsible for our cities. Furthermore, the Secretary of State for the Environment comes to the Dispatch Box to appeal for consultation because the Government have no idea how local government should be administered. In addition to those impositions and to increased centralisation, the Government now control 80 per cent. of local government revenue spending. That is what has happened under the past 12 years of the Tory Administration.
Mr. Knapman: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument with some interest. Are there any circumstances in which the Labour party would support the capping of local authorities?
Mr. O'Brien: Our document, "Fair Rates", states exactly how we would approach the financing of local government. The Labour party has also made it clear that we believe that choice belongs with the electorate. If there is to be capping, that should be the electorate's choice. It should not be imposed by faceless Ministers—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Faceless?"] They are faceless to many of my constituents who have no idea of the identity of the Minister or the Secretary of State who says to them, "You will have X, Y and Z services." However, they know who their councillor is, because they see him or her regularly in connection with the services and facilities that are provided by the local authority.
As I have said, although 80 per cent. of local government revenue spending and 100 per cent. of its capital expenditure is now controlled by central Government—by the Tory party—Conservative Members criticise local authorities that are struggling to provide services for local people.
The hon. Member for Stroud said that local government monopolies were a bad thing in a strong party system—
Mr. Knapman indicated assent.
Mr. O'Brien: I notice that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement. Does he agree that the private monopolies, such as the water companies, are also a bad thing? As a result of the monopoly in Yorkshire, water customers face a 13 per cent. increase on last year's charges, although inflation is now running at about 6 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that kind of monopoly is fair and that faceless people should be able to tell Yorkshire Water's customers that the charges this year will be 13 per cent. greater than last year? British Gas and British Telecom are both monopolies, but the hon. Gentleman did not refer to either.
The hon. Gentleman also forgot to mention the continual reduction in the rate support grant given to local authorities during the 12 years since 1979. That reduction is a further reason for the increased charges that local authorities have had to impose on their rate and poll tax payers. If services are to be maintained, they must be paid for. If the Government withdraw their support for the
628
provision of those services, the local people invariably have to make up the shortfall. The Government cannot have it both ways: if they want to cut their revenue contributions for local services, the maintenance of those services will depend on the local community paying for them. That is what has happened in many local authorities.
After all the Government intervention—after those 52 Acts of Parliament, all the reviews, the greater centralisation, the quangos, the capping, the Ministers who are responsible for our cities, the appeals for consultation and Government control of expenditure—Conservative Members still have not found any satisfaction in the Government's control of the provision of local authority services. In my opinion, that is because the Conservative party and the Government do not believe in local government. There is no genuine approach from Conservative Members who believe in local government. That has been demonstrated more than once.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who is not in his place—
Mr. Fearn: Yes, I am.
Mr. O'Brien: I apologise.
The hon. Member for Southport referred to the poll tax. There is a great deal to be said about the dissatisfaction with the poll tax that poll tax payers have shown over the past 12 months. The poll tax was in force for less than 12 months in England and Wales before the Government decided to do a U-turn and scrap it. If there is one subject that the Government do not want to discuss, it is the poll tax, because it has cost a great deal of money, a great deal of hardship and has caused the greatest U-turn by any Government and especially the greatest U-turn by this Government in this decade.
A few months ago, the hon. Member for Stroud and many other Conservative Members were proving how good the poll tax was, both in their constituencies and in the House, and saying how important it was for local government. How they followed through the Lobby to ensure that it would be in place. How they told us, both in the House and throughout the country, that councillors would now be accountable because everyone would have to contribute to the cost of local services—that was the argument for the poll tax.
The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) insisted that the poll tax should be on the statute book, and that local government finance should be raised by the tax. If the right hon. Member for Finchley were here today, she would still be insisting that the poll tax should be in place.
I remind the House that the right hon. Member for Finchley has gone and that the poll tax is due to follow her. We have been told that the poll tax is dead, but no one can say that until it is taken off the statute book completely. Labour Members of Parliament offered to support the Government to introduce a Bill to abolish the poll tax forthwith. There would have been no opposition whatsoever if the Government had wanted to abolish the tax. However, that offer was not taken up.
A few months ago, the hon. Member for Stroud and other Tory Members of Parliament were arguing how fair the poll tax would be and how important and necessary it was for the financing of local government. Now the hon. Member for Stroud and his colleagues are telling their constituents how unfair, undemocratic, unworkable and

629
costly the poll tax is. That is the sort of U-turn that members of the Government have to face because they got it wrong in the first instance and because they have not got the guts to say, "Sorry" to the people of this country for the hardship that has been created.
How wrong it is that people on income support still have to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax and will have to continue to do so until after 1993. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have admitted that a fair system of financing local government should be based on a person's ability to pay, but not until after 1993.
Why should people who are facing and witnessing hardship have to continue to face it until 1993 or 1994? I ask Conservative Members, and especially the hon. Member for Stroud, whose motion refers to "value for money", whether it is value for money to spend £15 to collect £5 from people on income support? That happens in many authority areas. The cost of collecting the 20 per cent. from people on income support is more than the value of the money realised. Is that value for money?
Mr. Knapman: Value for money is indeed important, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is coming to that part of his speech. I hope that he will deal with the matter in some detail. My position is the same as that of M r. Keva Coombes, the former leader of Liverpool city council, who said:
"In that particular case, the council's problems are not down to resources, but rather that it costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas."
Perhaps that has to do with value for money.
Mr. O'Brien: Again I ask the hon. Gentleman: does he believe that paying £15 to collect £5 from people on income support is value for money?
Mr. Boateng: Answer.
Mr. O'Brien: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman declines to answer.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Liverpool. I shall refer to the city of Westminster—that well-run Tory authority. In 1991, it cost Westminster £42 per head to collect the poll tax—
Mrs. Currie: Which was how much?
Mr. O'Brien: It cost £42 per head to collect the poll tax. In Westminster, 20 per cent. of the 1991 poll tax was £39, so for every person on income support who qualified under the Government's terms to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax, Westminster was losing £3 per head for collecting it. Is that value for money? That happened not in Liverpool, but in Westminster.
Mr. Knapman: Which would the hon. Gentleman prefer?
Mr. O'Brien: I would say that such people should not have to make a payment. It causes them hardship and problems, and it is administratively uneconomic. There is no justification for charging people when it costs the authority money to collect the payments.
A sum of £300 million would exempt the poorest from the 20 per cent. poll tax payment. Not only would that help those in need who are on income support, but it would relieve the administrative burden on local authorities that find that collecting the 20 per cent. costs more than the
630
money realised. Therefore, there are substantial benefits from abolishing the 20 per cent. payment for those on income support and low incomes.
I remind the House that, in answer to a question on 6 February, which is printed in Hansard at column 153, we were told that rebates were costing £1£99 billion. A significant number of people are eligible for rebates, including Tory Members who earn their £29,000 a year. That money should go to the people who need it most. It is not impossible for the Government even now to abolish the 20 per cent. payment that people on income support must make.
In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that value added tax was to increase from 15 to 17·5 per cent. to help pay for local government services and rebates to poll tax payers. That 16 per cent. increase in VAT means that a further £4·3 billion will be added to poll tax rebates.
The Government are giving money to people who can afford to pay but are taking no action to ease the hardship of the very poor who suffer most from the payment of poll tax. Had the 20 per cent. payment by those on income support been abolished, the outstanding poll tax, as mentioned in the motion, would have been much less.
The motion also refers to delay in collecting the poll tax. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Cabinet plans to reduce poll tax bills a fortnight earlier, he could have saved the nation's taxpayers over £200 million. Local authorities, being efficient, had all the poll tax bills printed and ready to be redistributed, and then the Chancellor said that they should be scrapped and the exercise done again. Was that value for money? Did the Chancellor's action secure value for the country? Some Government Departments could learn a lesson in achieving value for money by examining the way in which efficient local authority departments go about their tasks.
The motion refers to "rigorous controls on overspending". Let us be clear that that applies not only to city authorities. A recent announcement stated that poll tax capping would apply to all authorities—with the exception of parish and town councils—providing budgets. So all district authorities are now subject to poll tax capping.
The SSA for Stroud district authority for the current year is £7·68 million, not an excessive amount. Providing services for the community that the hon. Member for Stroud represents would involve expenditure by the district authority of £9·5 million, representing a 30 per cent. increase. Were that amount to be spent, that authority would be capped under the Government's procedures.
Does the hon. Member for Stroud consider that his authority should be poll-tax-capped on the basis of those figures? It is clear from his silence that he is not in a position to reply. Surely it is not exorbitant for Stroud district authority to want to spend less than £10 million on providing services. Before launching motions such as the one before the House today, the hon. Member for Stroud should discover what is happening on his own patch.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who has the good sense not to fall for his ploy. My hon. Friend could not possibly answer his

631
question until the Secretary of State had let local authorites know what capping criteria he would apply for next year.
I know from the frequent correspondence I receive from my hon. Friend how assiduous he is. He has pointed out to me that Stroud has an SSA of £7·7 million, which is £1·8 million, or 19·3 per cent., below the 1990–91 income. However, the community charge is 20 per cent. less than in 1990–91. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to Stroud's tendency to wish to achieve more than is realistic, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is right to be cautious.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for Stroud tabled the motion. In opening the debate, he criticised local government, but when I ask about the position facing his constituents through his local authority, the Minister says that I am being unfair. Is the Minister implying that the Secretary of State will look favourably upon Stroud, and will allow a 30 per cent. increase in its standard spending assessment? If so, we have much to look forward to. The hon. Member for Stroud should tell his district authority that, if it does not reduce its planned expenditure and the services it provides, it will be poll-tax-capped.
Mr. Knapman: If Stroud district council overspends, bearing in mind the fact that we do not yet have all the information, Stroud, like every other district council in the country, should be capped. That is why I asked the hon. Gentleman whether there were any circumstances in which the Labour party would support capping. His answer carried no conviction one way or the other. The hon. Gentleman should read the motion, because his remarks suggest that he has not done so. It states:
"That this House notes the widespread discontent with the inadequacies of local government services in parts of Britain, particularly in many inner city areas".
Why does the hon. Gentleman not mention Liverpool and so many parts of London represented by Labour councils, which are now attracting the attention of newspapers?
Mr. O'Brien: I am discussing local government services, which is the title of the motion. The motion is framed
"To call attention to policies on…the delivery of local Government services".
The delivery of local government services, depends on central Government saying exactly how 80 per cent. of local government income will be presented. If any reference should be made to the provision of local government services, it should be not to local authorities but to the Government, who provide 80 per cent. of their revenue.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stroud says that, if his district authority wants to spend £9·95 million on services for his constituents, whether for recreation, for bus shelters or for housing and services connected with housing, he will support capping. If those services then cannot be provided because of capping, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear to his constituents that it is because his supports such a principle.
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, in Stroud last year, the direct labour organisation lost several million pounds.
Mr. O'Brien: I shall come to that later. The hon. Gentleman's motion refers to competitive tendering and
632
value for money. Stroud is not the only Tory authority to be suffering as a result of capping. Services will be cut because the Government are now applying poll tax capping to district authorities.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I do not think that we should move beyond Stroud at present. The figures produced in the answer of 5 December, to which I referred earlier, show that, before the £140 element was introduced, Stroud received only 12·9 per cent. support from the revenue support grants, which puts it at the bottom of the league. It does not receive anything like the 50 per cent. that the Government promised. If it sticks to the standard spending assessment provisions, it increasingly has to find money from the poll tax funds. The Opposition should seek to defend and assist Stroud, even if the hon. Gentleman who represents that constituency does not.
Mr. O'Brien: I thought that we had made it clear, that, if there was a case for providing services to Stroud and other district authorities that are subject to Government capping, it was being made by Opposition, not Conservative, Members.
Stroud has a budget of less than £10 million to provide services. Local authority members in Stroud will provide their services free or for very little. Reference was made to Government quangos. The urban development corporation in Leeds spends a similar amount to that which the Stroud authority wants to spend. The chairman of that corporation will receive more than £16,000 for administering that budget, but the councillors of Stroud will receive nothing like that amount. However, the hon. Member for Stroud attacks his local authority and supports urban development corporations, the chairmen of which are handsomely paid and which provide local government services. It is disappointing and sad that the hon. Member for Stroud does not defend his own local authority and the services it provides.
Mr. Holt: I do not expect to hear too much common sense in this debate from either side of the Chamber, but I have just heard the most nonsensical contribution of all. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) does not understand what an urban development corporation does or how it is run. The Tees urban development corporation has done an excellent job of regenerating the Teesside district so that the region is not suffering as badly as other parts of the country at present. He tried to equate the job of a councillor with that of a chairman of a development corporation. Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of a chief executive of a local authority receiving more money than the chairman of a development corporation?
Mr. O'Brien: I value the services of members who are elected to local authorities to defend the interests and services of their community, and I am comparing those members with the appointments made by Government Departments and quangos. I referred to urban development corporations, but there are 15,000 Government committees that cost more than £11 billion—that is a separate subject, which I am prepared to debate with any Conservative Member. The Three Rivers authority has a budget of £5·6 million for its standard spending assessment and wants to spend £7·45 million to provide services,

633
which means that it would be 33 per cent. above its SSA. Therefore, it will have to reduce the services that it provides through its authority.
A press release was issued by the chairman of the Association of District Councils. He was a Conservative councillor, not a Liverpool or a Labour councillor. The press release states:
"A furious Roy Thomason, ADC Chairman, declared: `We appear to have a Government that is being run by the Treasury for the sake of Treasury convenience. I am shocked that the Government should be threatening small-spending district councils with these centralist controls. The budgets involved are trivial sums in terms of overall public expenditure.
I am shocked that the Government should so attack many of its own supporters in local government, particularly district councils which have raided their balances to keep charge levels down this year and maintain services.
It is also shocking that the Secretary of State for the Environment should completely ignore all the assurances previous ministers gave when the capping provisions were introduced that low-spending authorities would be excluded from the controls…I am greatly saddened by this move.'"
That is dated 21 May 1991. It shows what Tories outside the House—the people of Stroud and other Tory-controlled authorities—are thinking. The leader of the Association of District Councils has made it clear that he will have no truck with hon. Members who plan to cap local authorities. What the chairman of the ADC says speaks volumes.
Strong reference is made in the motion to inner city areas. The Government have failed local government. They have done nothing to try to resolve inner city problems, particularly in London. The hon. Member for Stroud referred to housing.
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, I congratulate you on the very happy announcement that was made last Saturday. It gave pleasure to every hon. Member. Secondly, have you received any request from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to make a statement to the House about her public expenditure programme that was so well publicised yesterday?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comment. There has been no request for a statement.
Mr. O'Brien: I hope that Conservative Members will not make a request for short speeches. If there are interventions like that, the proceedings will be delayed. I was dealing with inner-city problems. The hon. Member for Stroud referred to housing but not to the problems that are facing those on housing lists. He said that, in the past, a good standard of housing was provided. He referred to the Parker Morris standards. Housing is the major problem in many cities. Homelessness is greater now than it ever was. There is a shortage of affordable housing either to buy or to rent. Nowhere does the motion refer to homelessness or to the housing provision that is required, not just in cities and urban areas but in rural areas. There is a shortage of housing. The Government have done nothing to improve the position during the last 12 years.
Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman talks about a shortage of housing. Is he aware that there are 20,000 empty council houses in London, almost all of them in Labour-controlled local authorities?
Mr. O'Brien: I draw attention to a statement by the Public Accounts Committee, which expressed concern that the Government own 31,000 empty properties that could house the homeless. If the point is made that local authorities own empty houses it is only fair and just to draw attention to the 31,000 properties, according to the Public Accounts Committee's report, that are owned by the Government which could be used to house homeless people and reduce the waiting lists in many of the areas that Conservative Members of Parliament represent. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has allowed me to make that point.
The Public Accounts Committee called on the Secretary of State for the Environment to act now with "due urgency", setting targets and time scales and pumping more cash into London councils with the worst problems. It is not the London Boroughs Association or the Association of London Authorities which make that plea but the Public Accounts Committee of this House—that the Secretary of State should make provision for the homeless.
Mr. Tony Banks: I want to add a few facts to what my hon. Friend has said about homelessness in London. In London, 2·8 per cent. of local authorities' housing stock is vacant. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said that there were 20,000 empty properties in London, but many of them are not fit to be inhabited. One of the reasons is that the Government are preventing local authorities from making them fit for habitation so that people can move in. There may be 20,000 vacant public sector houses in London, but there are also 97,000 empty private houses in London.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend's statement is borne out by the report published by the Public Accounts Committee. It states that officials from the Department of the Environment had admitted that
"they did not know enough about the underlying causes of homelessness".
One of the underlying causes of homelessness is the fact that local authorities are denied the resources to make houses fit to live in. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will take note of and act on the Public Accounts Committee report.
I remind the hon. Member for Hendon, South that the Government own 31,000 empty houses which could be used.
Mr. Key: I am rather worried that I might not be able to speak this afternoon, because the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has already spoken for 45 minutes. In case I do not get to speak, I must say that, yes, there are 20,700 empty local authority properties in London, but there is also £360 million of uncollected rent in London. What an enormous contribution it would make to housing people if the hon. Gentleman told the Labour party in the London boroughs to collect the rents.
Mr. O'Brien: What income could be realised in rent if the 31,000 houses owned by the Government were let? What income would that put in the Government's coffers?
I accept that the Minister wishes to speak in the debate, but his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud took the best part of an hour to move the motion. [HON. MEMBERS:"It is his debate."] And I am entitled to reply, which is what I am doing.

635
Over the past 12 years, the Government have also failed the towns and inner cities because there is no co-ordinated transport programme. Transport is not included in the motion, but cities come to a standstill at peak times because there is no co-ordinated transport system.
Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the third time on which the hon. Gentleman has referred to something that is not in the motion, and has then spoken about it for five or 10 minutes. Is it not right and proper that you should ask him—as other occupants of the Chair would do—to stick to what is on the Order Paper and to discuss Liverpool, gay advice centres and other such issues?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a very wide motion, and I have not yet heard anything that is out of order. However, I am sure the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) wil bear it in mind that many other hon. Members are still hoping to speak.
Mr. O'Brien: I said that local government services include transport, but they also include law and order, which are not dealt with in the motion although they are significant problems for local communities and for local authorities. One of the evils of capping is that police authorities—especially that in my area of West Yorkshire —have been threatened with capping and have therefore had to reduce the number of policemen and the number of those on the beat. There has been a reduction in law and order services which should be provided for local authorities.
The motion refers to compulsory competitive tendering. Of all tenders, 80 per cent. have been won by local authorities. It is significant that the Department of the Environment has commissioned research into the impact of compulsory competitive tendering over the past two years. The report has not yet been published, and the survey cost £100,000.
Mr. Key: It is published.
Mr. O'Brien: The survey cost £100,000 to produce, and covered 40 English local authorities. It was intended to reveal substantial savings, but the opposite proved to be the case. The researchers point out that there have been fewer savings than the Government expected.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, I am prepared to give way, but Conservative Members and the Minister must not then complain about not being able to participate in the debate.
Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman took great pride in the number of contracts allocated to direct labour organisations within Labour councils. What would he say to the former Labour leader of Liverpool city council, in view of the specific example of how the council fiddled the system to enable it to get the contract, despite the fact that the alternative private bid was £1 million cheaper?
Mr. O'Brien: Sections 13 and 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 exist for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. If Ministers are not applying the Act, the hon. Gentleman should direct his questions to them.
636
The report was intended to discredit the delivery of services by local authorities and to favour the private contractors, but that did not work. There is evidence from the people who are subject to tendering. After the privatisation of its refuse collecting service last year, Kensington and Chelsea received 400 complaints a day in the first month of operation by the successful private contractor. The Prime Minister wants to introduce a charter for residents, but people who are not yet covered by the charter complain about the services provided by the private operator in Kensington and Chelsea.
Tayside received so many complaints after the first six weeks of a school cleaning contract that the contract went back to to the direct services organisation to ensure that the school was cleaned. One head of a junior school took the unprecedented step of writing to parents saying that he intended to close his school on health and hygiene grounds because of poor work by private contractors. That is the value we get from private contractors. The headmaster described the cleaning services as
"at best a shambles, at worst non-existent".
In some schools in Essex, the pupils do the cleaning.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, said:
"I am generally in favour of privatisation but with school services I take a pragmatic view. I am aware of the ups and downs of privatisation."
The motion does not address the reality of providing local services to the community. If we discuss local government services, we should discuss the principles of local government. If we do, we find that the hon. Member for Stroud has no idea about the services and principles of local government.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on his good fortune in being able to initiate this debate, which has proved both important and constructive. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have addressed us with some passion. Although I may not be quite as passionate as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), I shall illustrate my arguments as graphically as I can.
First, however, the whole House will wish to record the deep shock that we felt at the death yesterday of Harry Collinson, the principal planning officer of Derwentside, and to express our sympathy and great sorrow to his widow Anne and their children, Katy and Robert. The incident illustrates the danger in which public servants often find themselves and also the strong tradition of public service that we are privileged to enjoy both in the civil service as a whole and among local government officers. I pay an unreserved tribute to them.
There are other groups of people who make a great deal of time available and who are unpaid, although they sometimes receive expenses. The largest single group in local government is made up of the councillors themselves. I have no hesitation in thanking councillors of whatever party for the work that they do, because it involves great sacrifices of time, effort and energy to serve in local government. I do not think that they would wish comparisons to be made between the voluntary role of the public services and paid posts such as chairmanships of urban development corporations.

637
There are other groups that we may not think of so readily. I refer first to the valuations and community charge tribunals. The members and officers of the tribunals service play a crucial role throughout the country. They do so every day, they have done so for many years, and they will continue to do so. It is a very difficult role, as appeals for community charges, appeals on business rates and so on are very demanding. In addition to the local members of those tribunals, I wish to thank all the officers and staff who put in a great deal of work on behalf of the community.
I could cite many more groups, but there is one in particular which we should thank. The bailiffs do a difficult and sometimes an unpleasant and dangerous job. On the whole, they work in a professional and regulated way. The Certificated Bailiffs Association operates professionally and should be congratulated on seeking always to maintain standards. It is an ancient organisation. When I addressed its annual general meeting recently, I met a bailiff from Darlington who had been doing the job since 1934. He was a very experienced and professional gentleman indeed.
We understand that the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation is aiming to establish a national code of practice to cover bailiffs working on collecting the community charge. The IRRV aims to have the code agreed between the local authority associations, consumer groups and the Certificated Bailiffs Association. I understand that the National Consumer Council is involved. We should seek to encourage the professionalism of the groups of citizens on whom so many of us depend.
It is not for me to wind up the debate, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, but I must pick up one or two of the points that have been made. I have nothing to say about the conspiracy theories held by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, but I have something to say about facts which he may or may not have got right. In referring to SSAs, he claimed that North-East Derbyshire did not score on density or sparsity of population. That is not correct. The total SSA is £76 per adult, and North-East Derbyshire receives £8 per adult for ward-weighted density and £9 for sparsity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) spoke of the correspondence that he had had with me on banding and discounts, and I am considering his representations carefully. I admired the strength with which he argued the case against local income tax: he put it exceptionally well. I would only add that the same argument could be applied to those who wish the universal business rate to be handed back to local authorities. One of the strongest reasons for resisting that suggestion is that for many years in some areas authorities that charged very high business rates were responsible for driving businesses out of our inner-city areas. I can think of nothing more foolish than giving back to those same authorities the power once again to drive out initiative, people and businesses.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) ran over ground that we had debated previously, so I shall not seek to answer his points at length. However, on his point about the police, I have to tell him that we expect police authorities to seek maximum economy and value for money. We have made clear the importance of maintaining manpower at the approved levels. It is disappointing that some police authority budgets assume
638
manpower reductions that we regard as unnecessary. Neither the West Yorkshire police authority nor any other single-service police authority was designated for capping.
If we do not trust local government—as the hon. Gentleman sought to argue—we would hardly have delegated so much responsibility to it over the years. The House sets the tone for local government. We explain what we think should be done in the interests of the community, and we trust local government to carry out that policy.
Perhaps we need to ask ourselves what is local government about? I can tell the House what it is not about. It is certainly not for the convenience of political parties; it is not for the preservation of vested interests in local government jobs. Local government has an inertia all its own, and too often the local government machine runs for its own sake. That is not desirable. Our citizens do not mind how a service is provided, as long as it is provided. That is the responsibility which local government must meet.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Normanton about the standing of some local councillors. I have the honour to serve as a local government Minister, and my job takes me to many local authority areas. When I meet the public in their community centres and consult them about Government policies, I ask, "How well do you know your councillors?" I am glad to say that, very often, not only do they know them, but they are present at the meetings. However, sometimes the city councils and the councilors—and this is prevalent in our urban areas—are loathed by the communities that they seek to serve. That is a problem in responsible government. If we seek to improve local government and its services, we cannot ignore the fact that too many people do not know, and do not care, who their councillors are—they just know that they are not being consulted about or involved in any policy making. They do not have a vision for the future that is expressed by the policies in the town hall. That is bad news.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that the Government had done nothing about inner cities. I remind him that inner-city areas have been represented by the Labour party for many, many years—and that is one of the main reasons why there have been such poor services.
During the past week, I have spoken to local authorities and communities in Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Salford, and, yesterday, Bristol. There is an interesting variety of approaches to local government. Many councillors are of extremely high calibre and it is wonderful that they are doing the job in the way that they are. However, there are others about whom one is rather less enthusiastic—and I am not making a party point.
Mr. Tony Banks: They are rather like Members of Parliament.
Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is right, which is why I do not draw any conclusions. It is a fact of life. It is also true of council officers. Often they are motivated, dedicated, efficient, incredibly hard-working and burn the midnight oil on behalf of the councillors whom they serve. However, all is not yet right in local government, and it is no good pretending that it is.
I wish to explain the Government's view of the role of local government in our society, while reaffirming our commitment to and support for local government. Local government exists to ensure that the community gets

639
certain essential day-to-day services provided at a local level. Our policy is entirely dictated by our wish to ensure, and our responsibility for ensuring, that those services are provided as efficiently and effectively as possible. We are about quality, and we are about value for money.
Value for money means value for people. The better one spends every pound in local government, as elsewhere, the more value for money one gets for the people who are paying it. In our experience, the two go closely together. We have a responsibility to the citizen—to ensure that he or she gets the quality of service that he or she has a right to expect. We have a responsibility to the national taxpayer, the local charge payer and the business ratepayer—to ensure that their hard-earned money is spent efficiently and effectively.
Most local authorities share those objectives. It is a great pity that the dogma, idiocy and incompetence of a relatively small number of largely Labour authorities have done so much to sully the reputation of local government in this country. I sometimes despair when I see headlines in our national newspapers with nothing to say about anything except Liverpool and Lambeth. I think about the good work that is being done by so many local authorities. A great shadow has been cast over local government by this vocal and vicious minority, more interested in acting out revolutionary fantasies than in providing decent people with decent services.
The prime example must be Liverpool, as many hon. Members said—once a great city and still a great city. It has been brought to its knees by successive Labour councils dominated by Militant. There is no doubt about that. It has become almost a joke, and not one of a nice variety. It has become a parody. Television enthusiasts will have been watching "GBH.", which protrays the scandal of Liverpool-type politics—of course, grievous bodily harm is what is being done to this city.
What is the Labour party's reaction? What can we expect from the Labour party? In July last year, the Leader of the Opposition said to The Times:
"I have talked many times with ordinary people in Liverpool and their constant desire is for decent services…they are sick and tired of people who constantly flout their responsibilities and obligations. We will have no more of that, starting right now."
Not much happened for a long time.
A few days ago, Ian Lowes, one of the principal architects of the chaos in Liverpool, said:
"Oh, yes…never mind what happened in the winter of 1979, this is going to be Liverpool's Summer of Discontent." Is that the way to convince people of the value of local government? I think not.
The admission by Keva Coombes that the council was
"obsessed with the interests of our employees and not enough with the interests of our ratepayers"
has been graphically illustrated in the past few weeks.
All this is happening not just in Liverpool. Yesterday I spoke to a parent with children in schools in Lambeth. The head of a Lambeth school has been told that he can telephone the Department of Education and Science only between 10 o'clock and 12 noon on Tuesdays and Thursdays. What an attitude to take towards teachers. What a disgrace. That attitude is taken even by other more gentle authorities. I have met representatives of Stoke-on-Trent council several times and have a good deal
640
of sympathy with them, but even the council's officers are disillusioned and are not highly motivated. I have read the following:
"The police are investigating allegations which include bribes for contracts, overspending without authority, misuse of public funds for the benefit of council officials and friends, intimidation of witnesses and destruction of evidence."
That is happening in Stoke-on-Trent, for goodness sake. What is going on?
Then there are the problems of Derbyshire. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) would tell us what advice she would give to Opposition Members invited by the leader of Derbyshire county council to contribute to a whip-round of 100 a head to pay his legal fees when he lost his case in the High Court. I imagine that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is not enthusiastic about it and has something to say—
Mrs. Currie: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was advised by the Labour Member who received the letter that if Labour Members had been on the jury Mr. Bookbinder would have gone down for even more.
Mr. Key: As usual, my hon. Friend makes her own point tellingly.
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mr. Key: I must give way to the hon. Gentleman as a matter of courtesy.
Mr. Barnes: If any money is left over after the whip-round for Councillor Bookbinder, could it not usefully be provided to those hon. Members who are Lloyd's underwriters for running soup kitchens in Westminster hall?
Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman knows the Government's attitude to the suggestion that Lloyd's underwriters should be given special treatment. Has the hon. Gentleman paid his £100 to Derbyshire county council?
Mr. Barnes: What I said earlier shows that I am sometimes slow paying my bill. I have however, been contributing towards the fund, but how much I have paid is a matter for me.
Mr. Key: I respect the privacy of the hon. Gentleman's financial affairs.
The effect of what has happened in Liverpool spills out beyond the city's boundaries. It has been said that Liverpool has been losing 10,000 people a year for 20 years. Where have they gone, and what sort of people are they? I fear that they are not only the sort of people who are fed up with the Labour council, who want to make a success of their lives and who wish to take full advantage of the opportunities that the Government have provided during the past 12 years, although it is a tregedy that those people leave Liverpool.
One of the prime reasons behind my right hon. Friend's initiative, City Challenge, is to reverse the trend of people leaving our inner cities as soon as they are vaguely successful. We want to encourage people not only to stay in the inner cities, but to return to them. That is why we must concentrate on jobs, training and the quality of life of all those people. However, as I said, it is not only the winners who wish to leave Liverpool. My hon. Friend the

641
Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) was distressed when he came to see me the day before yesterday. He said that he had hoped to participate in the debate but that he would be busy in his constituency today. He told me that Bournemouth has a severe overspill problem as a result of the problems in Liverpool. Apparently, about 7,000 Liverpudlians are now in Bournemouth, most of whom, according to my hon. Friend, are on the "Costa del Dole" and are contributing to the squatting problem in Bournemouth. I am also told that those people have contributed disproportionately to the problems of drugs, crime and prostitution in my hon. Friend's constituency. I do not know whether that is true, but I have no reason to doubt that allegation.
Mr. Tony Banks: As the Minister knows, Bournemouth is a pleasant town which is well run by its Conservative council. One of the reasons that it is so well run is that the council is into municipal enterprise in a big way. It does not sell off its services. It wants to run its own buses. It has its own conference centre and runs its own car parks and shopping malls—all the things that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) criticised.
Mr. Key: What the hon. Gentleman does not say is that those services demand very little from the national purse because they are so very well run. The point is that Bournemouth is largely self-financing as an authority.
We cannot get away from the issue, which is the face of Labour government as we see it operating in our great cities. We have been told for too long that the Labour party is getting things under control. Last July the Leader of the Opposition said that, starting from that date, the problems would all be over. More recently—on 3 March—a Walworth road spokesman was quoted in The Sunday Times as saying:
"We have sorted out Liverpool."
Oh yes?
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister seems to think that Liverpool is a badly run city—no doubt that has something to do with the Walton by-election. However, as we have been talking £100, will the hon. Gentleman publicly bet me £100 that the Conservatives will win that by-election?
Mr. Key: I have a confession to make—I am not a betting man. When I was about 15 years old I occasionally had a flutter on the point-to-point. My fingers were so badly burned with losing my pocket money that I have not put money on horses or anything else ever since. However, it has not made me rich.
Mr. Harry Cohen: At the conclusion of his remarks about Bournemouth the Minister quickly mentioned the financial problems of local authorities. The underlying financial problem was made much worse by the Government's poll tax and their cuts in grants to local authorities—especially Labour-controlled authorities. The central problem is that richer people live in areas where there are fewer problems and they pay less, and poorer people live in areas with most problems and have to pay more. That is the scandal of this Government.
Mr. Key: It is extraordinary to hear Labour Members yet again perpetuating the myth that there have been cuts in local government spending and resourcing from central Government. Nothing can be further from the truth, and
642
the hon. Gentleman knows it. In the past two years there has been a 25 per cent. increase in central Government funding of local authorities. What matters is the quality of services provided by that money.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Labour party running Liverpool cares so much about services for the people of Liverpool, it would help them by claiming the Government grant available? Millions of pounds are available in grants which they have not even bothered to claim.
Mr. Key: I confirm that there are indeed councils that do not claim what they may claim. It is often because they are so incredibly inefficient that they miss deadlines and often do not even know how to apply for grants. The largest single source of revenue lost to Labour authorities is not merely uncollected community charge but uncollected rates from before the charge was introduced and uncollected business rates from before the introduction of the uniform business rate. It is quite absurd that some authorities are so poor that they cannot even do that.
Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Walton district of Liverpool one person has not paid any rent since 1982 and the amount outstanding was in the order of £9,000? The reason that the money has not been paid was that no one had asked him for rent for that number of years. Due to the by-election in that area, he has miraculously been asked for the rent and has paid it with a cheque.
Mr. Key: I am grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend. I am afraid that it is rather typical. One can quote examples of Labour authorities from all over the country that are in a similar mess.
We recognise the face of Labour government when we see it. However loudly the Leader of the Opposition and his friends may proclaim that they have purged the party of militants, they always resurface, like ghouls from the grave, to haunt him. We were told in an article in The Guardian recently:
"The GMB, union of the contentious gravediggers, reminded people that it was better to die on your feet than live on your knees…their celebrated convenor…Ian Lowes, explained how he coped with the abuse of the bereaved.
`When people are going through that period of their lives…they are not thinking rationally.'
There was much genuine resentment at the way decent strikers could be cast as cold-hearted villains. 'Do they think that union members are immune from bereavement?' asked…one of Liverpool's 47 surcharged councillors. 'During the Winter of Discontent, we had to put our loved ones in storage too.' When the trouble was over,…GMB men volunteered to dig the backlog of graves by candlelight."
What a pity that they got themselves into that position in the first place.
Opposing the lunacy, ineptitude and squalor of the Liverpools and Lambeths does not make this Government "anti-local government". On the contrary, our whole approach over the past few years has been to strengthen the capacity of local government to deliver. We have looked at the practices and methods of the best local authorities and sought to extend them to all authorities. We created the Audit Commission to monitor the performance and quality of local government and provide it with immensely valuable constructive advice. Anybody who does not realise that we already have a "quality commission" simply has not been paying attention.

643
In the past local government has often seemed concerned more with the providers than the receivers of services. It is central Government's role to see things from a wider perspective. Our concern has been to help make local government more responsive to people's needs—to ensure the provision of effective services to the citizen. We should not allow dogma or vested interest to prevent us from achieving that goal.
Our policy is to enable local authorities to survive and grow. Local authorities should be, above all, user-friendly. So our ideal is the enabling authority—local authorities concentrating on the quality and efficiency of local services, rather than the day-to-day difficulties of their organisation and delivery, which is the proper role of council officers.
Competitive tendering has been central to the movement towards enabling authorities. There is widespread recognition in local government that the private sector has much to offer in the delivery of a wide range of services, from rubbish collection to computer management, and individual authorities have been keen to grasp the opportunities for greater efficiency which using private contractors can offer. Their example has been important in helping us to develop our thinking.
With the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988, we have made it compulsory to seek competitive tenders for major manual services, such as construction, building cleaning and refuse collection. For authorities that are enthusiasts for market-testing, compulsory competitive tendering has been a valuable validation of good practice. But for authorities whose ideas of service provision are determined by the demands of the trade unions, not the needs of the community, CCT has come as a rude shock—rude, but healthy!
We have looked at the impact of CCT across local authorities through research carried out by the Institute of Local Government Studies in Birmingham. The message is clear. Competition has produced real productivity improvements, certainly where contracts have been won by private companies, but also where local authorities' work forces have been successful—because they have had to increase their efficiency and trim their costs to compete. At the same time, standards of service have been maintained or improved.
We have made it clear that we are seeking to extend the benefits of competition more widely across local government, in particular by considering how best to bring professional services within a framework of CCT.
Mr. O'Brien: This is an important matter. Does the Minister accept that there is need to write into contracts, whether with private companies or direct labour organisations, that quality must be achieved? We are receiving reports that the quality of service is not being maintained. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to include in any contract a provision about quality?
Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman's remark is timely. Apart from the fact that, of course, quality is implicit in the process, we have commissioned a study that is under way and which will draw on local authorities' experiences of moving services, particularly professional services,
644
towards commercial operation, if not wholly into the private sector. In due course, we shall introduce specific proposals so that local government and other interests can make their views known.
Together with CCT and the quality and efficiency work of the Audit Commission, we are bringing about a steady improvement in local government services. Much more needs to be done. We need to give attention to the quality of services for which local authorities are responsible but which individual citizens experience at first hand. They may know or care little about how a service is organised or exactly who provides it, but they care very much about how that service affects them personally—whether their bins are emptied, for instance, at the time they are supposed to be emptied or whether they find some of the contents in their front gardens when they come home from work. These are small things in themselves, but are what matter a great deal to the householder and in practice are the measure of whether a service is judged good value.
This is where our citizens' charter will bite. It will involve ordinary citizens in the process of improving local services, by giving them the power to insist on value for money. Already the Government's measures under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 empowering citizens to take to court councils which fail in their litter collection duties, are in place. As the House will know, that has happened in Liverpool. The citizens' charter will extend this principle of empowerment to provide ways of encouraging an emphasis on quality in many other areas of local government. Standards of service will be set and checks put into the system to ensure that they are met. Information on service targets and achievements will be freely available to the councils' customers so that they know what they are getting for their money.
Local authorities are already responding to the challenge. Some imaginative schemes are afloat and others are in the pipeline. We recognise where progress is being made and wish to encourage those initiatives. The Government are open to ideas and are considering a whole range of possible measures that will help to improve local services. We will announce our proposals in a White Paper shortly. I am sure that they will be widely welcomed.
Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate the Minister's response to my question about the need to include in contracts provisions about quality. He said that citizens could complain if they felt that standards had not been maintained, but he did not answer my precise question, which was to the effect that there should in contracts be assurances to the effect that quality will be paramount. That is as significant as a citizen's charter.
Mr. Key: I noticed that, while I was answering the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention, he was interrupted by a note being brought into the Chamber for him. I invite him to read the Official Report, and if he is not satisfied with my answer, perhaps he will write to me.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State returned to the Department of the Environment, he sought initially to evaluate what progress we had made from the point of view of inner cities and urban areas since he was last Secretary of State. He was pleased to discover that many of the targets that had been set in the early 1980s had been achieved. A great deal of inner-city regeneration was going on by urban development corporations, in enterprise zones and through the efforts of local

645
authorities. But something was still missing, and that was vision. There was a lack of vision among councillors, communities, the business community, voluntary organisations and so on, and he sought to find a way to encourage that vision.
My right hon. Friend found something else missing after that decade and more. He found that there was still no co-ordinated approach to inner-city regeneration. He realised that local and central government could not be expected to do it all, any more than one could expect individual firms, enterprises or communities to do it all. Accordingly, he set about trying to devise a scheme for competition which would bring in the authorities, with their partners, to achieve a real vision for regenerating quite small areas of their cities. The City Challenge initiative has proved to be exceptionally popular. The Secretary of State, the Minister of State and I are currently visiting cities and talking to local authorities.
It is staggering to discover the enthusiasm and commitment that is being put in by Labour authorities throughout the country. What a pity it is not the norm. What a pity it has taken a Conservative Secretary of State to bring it about. But it will work, and local authorities are bringing together the business community, private sector investors and others, some of whom have not talked to each other for years.
For example, we were in Bristol yesterday. Representatives of Bristol city council, Avon county council, the chamber of commerce, the Bristol initiative scheme, the civic society, churches and others from local communities were all present with me sitting in a room discussing their vision for parts of Bristol. What a pity that did not happen earlier. It is happening now as a result of the commitment of the Government to our inner cities.
Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister intend to visit Liverpool?
Mr. Key: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, as the Minister for Liverpool, is indeed concerned about Liverpool and will be going there, and to the Wirral, both of which have put in bids under the City Challenge procedure. By 5 July, all the 15 selected authorities will have put in their bids and then we, as Ministers, will have the difficult task of judging which 10 should be the winners. Though that will be difficult, in view of the level of commitment shown, it shows the way forward for the future.
Returning to the more mundane issue of the structure of local government, our objective is to maximise local government's capacity to deliver. This has also been a key factor in our approach to the vexed question of structure. What structure will best enable local government to provide effective and efficient services and, at the same time, reflect the sense of identity that people feel with their locality? We aim to produce a local government structure that is in tune with the wishes of the people of an area—the people local government exists to serve. This is clearly a question that interests a great many people. We invited responses to our consultation paper by last Friday. By the end of that day, some 1,500 responses had been received, and they are still coming in.
We intend to introduce legislation establishing the new local government commission, which will assess the most appropriate form of local government area by area, taking into account the wishes of local people. They are best placed to tell us which councils provide the best and most
646
efficient services. They are best placed to explain to central Government how they identify as geographical areas. Subject to parliamentary approval, the commission should be formally established by summer 1992 and we hope to see the first new unitary authorities set up on 1 April 1994.
What does the Labour party want to do? It pays lip service to government close to the people and says that it wants to impose a tier of regional government with 10 assemblies. It will take power from local people and from this Parliament.
Too often, the relationship between central and local government is seen as a battle. Too much is heard of the cries of vested interest disguised as "defenders of local democracy". We have been through a difficult time in the past 10 years, but it is now clear to most people in local government that the Government have been steering them in the right direction.
More and more authorities are grasping the opportunities for efficiency and value for money that we have given them. More and more have recognised that the enabling authority, and not the creaking old paternalistic ways of pre-1990 eastern Europe, is the model for the future. Exceptions such as Liverpool and Lambeth just serve to illustrate the point.
Respect has to be earned and is easily lost. People in local government want to be respected for the work that they do. Most of them now realise that the only way for local government to earn the public's respect is to provide quality services efficiently. This Government will continue to do all they can to help them.
1.52 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: It would be peevish of me not to welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on his motion. My speech will be somewhat shorter than the one that I should like to have made, given the number of issues that have been raised so far, but I do not wish to be selfish and other hon. Members also wish to speak before half-past two.
I regret the knockabout nature of the debate until the Government Front Bench became involved. I have some regard for the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and I welcome his comment about councillors in local government, whether Tory or Labour, and the service that they provide. They do not receive the same salaries and fringe benefits as Members of Parliament, and in many cases, they get abuse, vilification and very little gratitude, even when they are doing a good job. The Minister's words contrasted starkly with those of the hon. Member for Stroud, who could have made a much better speech.
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman did not attend the debate until rather a later hour, so he cannot possibly know what I said in my speech.
Mr. Banks: I appeared in the Chamber at about 10 minutes to ten, when the hon. Gentleman had been speaking for about 11 minutes. He continued to speak for what seemed like an age but was probably about another 25 or 30 minutes, so I had a good idea of his drift. I certainly heard enough to make me feel fully justified in saying that such a sneering, carping, miserable, pathetic

647
speech was not worthy of him or of the House on such an important subject. I am glad that that is now also on the record.
Many Conservative Members take the simplistic approach that if a council is Labour controlled it is bad, and if it is Tory controlled it is good. That is fatuous, and it is impossible to have a properly structured, rational debate when people take that attitude. Anyone who knows anything about local government—I purport to know a little, having been involved in it for some years—will know that there are good Conservative local authorities, such as the one I spoke about earlier, Bournemouth, and there are bad ones. There are bad Labour authorites and good ones. But to take exceptions and use them as a way of attacking all Labour authorities or all local government is unworthy of Conservative Members and certainly not justified in relation to those who work so hard in local authorities.
The continual debates, Bills and orders on local authority matters that we now have in the House show how low grade and petty we have become in recent years. Part of the problem has arisen from the obsessive desire of recent Conservative Governments to decide everything centrally. The great helmswoman, during her period of office, could not resist interfering in everything, whether the opinions and affairs of her hon. Friends or the conduct of local government. As the Minister said, the notion that local government has become a battlefield is a true one, but it became a battlefield because of the enormous hostility of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) towards local government. London in particular became a battlefield, to the point where she decided that she was not prepared to tolerate what was going on in county hall in the Greater London council, so she abolished it, along with the metropolitan county councils. That is no way for parliamentary sovereignty to be used. It is not true democracy if someone decides that she does not like what is going on in a particular town or county hall and so uses the parliamentary majority to abolish it.
It still rankles with me that someone can approach structures of local government in London and elsewhere by deciding, with a flourish of the pen, that the whole structure is to be abolished. We have heard much talk from Conservative Members, particularly Ministers, about devolution and accountability in local government, but the process used by them has always been to centralise and remove from scrutiny. More and more local government fuctions are moving into the hands of quangos, indirectly elected organisations and Government Departments, where Members of the House cannot scrutinise them. The desire to centralise and the hostility towards local government mean that we have many debates about a section of political activity that we should leave to the people involved, so that they are accountable only to those whom they represent through the ballot box.
Another part of the problem of local authority debates and matters in this House is that we have seen the absolute and relative decline of the whole country. There was a time when local government rarely came up as an issue in the House, apart from the rate support grant and the annual debate. For the rest of the time, central Government allowed local authorities to go their own way and to carry out the functions for which they were elected.
The country has been turned into a bit player among
648
the family of nations, particularly in Europe. That fact is reflected in the House and how we conduct our business today. We are turning into a low-grade, provincial Parliament on the edge of Europe, working ever harder on matters of ever-diminishing importance.
There have been many tumultous events in eastern Europe, in Africa and in Latin America. Around the world, in places such as Africa, people are starving. People are in turmoil and are reaching out for new democratic structures that they have not experienced. The hon. Member for Stroud could have tabled a motion so that we could discuss significant matters affecting the world, and particularly this country, but because there is a by-election in Walton, a party-political knockabout was introduced to try to stir up a bit of nastiness so that the Labour party would lose a few votes in the Liverpool, Walton constituency. I am happy to give all hon. Members their opportunity for knockabout, but I bet any Conservative Member present whatever amount—they are all far wealthier than me—that the Conservative party will not win the by-election in Liverpool, Walton. Indeed, the Conservative candidate will be lucky to hold on to his deposit. All the puff and wind on the Conservative Benches will not win them any votes in Liverpool.
As for local government provision of housing in London, there is a housing crisis in the capital. There are 20,000 empty council properties in London, but there are also 97,000 empty private sector houses in London. The Select Committee reported only yesterday that the Government are responsible for the fact that there are 31,000 empty properties that could be used to house the homeless. Throwing statistics backwards and forwards is an insult to the homeless. It is disgusting and nauseous that the homeless have been turned into a political football. Conservative Members are not prepared to sit down with us and try to solve the homelessness problem in London, which has reached crisis proportions. We are trying to find a consensual way out. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) laughs—
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I was not laughing.
Mr. Banks: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The idea of a Labour local authority sitting down with central Government, or Labour politicians sitting down with Conservative politicians, to find an agreed way out of what we all accept is a scandal in this capital city —80,000 people in bed and breakfast accommodation and perhaps 10,000 people sleeping on the streets—is apparently something that he regards as funny. That is absolutely staggering.
Mr. Arnold: I am amazed at the hypocrisy of it all. The council with the largest number of unoccupied council flats in Greater London is the hon. Gentleman's own Labour-controlled council in Newham. He should not be sitting down with us discussing it—the Labour council in Newham should get on with solving the problem.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed to the point of being a fool. If he knew anything about the London borough of Newham, he would realise that the fact that there are so many vacant properties is due to the council having to move people out of unsafe tower blocks, built by Taylor Walker Anglian. Ronan Point was so unsafe that part of it fell down and people were killed. We have had to move hundreds of families out of tower blocks

649
because they were unsafe to live in. For a Conservative Member to say that there is something wrong with us in Newham as we have so many vacant properties—because we have moved people out of properties that were in danger of falling down and taking people with them—seems to me not hypocrisy but stupidity developed into an art form, something in which the hon. Gentleman specialises.
As for empty properties in London in either Conservative or Labour-controlled local authorities, when Conservative authorities want to do something about housing the homeless in their boroughs—I exclude Westminster from the list—they find that they cannot get the money to rehouse people in those empty dwellings. For example, in the past year the withdrawal of Government subsidies forced London boroughs to increase council rents by 22·9 per cent., compared with 13·8 per cent. in the country as a whole. The reason for so many rent arrears in London is the simple fact that people cannot afford to pay the rent. That is a major problem, but Conservative Members do not seem to think that it exists.
There have also been Government cuts in local authority capital spending on council housing in London. That has hit London far harder than anywhere else. In real terms, there has been an estimated 74 per cent. fall in London between 1979 and 1991, compared with a 64 per cent. fall nationally. That is the reason for so many empty properties and why rent arrears are so high. One does not need to have a PhD in housing administration to work out why there is a housing crisis in London. For example, London councils had 170,000 fewer homes for rent at the end of the 1980s than they had at the beginning of the decade because they had been sold off and were no longer available to rent.
There has been an 80 per cent. cut in the housing investment programme allocation by central Government. Local authorities cannot afford to build houses now. In the 1970s, London local authorities built 25,000 units of accommodation per year. Now they are building 1,500 per year. Some local authorities are building none. Is it surprising, therefore, that there are 80,000 people in bed and breakfast and temporary accommodation in central London? Conservative Members throw out cheap, silly sneers about vacant properties and the level of rent arrears, but they are not interested in solving the housing problem or in the homeless people in London. Many of the homeless, by definition, do not have the vote, so they are not part of Conservative Members' political considerations, but the homeless do exist and they are a real problem in Labour-held boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was absolutely right to say that Labour authorities have so many problems because they cover the poorest areas, where the problems are legion.
It is no good saying that it is all about value for money. I understand the principle, but we need the money to start with. Since 1979 money has been taken away from local authorities which have then been told that they are somehow not managing to deal with their problems. Someone who is now departed—although not far enough for me—said, "You don't solve problems by throwing money at them", but nor does one solve them by taking money away, which is what has been happening in local government since 1979. It has been robbed blind by the Government.
I am conscious of the time. There are still many points that I should like to make, but I am not selfish and I intend
650
to give way to an hon. Member with whom I shall disagree entirely. However, anyone who arrives at the beginning of a private Member's debate on a Friday morning is entitled to his four pennyworth, and I have already had three and a half pennyworth.
The Minister mentioned the paper on the reform of the structure of local government. Why should we not have another look at local government? We seem to be spending all our time looking at and interfering with local government structure. I resent the fact that the one area that has been excluded from any consideration for structural change has been the capital city. That has been deliberate. There are one or two sensible Tories—none of them in the House at the moment, except the Minister—who come to me and say that it makes sense to have a strategic authority for London because it needs one.
When Londoners have a Labour Government after the next general election, they will have a strategic authority which will be called the Greater London authority. I hope that it will be based at county hall and will provide Londoners with something that they are unique in not having. London is the only capital city that does not have a citywide local government structure. That is appalling, and it is an indictment of the Government—and especially of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who still looms large enough for even the sensible Tories not to vote as they would like and restore strategic government for London.
About 50 per cent. of Londoners would quit the capital city if they could—for a variety of reasons, of which transport is the primary one. Other reasons include the filthy streets, the potholed roads and the general poor quality of life, all of which make London a pretty nasty, unco-ordinated and unpleasant place to live. The transport system is overcrowded and the provision of many services is bad. One thing is clear: two thirds of Londoners say that London needs a strategic authority. Conservative Members should listen carefully as we are approaching a general election. I do not expect this Government to provide us with such a strategic authority, but London will have one as soon as the Labour Government are elected.
2.8 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) ended with the comment, "as soon as the Labour Government are elected." That is an abstraction. How can we know what the Labour Government would do when we have to rely on the peppering of pledges that we have heard in the House time and again? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has done the House a great service by costing those pledges and showing that an abstract Labour Government would mean an extra 15p in the £1 on the standard rate of income tax.
We need not consider abstractions or look into the crystal ball; we can look at the book of Labour government in action, and that is where this debate is so useful. In the New Statesman and Society—the Labour party's house magazine—Sarah Baxter put it clearly when she said:
"Local authorities have provided the sole model of Labour in power in the past decade (and many have given the electorate a good fright)".
How right she is. Whichever way one looks at the Labour party in government, one sees high taxation.

651
Which councils have the highest community charge this year? The five top chargers are Labour councils. Lambeth charged £450 and Haringey charged £420—what one might call the loonie left of London. Bristol is in third place, Islington is fourth and Oxford, of all places, is fifth. They are all Labour councils. Liverpool, which we have discussed today, is ripping off from its community charge payers the 10th highest charge.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) for raising the specific matter of the delivery of local government services. Let us have a quick look at how local councils deliver those services. Education is the largest service. Let us consider the councils that spend the most on education and then let us consider what they deliver in terms of the examination results of the youngsters about whom we should be concerned.
Let us look back two years ago to the unlamented Inner London education authority which had the highest spending on each child. Out of the 96 education authorities, its youngsters came 88th in terms of examination results. That hardly served those youngsters and was hardly value for money in giving them education. The second highest spender was Labour-controlled Waltham Forest, but its examination results were 95th out of 96 as a result of the education given under that authority. The third highest spender was Brent, which was then Labour, but in its examinations it was 75th out of 96. Newham, which is dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, was the fourth highest spender, yet managed to clock in at 93rd out of 96 in the examination performance of its youngsters. That is hardly value for money and is hardly good education for the children concerned. Why is that occurring?
Let us consider which authorities spend the most of their employment money within the education service on teachers in the classroom—the teachers who teach the children. In Newcastle upon Tyne, which is Labour controlled, fewer than half the staff in the education department are teaching the children. Some 54 per cent. are non-teachers—bureaucrats, administrators and good- ness knows what else. In Coventry, the second on the list, fewer than half the staff in the education department are teachers of children. The third worst is Cleveland, which is Labour controlled, and it is followed by Sheffield, which is Labour controlled, and Northumberland, which is Labour controlled, where 49 per cent. of the education department staff are not teachers. What is education all about if money is not put up front where the children are to be educated?
Mr. Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Arnold: If I am quick, the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later.
The Government have given great encouragement to our councils to put money up front in our schools under local financial management. Which councils put the least money up front in the schools for spending directly on teachers and on provision for our children? Which councils hold back the most for the central bureaucracy? Again, we find that it is Labour councils. Cumbria, under Labour and Liberal Democrat control, retains almost 29 per cent. of the money at the centre rather than spending it on schools. Haringey, which is Labour controlled,
652
retains 28·6 per cent. Newcastle, which is Labour controlled, retains 28·2 per cent. It would rather spend the money on the central bureaucracy than on the schools in which our children are taught.
The other great local government service is housing. Housing is provided for people in need to live in, as was said by Labour Members. Which are the 10 authorities with the highest number of vacant properties? All are Labour controlled and include Manchester, Liverpool, Salford, Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newham of which we spoke, Leeds and Sunderland. They are Labour councils that cannot administer their housing stock properly. Why not? One reason is that they do not have the money; but why is that? It is because they are incompetent and do not collect their rents properly.
I wonder how many people know that when Brent was controlled by the Labour party 44 per cent. of its annual rents were not collected; it had arrears on the roll. In Lambeth, 32 per cent. of the rents were not collected. In Southwark—Labour-controlled again—31·9 per cent. were not collected. We can go all the way down the list of Labour councils—Hackney, Islington, Ealing, Liverpool, Haringey, Waltham Forest, and Newham. none of them collect their full rents and they therefore do not have the money for instance to reconstruct tower blocks that were built under Labour councils in the first place.
Those are all cases of incompetence, but there is worse to come. Look at the waste. Why did Birmingham's Labour council see fit to spend ratepayers' money on 149 trips to 31 countries, including Puerto Rico, the Gambia, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia, the United States and Pakistan? The most popular destination was France, with 29 trips. What does that have to do with local councils delivering services to local people? We have heard about Derbyshire, and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) condescendingly said that he had returned £52 to Derbyshire county council. Perhaps that defrayed some of the expense of the county council's party to celebrate the release of Nelson Mandela, which cost local charge payers £2,000. Can that be described as money going into local services?
Labour-controlled Bradford voted to spend £10,000 to commemorate a strike that had taken place in the city 100 years ago. Is that a priority for funds? That is Labour local government in action.
The examples that I have given are of incompetence and misdirected services—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Let me give my hon. Friend an example on a larger scale. During five years of Labour control, with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West Mr. Banks) as a committee chairman and then as chairman of the council, the GLC spent £8,870,000,000. Can my hon. Friend think of anything that improved during that time?
Mr. Arnold: No, I cannot—nor has any Labour Member given any evidence today of improvements taking place.
We are told, "Never mind the incompetence and the failure to deliver services; at least we have got rid of the loonie left." But have we really? Did we know that, during the Gulf war, Lambeth and Lewisham Labour councils both ordered drivers to remove union jacks from council vans and minibuses? Did we know that Harlow Labour council has prohibited the playing of the national anthem

653
at council functions? Did we know that Labour-controlled Manchester spent £47,440 on a gay village and £33,000 on a lesbian link counselling project? Are they the local services delivered by Labour government in action? And Camden spent £17,000 a year on a lesbian day centre. What kind of councils are these?
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is being unfair to Hackney, which has organised a six-week course of counselling sessions for grieving black lesbians. Despite a considerable amount spent on publicity, it has not yet found a single grieving black lesbian. Will my hon. Friend comment on that matter?
Mr. Arnold: Yes. Labour councils are obsessed with such shibboleths when they should be getting down to brass tacks and delivering services to local residents.
Let us look at what some leading Labour council leaders and commentators have to say about their performance. The current leader of Labour-controlled Liverpool city council, Councillor Harry Rimmer, said:
"We know we are overstaffed, we know we are inefficient"
Well, what are they doing about it? In Labour-controlled Bristol, Jim Williams, Bristol's first black lord mayor, was dropped by Labour as a candidate in this year's council election. He said:
"I have been told they decided to get rid of me because I wasn't green enough and I wasn't left-wing enough."
That is the modern sanitised Labour party. The former Labour leader of Liverpool city council, Keva Coombs, said:
"There just isn't any proper management and we should have worked harder to ensure there was."
What are they waiting for?
Joan Twelves, the Labour leader of Lambeth borough council, said:
"It is hard to find the right word to describe the state of Lambeth's finances—`dire' is close."
On the question of the former Greater London council, so beloved of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, Ben Jones, a commentator in Labour Briefing, said:
"A campaign to re-establish the GLC could be very popular but unfortunately the dire record of Labour local government undermines the enthusiasm that exists." He could not have put it better.
2.20 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: As time is short, I shall not follow Conservative Members' anecdotal attacks on Labour local authorities. They did not once mention Westminster council, with its selling of cemeteries for 15p and its wish to sell its homeless people to other boroughs, despite the fact that it has plenty of empty houses. Conservative Members conveniently forget Tory examples. Such anecdotes are part of their overall attack on Labour authorities. They cite all the anecdotal evidence because they want to cover the fact that the Government have cut grants to Labour local authorities. Billions of pounds of central Government grant have been taken away from Labour authorities so that they can no longer provide the services that their areas need.
I welcome the debate on local government services because I want to raise the important issue of the housing crisis, both in my borough and in London generally. It is a desperate crisis. Some 33,400 households—more than 80,000 people—are living in temporary accommodation awaiting a permanent home. That is a tenfold increase over the past year. If I had brought to the House all those
654
people in my housing file, I could have filled the Benches on both sides of the House. I will cite the first case that I picked up this morning. A Mr. Raja wrote to me saying:
"I have been living at …for the last 13 years with my wife and six children ranging from 1 to 12 years …in appalling conditions as I am occupying only one room."
I intend to raise his case with the council. He and his family would have had a much greater chance of being rehoused a decade ago. Now, he has little chance because of the housing crisis. I suspect that, after I have raised his case with the council, yet another sorry reply will be sent to him.
My housing authority in Waltham Forest is relatively good, especially in the circumstance of various options being closed by the Government. It has avoided bed and breakfast. It has fewer empty properties than most other authorities—certainly fewer than the private sector and fewer than central Government, who preside over 31,000 empty houses, often for a long time.
I wish to refer to the report of the director of housing for Waltham Forest. It is a microcosm of the crisis faced by London local authorities. It points out that there has been a massive increase of 58 per cent. in homelessness during the first few months of 1991, compared with the same period in 1990. There has been no increase in staff to cope with that because of the pressure caused by the poll tax. Casework is falling behind, with ever more cases needing investigation. The homeless are having to wait for up to nine months before they are offered accommodation. More than 500 cases are waiting to be investigated.
The director says that there is no one reason for the increase in homelessness, but he says that the number of people with mortgage difficulties is now twice as high, and the number of applications from refugees is two and a half times as high. No money comes from the Government, to help. The director points out that the number of applications from people who have lost private rented accommodation is one and a half times as high. If friends and relatives are not willing to accommodate an applicant, he is pushed further down the queue and told to make his own arrangements.
On the other side of the coin, the housing director points out that the supply of accommodation has been significantly reduced. The number of houses available in November, December and January fell from 195 in 1989–90 to 158 in 1990–91. Nominations to housing associations are much lower. The number of properties that an authority can lease for homeless people has dried up because the Government revised the subsidy reviews in October 1990. The effects trickle through because it takes time to negotiate leases.
The housing director points out that many families have to go into one-bedroom accommodation because that is all that is available. Even with families in such unsuitable accommodation, this year there will be a shortfall of 370 properties. Only 209 urgent cases out of a waiting list of thousands will be rehoused.
Many people are told to make their own temporary arrangements for an indefinite period and many are in grossly inadequate accommodation. People in category A special management transfers—for example, victims of domestic violence or racial harassment—cannot get rehoused. Even the useful transfers list—whereby people in family-sized accommodation move to smaller, more

655
suitable accommodation, making their houses available for families—is clogged up because of the enormous pressure.
The housing director concludes by pointing out the impact on staff. He says:
"The rise in homeless has obviously created severe pressures on staff. Not only the increased work in investigating applications, but also the additional work involved in advising and counselling people turned away who would otherwise be rehoused and who may refuse to leave the office, have not been matched by more staff and have contributed to the high levels of stress and poor morale amongst officers in the Homeless Persons and Housing Advice Units."
We all extend our condolences to the family of the planning officer who was shot. It was a shocking incident. I am amazed that more people in housing departments —[Interruption.] Many people fall victim or are put at risk in a similar way. As well as extending condolences, the Minister should institute a review of security for local officers who face such risks.
I welcome the debate. I checked with the Library and found that the last debate on housing and homelessness was on 3 July 1990. It is a scandal that the House has put off discussing a problem of such magnitude. The Conservative party has been in power for the past 12 years. The Government have created this crisis. They sold the best houses and did not make all the money available to the councils that owned them. The houses were sold at big discounts, and because of Treasury regulations the councils were not allowed to spend even amounts that they received from those sales on improving existing homes or building new ones.
Mr. Tony Banks: The councils have faced huge cuts.
Mr. Cohen: As my hon. Friend says, there have been huge cuts in the housing investment allocation, amounting to 80 per cent. in real terms. The consequence has been enormous personal misery for Mr. Raja and his family, and for all the others I have encountered in my caseload or at my advice surgery. The papers that I have received about this matter would fill these Benches—and I am talking only about my caseload, let alone those of other hon. Members. That damage will take years and years—
It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day
  Private Members' Bills

    HARE COURSING BILL
    Order read for consideration (not amended in the Standing Committee).
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Consideration deferred till 28 June.

    BREEDING OF DOGS BILL
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Alan Williams.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must point out that Mr. Speaker deprecates further stages of a Bill being taken without notice. Does any hon. Member object to our proceedings? So be it.
    Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    NATIONAL AUDIT (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Tony Banks: With the agreement of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 28 June.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    FORESTRY COMMISSION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (ANIMAL TESTING) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    PARISH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    COAL IMPORTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    HOSPITAL SCHOOLS IN LONDON BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS ACT 1976 (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I decline to put the Question.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    HEALTH CARE OF PRISONERS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT 1973 (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 28 June.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 26th June, the Motion in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to European Standing Committees may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, and, if those proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put the Questions necessary to dispose of them, including the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which he may have selected which may then be moved.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Northern Ireland (Ministerial Accountability)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. David Davis.]
2.33 pm
Mr. David Trimble: The question of accountability lies at the heart of the functions of the House and was established by our predecessor but one, the English Parliament, which had a clear tradition of refusing to grant supply to the monarch until there had been redress of grievances, thus eventually helping to establish the principle that Ministers were accountable to the House.
Accountability has three different aspects: the accountability of the Administration as a whole, of the entire Government, which has to command a majority within the House; the accountability of individual Ministers to the House and their relationship with hon. Members; and Ministers' accountability to their colleagues in government, which could also be regarded as an aspect of collective responsibility.
1 intend not to discuss the position of the Government as a whole, but to concentrate on the accountability of Ministers. I shall mention four aspects of accountability and of Ministers' relationship with hon. Members and the House. One may approach Ministers or raise issues with them through correspondence and in oral and written questions. Ministers are also accountable to the Committees of the House.
I am sure that the House is aware that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have a serious grievance with regard to that latter aspect of Ministers' accountability—the absence of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Select Committees were introduced comparatively recently in the life of Parliament. The present Select Committees stem from 1979. They were established to strengthen the function of the House and its role with regard to accountability. They were established for all Government Departments but one. There is one major Government Department for which there is no Select Committee—the Northern Ireland Office. Every other major Government Department has a Select Committee. There are Select Committees for Home Affairs, Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs, Health, and Social Security. The other two territorial Departments have Select Committees; the Welsh Office has a Select Committee, and there is provision for a Select Committee for the Scottish Office. I say "provision" because, due to difficulties over membership, it has not proved possible to constitute it during this Parliament. However, there is no Northern Ireland Select Committee.
To remedy that gap, other Select Committees have tried to cover Northern Ireland matters by including them within their remit, but it has not been a happy experience. I do not intend to discuss that at any great length because it is covered fairly adequately by the recent report of the Select Committee on Procedure on Select Committees and I assume that at some time in the not-too-distant future there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss that report and such issues can then be touched upon.
I direct the attention of hon. Members to a few passages from that report. In paragraph 46 the Procedure Committee said:

659
"very few Committees made any specific mention of this aspect"—
Northern Ireland matters—
"in their orders of reference. The Energy Committee has made some attempt to cover the affairs of the Province with one visit and evidence and Reports on the Gas Industry and on Electricity Supply in Northern Ireland. The Chairman of the Committee acknowledged however, that it had 'only occasionally fulfilled its duties to examine Northern Ireland matters', and he added ' I do not believe that Committees with Great Britain members alone will ever do justice to Northern Ireland issues'."
Other Committees have not even attempted to cover Northern Ireland matters. Paragraph 47 of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure refers to the views of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, who reveals that he has not attempted even to cover Northern Ireland issues. He appears to think that he should not do so. As the report says, there has been a fragmentary coverage of Northern Ireland affairs. A few Committees have tried—recently, the Select Committee on Health.
The fragmentary coverage means that the Northern Ireland Office escapes scrutiny. Some of its functions and matters within its purview might occasionally be covered by other Select Committees, but attention is inconsistent and one cannot expect each Select Committee to adopt the same approach. For that reason, the Procedure Select Committee concluded that there was a case—in my view, a strong case—
"for bringing the Northern Ireland Office formally within the system of scrutiny by Select Committees."
It is interesting that the Government accepted that case in their response to the report. The key sentence is:
"The Government accepts that, in principle, a select committee concerned solely with the work of the NIO and Northern Ireland Departments may be desirable in order to ensure that Northern Ireland matters receive the parliamentary scrutiny they deserve."
That is a significant concession from the Government, and it must be regarded as such. If they concede that, why have steps not been taken to establish such a Committee? The Procedure Select Committee considered it to be desirable, there is considerable evidence to show that it is desirable, and the Government have acknowledged that it is desirable. Why, then, has it not been done? It is not because of difficulties such as those encountered by the Scottish Office in setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
We in Northern Ireland are perhaps more tolerant than the Scots and even the Welsh. We have said that we are prepared to allow hon. Members who represent constituencies outside Northern Ireland to be part of our Select Committee. Not only that, we are even prepared to allow them to be in the majority. We are so anxious to see such a Select Committee established that we are prepared to accept a minority role on it. That shows our anxiety to establish this important Committee and to reinforce the important function of the House to bring the Executive to account and to scrutinise the functions of government. There is a clear need for that scrutiny.
I have said that contacts with Ministers come not only through the House and its Committees, but through questions and correspondence. I do not intend to refer to oral questions and Question Time, which is a rather special, almost gladiatorial exercise. One does not expect and one rarely sees any significant result from it. In
660
passing, however, it is noticeable—other hon. Members have noticed this with regard to other oral question proceedings—how the Government seem to try to pack the Order Paper. I feel keenly about that.
I tabled a question for each of the past four Northern Ireland Question Times, but only once did my question even get on the Order Paper. I had the chagrin of seeing that the early questions on the Order Paper were tabled by Members who were not only not from Northern Ireland —that is not so bad—but who had not displayed any particular interest in Northern Ireland. One suspects that they were encouraged to table their questions to give Ministers the opportunity to have a breather or to spin out the time and prevent other hon. Members from raising important issues.
The matters that I want to raise about the conduct of individual Ministers relate to written questions and correspondence. Those are issues about which one expects Ministers to be accountable to hon. Members, and I am not happy with the situation. The problem with correspondence is the regrettable delay between writing and receiving replies from some Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office.
I asked my consituency secretary to go through my files of corespondence, and I confess that I asked for the correspondence with the Minister who is the slowest to respond, who I regret to say is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), and I will give an example of the problem concerning him.
There was outside Portadown in my constituency an issue of considerable importance to the local community concerning a tip or dump on an old quarry that was being used as a landfill site for domestic waste. A fly-by-night cowboy operator from Dundalk—in the Irish Republic; where else?—had somehow managed to erect on that tip a number of storage tanks for industrial waste. They were on a tip for domestic waste from which methane gas was escaping and regularly being ignited. There was much concern about it in the locality and I raised the issue at Government level.
The first time I wrote to the Minister on the subject was on 10 December 1990. I received holding replies on 17 December and 3 January and a substantive reply on 21 January, an interval of six weeks. I wrote again on 23 January. I received holding replies on 25 January and 5 February and a substantive reply on 28 February, a five-week interval. Prior to receiving that reply I had written another substantive letter, on 26 February, and I received holding replies on 28 February and 12 March and finally a substantive reply on 18 April, an interval of seven weeks.
It was not as if the replies required important research on detailed technical matters. It was a straightforward issue, but there were intervals of six, five and seven weeks, and that was not unusual. On other issues I have experienced intervals of four, 10, five, four, nine and seven weeks. If the Minister would like the details, I will furnish him with the list. It is not a satisfactory record.
I am reminded of a comment from the time of the Kilbrandon commission many years ago when the question of devolution was under consideration. That commission referred, in regard to local accountability, to a person who had given evidence before the commission and who said that Government officers and Ministers should be located in relation to the individual citizen in

661
such a way that an angry farmer could take a bus, visit the relevant Minister, horsewhip him and get back home before nightfall. That may not be altogether possible in the present security position back home, but sometimes it might be thought to be appropriate.
I have been dealing with the problems that hon. Members face when letters are sent to the Northern Ireland Office. The situation is not happy when it comes to written questions, and in that connection I shall cite some exchanges that I have had with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who will reply to this debate.
I tabled questions about new health boards that had been established in Northern Ireland. I raised the issue because, like many others, I was concerned about the quality of the persons who had been nominated. As for the nomination of non-experts, non-professional staff, there was no element, so far as one could see, of a representative character or balance, but we have become accustomed to that from the Northern Ireland Office, which rarely makes an effort to be representative and fair in its distribution of appointments.
As I was as much concerned with quality as with representation, I tabled a written question asking the Minister
"if he will list the members of the …boards …indicating in respect of each the original nominating person or body; and whether there was consultation at any stage in respect of each such member with the Government of the Irish Republic".—[Official Report, I May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 199.]
I received from the Minister an answer referring me to earlier answers he had given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) in which the names had been listed, but there was no reference to the other matters that I had raised about the original nominating person or body.
So I tabled a further question, which the Minister answered on 20 May 1991. I asked the Minister whether
"he has anything to add to his reply of 1 May in respect of the original nominating person or body of those appointed to serve on health and social security boards".—[Official Report, 20 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 379.]
The Minister said that he had nothing to add. That was particularly unsatisfactory given that I had framed my question in that way because I had seen an answer dated 25 March 1991, given by a Minister responsible for Scotland. He had been asked to give the original nominating body of each member who had been appointed to those boards. He complied with that request and listed all the members, giving their occupations and the original nominating person or body. The Minister was happy to acknowledge that the first appointment on the list was the Scottish Conservative party. The list also includes local health councils, the CBI, cancer research committees, local authorities, Conservative constituency associations, Conservative Members, Ministers, persons connected with the Conservative party and other bodies such as universities, the Red Cross Society, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and other such bodies.
If the Scottish Minister had no hesitation in revealing the original nominating bodies, why is there a difference with regard to Northern Ireland matters? If that information can be made available for Scotland, why cannot it be made available for Northern Ireland'? 'What is the difference'? Why is there such secrecy'? What is the Minister trying to hide?
662
A question tabled for Northern Ireland questions about a week ago by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) appeared briefly on the Order Paper and was then withdrawn. It asked the Secretary of State to make a statement in response to the report on the Irish sea of the environment education and culture committee of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. At Northern Ireland questions last Thursday, that question had been withdrawn and we can guess why—the report is secret, like so many other matters connected with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That, one suspects, is the reason behind the secrecy in this case. The Minister is reluctant to reveal matters relating to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I said at the outset that, as well as being accountable to individual hon. Members, Ministers are also accountable to the Government of which they form part. That is partly why my original question referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, Northern Ireland Office Ministers are in a slightly different position from others because they are accountable not only to the Government but to a Government of another country—the Irish Republic, which has been given the right to propose and nominate persons. Perhaps that is what the Minister was concealing—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes an answer from the Minister, he must draw his remarks to a close. Time is short and the debate must end at 3.3 pm.
Mr. Trimble: Thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Once again, I have been more long-winded than I intended, but I shall draw the matter to a close.
I suspect that the Minister is concealing the extent to which the Northern Ireland Office has compromised the sovereignty of the House. We saw another example of that last night when the Secretary of State referred to the difficulties that he is now creating for himself with regard to the inter-party talks in Northern Ireland. The subject may be raised at meetings to be held later today. I hope that when the Secretary of State meets both his masters he will entreat them to get him out of the difficulties in which he found himself last night.
2.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): When I saw the subject of today's debate I wondered what heinous error of omission or commission I or one of my ministerial colleagues might have committed. Since I was appointed to this post by the Prime Minister, I have worked long hours, late into the night, as have my colleagues, to answer as speedily but as fully as possible any letter or question posed by hon. Members and their constituents, either through correspondence or in the House.
Why should the accountability of Northern Ireland Office Ministers require special debate? What makes us different from Ministers of other Departments? Are we any the less accountable to Parliament or the public for what we do? As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in no different position from any other Cabinet Minister as far

663
as accountability to the House goes. He faces questions in the House; he has to deal with parliamentary debates and motions in the same way as his colleagues.
Yesterday, a debate in Committee was dealt with by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), and yesterday evening there were six and a half hours of debate in the Chamber exclusively on Northern Ireland business. Therefore, all Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are called to account, which I suppose is exactly what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is doing today. He is using his rights to call us to account.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann did not deal specifically with the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, but it is important. We have a special way of legislating for Northern Ireland in this House—we use an Order in Council procedure. That is, in some ways, unsatisfactory and is regarded as such by most people, but it is the least bad way of legislating for the Province at present. The fact that hon. Members cannot amend Orders in Council in the same way as they can amend Bills is far from ideal. As the hon. Member well knows, however, exceptional measures are taken to enable consultation on proposed draft orders, including the publication in advance of the actual text of the proposed legislation. That enables hon. Members and other interested parties to discuss the proposals in the full knowledge of what is entailed and to comment on the detailed wording of the proposed legislation. The Government are, of course, pleased to be able to discuss and take account of, as far as possible, comments that may be offered. The Northern Ireland Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has just been brought back into use—at the request of the hon. Gentleman's party. I am happy to say that it provides a parliamentary forum in which issues relating exclusively to Northern Ireland can be debated. As the hon. Member knows, that Committee is a purely considerative body, but I am sure that it can provide another useful opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to seek explanations of ministerial policies and legislative proposals and for Northern Ireland Ministers to provide them. Of course, once a draft order is laid, Ministers must come to the House to debate it before it can be put to the Privy Council. Therefore, even if accountability on this sort of legislation is not of the same type as in the case of Bills, it still exists and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and all my colleagues take seriously—as I do—their responsibilities to ensure that legislation for Northern Ireland is properly prepared, properly explained and properly delivered to Parliament and to the people of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the question of ministerial accountability to Parliament through the Select Committee system. There is no provision in the House's Standing Orders for a territorial Select Committee. There is no shadow for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. Whatever comfort we might derive from that is, of course, tempered by the knowledge that the Secretary of State, other Ministers, myself and our civil servants can be called before any of the departmental Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman said that that system was not satisfactory,
664
but the Select Committee on Trade and Industry can look into the work of the Department of Economic Development and the Industrial Development Board; the Agriculture Committee can look at the work of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland—I have been summoned before the Committee next week, on the subject of fallen animals. The Public Accounts Committee has the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments within its remit, as it showed this week when it investigated and took evidence from the chief executive of the health service on the subject of trust status and the other reforms. The Select Committee on Energy intends to undertake an inquiry into the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. Therefore, the absence of a territorial Select Committee does not mean that the Northern Ireland Office Ministers are immune from accountability to the Select Committee system.
I appreciate that a Select Committee, based on territorial grounds specifically for Northern Ireland, might give a keener focus to the scrutiny of Northern Ireland matters in Parliament. The Government said as much in their reply, published in May, to the relevant comments in the Procedure Committee's report on the working of the Select Committee system. However, in line with the Procedure Committee, we do not feel that this is the right time to agree to the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. We should need to be satisfied that the establishment of such a Committee would be supported by elected representatives from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. That is exactly what we are discussing, to an extent, in the talks that are under way. The issue is under review. It may well be raised in the talks at Stormont, or further afield.
The hon. Gentleman said that the British-Irish Parliamentary Body is a creature of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I must disabuse him of that fact. The British-Irish Parliamentary Body was established well in advance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That is why the hon. Gentleman's party was invited to join. I regret that it has not done so. I believe that the British-Irish Parliamentary Body is doing a lot of good work.
If I may refer briefly to parliamentary questions, the hon. Gentleman referred to my fellow Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), and also to questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me. I shall certainly look into these specific cases with care and write to him about them.
As for the health boards, I had not appreciated until today that an answer had been given by the Scottish Office. I shall therefore have a look at it. We try as hard as possible to make sure that our answers are very full. One of the features of Northern Ireland questions, though not those asked by the hon. Gentleman, is that many of them are tabled as priority written questions. That gives us little time in which to make available a great deal of detailed information. However, the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that Members of Parliament deserve full answers within the time scale, if that is possible. I shall therefore look into that matter. That is a pledge.
I should like to deal with another issue that was raised last night by the hon. Gentleman. I have little time in which to do so, but he may like to know that since he raised the subject of the international covenant on civil and political rights—in particular, article 25—in last night's debate, I have looked into the issue. It may be of assistance to him, as this is part of the subject of

665
accountability, to know that the people of Northern Ireland have the right, without unreasonable restrictions, to take part in the conduct of public affairs. They have the right to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections, both at district council and national level. They have access to that public service on general terms of equality.
Direct rule is not the ideal method to conduct the affairs of Northern Ireland. It is precisely for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his predecessors made repeated attempts to bring about a situation in which direct rule would no longer be necessary. That is why my right hon. Friend has spent, and is spending, so much time and effort on the present political talks. In these circumstances, rather than concentrate on the perceived deficiencies of the present arrangement, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his
666
colleagues will bend all their efforts towards finding a way to help the present talks forward to a successful conclusion. The Government are committed to fair government until an alternative form of government is agreed by all the parties concerned. Until that day, I hope that we shall remain accountable to the hon. Gentleman and Parliament as a whole, that we shall produce the very best service that Northern Ireland not only needs but deserves and that our accountability will be seen to be as good as any Government could produce.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune in having secured this debate and I thank him for the courteous way in which he made his comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock.

ENERGY

  Electricity Prices
  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has held with the Office of Electricity Supply on the post-privatisation pricing system for industrial users of electricity; what representations he has received from industrial users on the pricing system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the Director General of Electricity Supply from time to time when we discuss a range of matters including electricity prices. I have received a number of representations from industrial users about electricity prices. Under the new competitive regime we have put in place it is for large users to use their commercial strength to negotiate the keenest prices from a number of potential suppliers.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Church Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of children aged between 5 and 16 years being educated in church schools; and what were the comparable figures for 1980 and 1985.

  Mr. Fallon
  The number of children of compulsory school age being taught in maintained church schools in England in January 1990 is shown in the following table. Comparable figures for 1980 and 1985 are also shown.

  Pupils of compulsory school age in maintained church schools

  Type of school

  1980

  1985

  1990

  Church of England

  804,874

  695,414

  704,303

  Roman Catholic

  663,766

  577,381

  558,370

  Methodist

  6,000

  4,060

  4,004

  Truancy
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 886, what information is available on a non-standard national basis about levels of truancy in (a) primary and (b) high schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers in full-time employment with seven years' experience are earning(a) £10,000 to £12,000, (b) £12,000 to £14,000, (c) £14,000 to
  332
  £16,000, (d) £16,000 to £18,000, (e) £18,000 to £20,000, (f) £20,000 to £22,000, (g) £22,000 to £24,000 and (h) £24,000 to £26,000 per annum, or the nearest convenient salary break points.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the number of teachers in full-time employment with seven years' experience as at 31 March 1988 is shown in the table. Information for]later years is not yet available.

  Maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector ,full-time teachers with seven years' experience1

  Salary at March 1988

  England

  Under £10,000

  1,746

  £10,000—£112,000

  5,905

  £12,000—£14,000

  3,023

  £14,000—£16,000

  1,863

  £16,000—£18,000

  384

  Over £18,000

  28

  TOTAL

  12,949

  1 Indicates teachers with completed service of seven but less than eight years at 31 March 1988.

  English Teaching
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what was the cost of the report undertaken by Professor Ron Carter and others into the teaching of English;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report prepared by Professor Ron Carter and others on the teaching of English.

  Mr. Eggar
  The material commissioned, at a cost of some £120,000, was not a report but a training package for use as part of the language in the curriculum project. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research he has commissioned into the financial position of students following changes in support, including the student loan scheme and the withdrawal of income support and housing benefit.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The take-up of student loans is monitored by the Student Loans Company and the Department. We intend to conduct periodically student income and expenditure surveys comparable with the baseline survey published in 1989, and to review the access funds scheme after three years.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will announce the postgraduate bursary and studentship rates payable by his Department for the academic year 1991–92.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The main maintenance rates under the Department's own postgraduate awards scheme in the academic year 1991–92 will be as follows (1990–91 rates are shown in brackets):

  £

  £

  Bursaries

  London

  2,950

  (2,775)

  Elsewhere

  2,330

  (2,195)

  Parental home

  1,760

  (1,655)

  333

  £

  £

  Studentships

  London

  4,970

  (4,690)

  Elsewhere

  3,950

  (3,725)

  Parental home

  2,915

  (2,750)

  These represent increases of about 6 per cent. on the current year's rates. The relevant supplementary allowances will be increased broadly in line.

PRIME MINISTER

  Vietnam
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Government next plan to meet representatives of the Vietnamese Government; and when he next intends to discuss with the United States Government trading policy on Vietnam.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are urgently seeking discussions with the Vietnamese Government on the problems posed by the sharply increased rate of arrivals of Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong. We regularly discuss all aspects of United States Indo-China policy at a high level with the United States Government.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Rent Rebates
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the levels of contributions to rent rebates that local authorities are projected to make that correspond to the figures for H RAS (Rent Rebate) subsidy for 1992–93, and 1993–94, set out in figure 64 in the housing chapter of the current public expenditure plans, Cm. 1508.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  As stated by my hon. Friend on 28 March at column 535 no decisions have been taken as to the contributions which local housing authorities are estimated to make to their rent rebate costs in 1992–93 and 1993–94. This is because the amounts will depend largely on annual decisions about rent guidelines and management and maintenance allowances for those years. For general planning purposes, the entries at figure 64 in the housing chapter of Cm. 1508 include projected contributions to rent rebates of £420 million for 1992–93, and £536 million for 1993–94 based upon inflation only guideline increases for rent and management and maintenance allowances.

  Pensioners' Expenditure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley of 4 June,Official Report, columns 109–10, what information is kept on the levels of expenditure of pensioners; and to what extent this is broken down geographically.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on expenditure patterns is extracted from the family expenditure survey. While the published version does not give information on pensioners' expenditure below the national level the information can be broken down by region, although in many cases this can be achieved only at disproportionate 334
  cost while in others the size of the sample is too small to support a valid inference. The 11 regions in Great Britain are: the North, Yorkshire and Humberside, the North-West, the East Midlands, the West Midlands, East Anglia, Greater London, the South-East (excluding Greater London), the South-West, Wales and Scotland. Data can also be provided by type of administrative area, viz; Greater London, the Metropolitan district and Central Clydeside conurbation, non-metropolitan districts (with high population density) and non-metropolitan districts (with low population density), but the same caveats apply.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reply he has sent to the letters of 31 January and 10 June from the Terrence Higgins Trust concerning the cost of diets for people with AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have replied to these letters today.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Africa (Food Shortages)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money has been allocated to counter food shortages in (a) Ethiopia, (b) Sudan, (c) Mozambique, (d) Angola, (e) Malawi and (f) Liberia from January to the present date; and what percentage of the 1990–91 and 1991–92 overseas aid budgets have been allocated to counter food shortages in each country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The following bilateral food aid allocations to the named countries have been made since January 1991:

  Country

  Cost (£ million) (Food aid)

  Cost (£ million) (Non-food aid)

  Ethiopia

  14·196

  5·802

  Sudan

  5·802

  3·626

  Mozambique

  10·959

  2·000

  Angola

  3·626

  1·885

  Malawi (Mozambican refugees)

  1·060

  3·000

  Liberia

  0·0

  1·456

  Total

  129·915

  17·769

  1 Does not include the United Kingdom share of EC food aid.

  The remaining information is not available in the form requested. Bilateral food aid as a percentage of total bilateral aid to those countries in 1989–90 was as follows:

  Country

  Food aid

  Total aid

  Percentage

  £ million

  £ million

  Ethiopia

  5·182

  12·730

  41

  Sudan

  1·114

  25·507

  4

  Mozambique

  2·519

  19·048

  13

  Angola

  —

  0·733

  —

  Malawi

  —

  26·965

  —

  Liberia

  —

  0·507

  —

  Vietnam
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been given to Vietnam in the last five years; and what is its current gross national product per head.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 20 June 1991]: Britain has provided no direct bilateral aid to Vietnam in the last five years. Since May 1990 over £1 million has been committed in support of projects by British nongovernmental organisations to assist with community development and the reintegration of boat people returning from Hong Kong. Since 1986 the United Kingdom has provided some £2·4 million towards EC food aid to Vietnam and our contribution through the European Commission's pilot scheme for the reintegration of returning boat people will be more than £1 million. No reliable data exists for Vietnam's GNP but it is estimated that in 1988 GDP per capita was approximately US$ 150–200.

HEALTH

  Day Nurseries
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what categories of day nurseries are exempt from registration.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The regulation and registration of day nurseries is currently governed by the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948, as amended. Section 8 deals with exemption from the requirements of the Act, including registration.

  The 1948 Act will be repealed when the Children Act 1989 comes into effect on 14 October 1991. Registration of day care facilities for young children will then be regulated under section 71 of and schedule 9 to the 1989 Act. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of schedule 9 list exemptions from registration.

  Optical Charges
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now make provision for the refund of optical charges under the health benefits low income scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Refunds are already available under the low income scheme for NHS charges incurred for sight tests and also for spectacles provided by the hospital eye service. The review of the administration of the scheme which is now under way, will provide a fresh opportunity to examine the arrangements for optical refunds.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decisions were made at the European Community Health Council on 4 June concerning the campaign against AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The European Community Health Council agreed to adopt a plan of action within the framework of the Europe against AIDS programme. The intention of the plan is that member states should benefit from the exchange of information, expertise and examples of good practice.
  336
  A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Births
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 322, if he can now list for the year 1989–90 for England and for each NHS region (1) the percentage of women who had (i) general anaesthesia, (ii) epidural or caudal anaesthesia, (iii) spinal anaesthesia, (iv) combinations of these methods of anaesthesia and (v) none of these methods of anaesthesia during labour or delivery;

  (2) the percentage of women (i) whose labours were surgically induced, (ii) whose labours were induced[by oxytocic drugs, (iii) whose labours were induced by a combination of surgical methods and oxytocic drugs, (iv) whose labours were of spontaneous onset and (v) who had elective Caesarian sections;

  (3) the percentage of women whose deliveries were (i) at a domestic address, (ii) in a consultant ward of an NHS hospital, (iii) in a general practitioner ward of an NHS hospital, (iv) in a combined consultant/general practitioner ward of an NHS hospital, (v) in a private hospital, (vi) in another hospital or institution and (vii) elsewhere;

  (4) the percentage of women whose deliveries were conducted by (a) a hospital doctor, (b) a general practitioner, (c) a midwife and (d) a person other than a doctor or midwife.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimated national percentages for England for 1989–90 are given in the tables. The feasibility of producing estimated percentages analysed by NHS region is still being investigated and I shall write to the hon. Member when our investigations are complete.

  1989–90 England

  Per cent.

  (i) Anaesthetic administered

  General

  7

  Epidural or caudal

  15

  Spinal

  1

  Combination

  1

  Other including no anaesthetic

  66

  Not known

  11

  (ii) Method of onset of labour

  Spontaneous onset

  74

  Elective Caesarean

  5

  Surgically induced

  4

  Oxytocic drugs

  8

  Combination

  6

  Not known

  3

  (iii) Place of delivery

  At a domestic address

  10

  In a consultant ward

  64

  In a GP ward

  5

  Consultant/GP ward

  31

  Private hospital

  10

  Other hospital or institution

  10

  Elsewhere

  10

  (iv) Person conducting delivery

  Hospital doctor

  24

  General practitioner

  10

  Midwife

  72

  Other

  2

  Not known

  2

  1 Less than 0·5 per cent.

  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics 1989–90.

  Pregnancy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money was given by which regional health authorities to(a) the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and (b) the Life Care and Housing Trust for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No central record is kept of donations or grants made by regional health authorities. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service receives income as a result of service provision contracts with some district health authorities. Details of these arrangements are not held by the Department.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of operations and waiting lists for ear, nose and throat operations carried out year by year since 1986 in Trent regional health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 7 June 1991]: The information requested is given in the table. It is the time that individual patients wait for treatment that matters, not the total number on the list. The number waiting more than one year for in-patient ENT treatment in Trent has fallen by 8 per cent. since September 1986 and by 33 per cent. since March 1979. At the same time the number of in-patients treated has increased by 6 per cent. since 1986 and by 53 per cent. since 1979.

  Numbers of operations and patients awaiting elective admission for the ENT speciality in Trent RHA—In-patients

  Date

  Number of operations1

  Total patients waiting2

  Patients waiting over 12 months

  Number3

  Per cent.4

  1986

  n/a

  8,873

  1,798

  20

  1987

  n/a

  7,578

  1,629

  20

  1988

  26,708

  8,630

  1,561

  18

  1989

  26,656

  8,516

  1,608

  18

  1990

  27,239

  9,262

  1,659

  17

  1 Figures relate to the total number of cases operated on in the year ending 31 March.

  2 Figures exclude self-deferred cases and relate to the position at 30 September.

  3 Figures relate to the position at 30 September and for 1987 to 1990 include any self-deffered cases.

  4 Figures for 1987 to 1990 are based on the number of patients including self-deferred cases.

  n/a=Not available.

  Sources: Number of operations: DH Form KH08

  Patients awaiting elective admission: DH Form KH07.

  Pre-school Care
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the numbers of(a) day nurseries, (b) childminders and (c) playgroups in 1990 and the number of places in each.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: The information requested is set out in the table. The figures include registered provision, local authority provision and for day nurseries and play groups some provision exempt from registration (eg provision on crown property).
  338

  Day care facilities for children under five at 31 March 1990 (provisional figures)

  Premises

  Places

  (a)Day nurseries

  2,920

  87,450

  (b)Childminders

  93,070

  205,470

  (c)Playgroups

  17,790

  416,380

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the financial adjustment fixed by each charging local authority in Wales for 1991–92 to be paid by each charge payer as a result of the failure, anticipated or actual, of all charge payers to pay charges lawfully demanded; and what were the comparable figures for 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The collection fund adjustments payable by charge payers in 1991–92 are shown in the table. These adjustments reflect a number of factors including local authority assumptions as to any losses in collection in 1990–91 and estimates of interest paid from and accrued to the collection fund in 1990–91 and 1991–92. There are no comparable figures for 1990–91.

  Collection fund adjustments 1991–92

  Charging authority

  1£

  Alyn and Deeside

  0·00

  Colwyn

  -0·17

  Delyn

  1·99

  Glyndwr

  0·00

  Rhuddlan

  0·00

  Wrexham Maelor

  0·00

  Carmarthen

  -7·00

  Ceredigion

  -5·00

  Dinefwr

  0·00

  Llanelli

  -8·28

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  -2·88

  South Pembrokeshire

  0·22

  Blaenau Gwent

  0·00

  Islwyn

  0·00

  Monmouth

  0·00

  Newport

  4·00

  Torfaen

  0·00

  Aberconwy

  -3·01

  Arfon

  0·00

  Dwyfor

  0·00

  Meirionnydd

  -3·01

  Ynys Mon

  -5·01

  Cynon Valley

  0·00

  Merthyr Tydfil

  -3·01

  Ogwr

  -3·00

  Rhondda

  -5·00

  Rhymney Valley

  0·00

  Taff Ely

  0·00

  Brecknock

  0·00

  Montgomeryshire

  0·00

  Radnorshire

  0·00

  Cardiff

  0·00

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0·00

  Port Talbot

  0·00

  Lliw Valley

  0·00

  Neath

  0·00

  Swansea

  0·00

  1 A positive figure in the table denotes an addition to the 1991–92 charge.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list total employment in the electronics and information technology industries in Wales in each year from 1979 to the most recent year available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are several sources of information for employment in the electronics industry over the past decade. The most complete series available is that of the Engineering Industry Training Board and are given in the following table.

  Year

  Employment

  1979

  13,000

  1980

  13,100

  1981

  12,300

  1982

  12,400

  1983

  13,600

  1984

  14,900

  1985

  15,300

  1986

  15,900

  1987

  18,600

  1988

  21,300

  1989

  23,200

  1990

  25,900

  Source: Engineering Industry Training Board Statutory Returns.

  Note: Employment estimates rounded to nearest 100.

  Group Transport 2000 Plus Report
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications for Wales of the recommendations of the Group Transport 2000 Plus report on transport options for the future, published by the European Commission in January.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 20 June 1991 by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport. My right hon. Friend will assess the implications for Wales of the EC Commission's paper on Community transport policy when it has been completed.

  Community Care
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the advantages over the arrangements now operating in England of the proposed new grant scheme for promoting the development of more flexible forms of community care for elderly people and for people with physical or sensory disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This grant scheme has been introduced in 1991–92, for which we have announced allocations of £1·3 million to pump-prime innovation. It is too early to judge its effectiveness. Selected schemes will be subject to independent evaluation, along the lines of the existing arrangements to evaluate our earlier initiative to promote the development of innovative services for elderly people, with the aim of identifying and disseminating good practice. However, our main effort of assessment will go into the wider annual review of performance of social services and health authorities in developing effective social and community care, for which the principal means of Government financial support are, and will remain, the revenue support grant to local authorities and mainstream allocations to health authorities.

  Departmental Circulars
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies receive copies of all circulars issued by his Department to local authorities in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Those circulars issued by the Welsh Office to local authorities which deal with decisions or advice on important aspects of policy are distributed as a matter of course to hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies.

  If the hon. Gentleman has experienced any difficulties with this arrangement perhaps he would write to my right hon. Friend so that my right hon. Friend can consider the matter further.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West of 18 June,Official Report, columns 96–97, if he will list those video cassette recordings purchased for use in conjunction with the video recorder installed in his flat at the Crown Buildings, Cathays park, Cardiff.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

ENVIRONMENT

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibilities his Department has for(a) conservation, (b) transport and (c) the welfare of imported wild birds.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has numerous responsibilities for the conservation of imported wild birds under:the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES), and EC Regulation 3626/82, which implements the convention in the European Community;
  the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976;
  the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and
  EC Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds.

  Although these measures are primarily concerned with conservation, some contain subsidiary requirements relating to transport and welfare matters.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the reasons for the discrepancy between the number of community charge payers of 41,900,000 registered for 1990 in England, Scotland and Wales and the Government's estimated size of the population aged 18 years and over of the same countries of 43,160,000.

  Mr. Key
  The difference of 1,260,000 between the number of people shown on community charges registers in Great Britain and the estimated population aged 18 years and over is largely attributable to the number of exempt people. We estimate that at least 870,000 people are exempt from the personal community charge, not
  341
  including those who are exempt by virtue of living in short stay accommodation or because they have no fixed abode, for which no reliable information is available. Other factors affecting the comparison are: errors in the registers or under-registration; errors in reporting the numbers on the registers; errors in estimates of the adult population, which are based on the 1981 population census; and to a limited extent differences in timing and definition. It is not possible to quantify any of these factors.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing, for each local authority levying a community charge in England and Wales, the sum shown in their respective demand statements following the words "plus other adjustments", stating the nature of all elements or charges comprising such adjustments together with his, or other estimate, of the proportion of the global sum attributable to the additional shortfall of income for the year 1990–91 and projected shortfall for 1991–92, respectively.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 20 June 1991]: I am arranging for the available information for England to be placed in the Library of the House. Information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by year for the last 10 years, the countries which have made shipments of hazardous waste to England for disposal reported under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the importation of waste by country of origin into the United Kingdom is available only since the introduction of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations in October 1988.

  The information in respect of imports of waste for disposal in England for the financial years 1 April to 31March for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 is shown in the following table.

  Countries of origin

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Australia

  Australia

  Australia

  Belgium

  Austria

  Austria

  Canada

  Belgium

  Bahamas

  Denmark

  Canada

  Belgium

  Hong Kong

  Channel Islands

  Canada

  Ireland

  Germany

  Germany

  Italy

  Denmark

  Denmark

  Netherlands

  Finland

  France

  Switzerland

  Ireland

  Ireland

  Italy

  Isle of Man

  Netherlands

  Italy

  Norway

  Luxembourg

  Singapore

  Malaysia

  Spain

  Netherlands

  Sweden

  Portugal

  Switzerland

  Singapore

  United States

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  United States

  Aggregates
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been sent a copy of his Department's report "Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales, Review of MPG6"; and which organisations and individuals have formally been asked to submit comments on this report.

  Mr. Yeo
  To date 170 organisations and individuals have received this report. They are as follows:

  Forecasts report

  Penny Smyth—CBI

  P. Stant—Savilles

  Mrs. D. Milford—ECC Quarries

  Robert Wemyss—Western Isles Island Council

  D. Parkinson—Alfred McAlpine

  D. Clark—West Midland Regional Forum

  0. Avarrey—Evered Bardon Quarry Products

  Harry Dicken—Mill Stream Cottage

  C. Leese—Northern Aggregates

  Tim Hammond—Aspinwall and Co.

  J. Milner—Huntsman Quarries

  B. McDonald—Nacco UK Ltd.

  Claire Duncan—TM Economics

  N. Everington—United Marine Aggregates

  Ronald Dovan—Davy Energy and Environmental Ltd.

  C. Williams—Ennemix Dev Ltd.

  J. Hyde—CBI (Library)

  G. Wilson—Davy Energy and Environmental

  Terry Macintyre—SAGA

  Mrs. Norrie—ECC Quarries

  J. Drew—EEC Construction Materials Ltd.

  Mrs. M. Williams—ECC Quarries

  Sarah Leatherdale—MDIS Ltd.

  J. Dickinson—CSL Surveys

  Elizabeth Garland—CPRE

  C. Dobbs—Tarmac Roadstone

  Lisa Prior—McKenna and Co.

  B. Dwyer—Hall Aggregates

  Miss G. Mead Alfred McAlpine Quarry

  John Prescott MP—House of Commons

  Chris Blasdale—Evered Barden plc

  Moya Watson—Savilles Research

  Tom Economou—RMC Group

  D. Mathers—Equity Research

  J. Bace—Countryside Commission (Library)

  D. Bays—Association of County Councils

  J. Jarver—Information Centre (EC1)

  A. Everrad—Cardiff

  N. Greene—Strutt and Parker

  A. Carrington—Wimpey Minerals

  A. D. Aggregates—Kidderminster, Worcestershire

  J. Bennett—Pioneer Concrete Holding plc

  B. West—Lazard Brothers

  Mr. Harrison—Minerals Planning

  F. Thompson—Strutt and Parker

  C. Couzens—Royal Society for Nature Conservation

  D. Sanderson—Martells

  Mrs. E. Franklin—Somerset Trust for Nature Conservation

  Dr. M. Bell—Co. Durham

  P. Stephenson—Kendall, Cumbria

  M. Hyslop—Pollerton, Nottinghamshire

  Redlands Aggregates—Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire

  T. Fairhead—Gent Fairhead and Co.

  P. Scott—Greenham Construction

  M. O'Neill

  C. Stubbings—Mid-Essex Gravel

  Mrs. J. Arkell—Wiltshire County Council

  Dr. M. Bell—Co. Durham

  Megan Mackay—Baring Brothers

  D. Neil-Gallacher—Alfred McAlphine

  P. Pomisford—Steetley plc

  Mrs. Morris—Steetley plc

  Mrs. M. Allan—Ron Allan Associates

  M. Gentle—ARC Central

  R. Ward—Tarmac Ltd.

  Dr. C. Nicholas—ECC Quarries

  343

  Miss M. Steer—John Lang plc

  Jill Davies—DSD Consultants Ltd.

  N. Herbert—Pioneer Concrete

  J. Drew—ECC Construction

  Mrs. M. Buteux

  P. Garrad

  A. Mackay MP—House of Commons

  K. Walmsley—Berkshire CC

  Mrs. E. Pollock—Davis Langdon & Everest

  Ms. E. Wilson—Headington, Oxford

  P. Chillingworth—CNC Mineral Planning Services

  C. Thompson—Frittch Cartwright

  Mrs. J. Crooks—Steetley Quarry Products

  K. Foley—ECC Quarries Ltd.

  M. Johnson—Gloucestershire CC

  Mrs. E. Potts

  K. Adams—K. Adams Ltd.

  A. Short—The Library, Gerald Eve & Co.

  R. Donald—County Natwest

  T. Bauman—Pegson Ltd.

  M. Thompson—Walton, W. Yorks

  Mr. Monk—Shepperton, Middlesex

  Ms. L. Rowles—Saunders Sobel Light & Dobin

  C. Martindale—Tarmac plc

  Mrs. Blakemore—Tarmac Quarry

  G. Jenkins—Wyn, Thomas & Partners

  G. Storey

  Ms. H. O'Neil—Linklaters & Paines

  Lisa Prior—McKenna & Co.

  R. Warrington—ECC Quarries Ltd.

  S. O'Brien—P.O. Box 90, Erskine House

  Steetley Quarry Products—SRO Leicestershire

  R. Stock—Land and Mineral Resources Ltd.

  Miss D. Cottle—Boral (UK) Ltd.

  Ms. C. Pomeroy

  K. Scholar—Eastleigh, Hants

  G. Jenkins—Trainload Freight

  J. Pick—MAFF

  Ms. R. Jones—Buckinghamshire CC

  M. Oakley—County Planning Officer Avon County Council

  M. Gwilliam—County Planning Officer Bedfordshire CC

  M. Shaw—County Planning Officer Norfolk CC

  Dr. C. Nicholas—ECC Quarry

  T. Ruizendaal—Spoorfingel Netherlands

  B. Prior—Summerleaze Ltd.

  S. Fantom—Tarmac Roadstone Ltd.

  S. Hammond—Greenham Constr. Materials

  Bowen Wells MP—House of Commons

  J. Rennilson—County Planning Officer N. Yorks County Council

  M. Flynn—County Planning Officer Mid-Glamorgan CC

  L. Rendell—County Planning Officer Warwickshire CC

  J. Henry—Wimpey Asphalt

  G. Sadler—CharterHouse Pier Head Liverpool

  Ms. C. Yates—Colas Holding Ltd.

  W. Jermey—RMC (UK) Ltd.

  Ms. M. Beth Glenn—Donald Zilkha & Co. New York 10022

  Mr. P. Webster—Chief Planner Leicestershire County Council

  W. Biggs—County Planning Officer Cumbria CC

  P. Eyton-Jones—Dir. Arch. Planning Est. Clwyd CC

  D. Tattersall—County Planning Officer Lancashire CC

  B. Frost—RMC, RMC House Middlesex

  S. O'Brien—SAGA

  S. Savery—Redland Aggregates Ltd. Bradgate House Leicestershire

  B. Spiers—Scottish Development Department Edinburgh EH1

  Mr. P. Smith—CAGE

  P. Hale—Secretary SWRAWP Avon CC

  E. Turner—Secretary SERPLAN

  Ian Thomas—Secretary EMRAWP National Stone Centre

  T. Higgins—Wanlip Gravels Forest Field Loughborough

  D. Thomas—ARC Aggregates Chipping Sodbury

  R. Parry—Tarmac Quarry Production Wolverhampton

  P. Samuel—Agriculture, Development and Advisory Service MAFF

  B. Buckle—SERPLAN London

  A. J. Williams—County Planning Officer Mid Glamorgan CC

  P. Gordon—Cumbria CC

  344

  T. Macintyre—SAGA

  D. Pollock—BACMI

  B. Howarth—Tilcon Knaresborough

  B. Courtier Welsh office Cardiff CF1

  Ms. E. Close—Land Use and Tenure MAFF

  C. Curry—Welsh Office Cardiff

  B. A. Price—West Mid Reg Forum

  J. Geldard—Lancashire CC

  B. Marfleet—Norfolk County Council

  Ralph Keeble Assoc.—Colchester Essex CO1 1RQ

  K. Pearce—Boston Consulting Group Devonshire House Mayfair P1

  J. Cowan—Ocean Shipping Cons. Chertsey Surrey

  D. Harker—Tilcon Ltd.

  K. Standing—Royal Soc. for the Protection of Birds Bedfordshire

  B. Plowden—Council for the Protection of Rural England

  M. Sant—Dennis Harmer & Partners Town Planning & Dev.

  Cons. Cardiff Business Park

  P. Farrent—Secretary The Mendip Society

  Celia Hukins—Manchester Chamber of Commerce &

  Industry 56 Oxford Street M60 7HJ

  Mr. Horsley—Manstock Geotech. Cons. Manchester M3

  G. Culley—Nature Conservancy Council

  C. Stevens—Nature Conservancy Council

  D. McLaren—Friends of the Earth London N1

  R. W. Gisby—Charterrail Ltd. London NW2

  A. Ball—12 Rose Bank Lynn, Cheshire

  R. Haywood—Manchester College of Arts & Tech.

  J. Robertson—Research & Dev. Shetland Island

  A formal consultation exercise has not been undertaken, but my Department welcomes comments on the report from all interested parties.

EMPLOYMENT

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give figures for energy expenditure in 1989–90 and 1990–91 consistent with those given for 1988–89 in the answer of 30 April 1990,Official Report, column 448.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 June 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £ million

  £ million

  Electricity

  6·558

  6·651

  Gas

  2·628

  2·578

  Other

  0·759

  0·480

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 108, what information he can provide on energy consumption for 1989–90 and 1990–91 to update, on a comparable basis, the information given in his answer of 30 April 1990, Official Report, column 448.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 June 1991]: I regret that this information is not available for 1989–90. For 1990–91 I refer to my written answer of 3 June 1991.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of suicides by inmates at prisons in England and Wales since 1 January.
  345
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Between 1 January and 18 June 1991, 16 prisoners died at their own hand in prison service custody.

  Long-stay Patients
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to remove the need for people with a mental handicap in long-stay hospitals to complete a patient's declaration before they are allowed to register to vote; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to allow people with a mental handicap to use the addresses of their long-stay hospital as their residence for voting purposes; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many residents in long-stay mental handicap hospitals are registered to vote;

  (4) what plans he has to review the rule relating to voting for people resident in long-stay mental handicap hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Voluntary patients in psychiatric hospitals may register as electors in respect of any address with which they have been associated other than the hospital address. There are no plans to review this arrangement or the requirement for voluntary patients to make a declaration in order to register.

  A total of 1,661 voluntary patients are included on the 1991–92 electoral register in the United Kingdom, broken down as follows:

  Number

  England

  883

  Wales

  164

  Scotland

  523

  Northern Ireland

  91

  Work Permits
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances visas are granted for non-EC and non-Commonwealth residents to come to work in Britain for stays of a few weeks where payment is made by their employer in the country of origin; what assessment is made of the requirement for a work permit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the Immigration Rules (HC 251 as amended) work permits are generally required by all non-EC nationals coming to work in the United Kingdom, irrespective of their length of stay or the source of their remuneration. Work permits are normally issued to employers only where jobs requiring high qualifications and skills cannot be filled by the EC labour force, and should be obtained from the Department of Employment before the person travels to the United Kingdom. The rules do, however, permit overseas-based people to enter without a work permit as business visitors in order to transact such business as attending meetings and briefings; negotiating contracts; delivering goods and, where necessary, installing and advising on the operation of their machinery here; or if they are sent by international companies to liaise with or advise United Kingdom subsidiaries. Business visitors who are nationals of the countries listed in the appendix to the rules must obtain a visa before travelling here.

  Police Searches
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Leicestershire on the circumstances surrounding the search of the home of the hon. Member for Leicester, East's constituent Mr. Peach of 15 Rushey close, Leicester.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 January 1991, c. 371]: I now understand from the chief constable of Leicestershire constabulary that a search did take place at the home of the hon. Member's constituent. The search was made following the arrest of a member of the family on suspicion of theft. The person concerned was later released without charge.

TRANSPORT

  Road Safety
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has conducted into the effects of glare from on-coming car lights on dual carriageways and motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  Trials were carried out in the early 1960s and in the late 1970s into the effects of anti-dazzle screens erected on the central reserves of sections of the M 1 and M6 motorways. The M6 trial was covered by three reports, a report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, social survey division No. SS 1058 of 1976; TRRL report SR 327 of 1977 and TRRL report No. 955 of 1980. Copies of these reports are in the Library of the House.

  There is continuing concern about glare from on-coming lights on all types of roads, often resulting from the poor standard of aim of headlamps on vehicles. This is why new stricter checks on aim will be introduced shortly into the annual test for heavy goods vehicles and extended to cover private car testing as soon as possible.

  Traffic Congestion
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted by his Department into the effects on traffic congestion of building new roads or widening existing roads; and if he will ensure that such research is placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  The effects on traffic congestion of building new roads or widening existing roads are a major element in the traffic and economic appraisals carried out by the Department for all improvements to trunk roads. The Department's methods of traffic and economic appraisal have been developed over many years, based on a continuing and substantial programme of research projects.

  In the traffic and economic appraisal of road schemes, the effect on traffic flows, queues and speeds are estimated first; these are then valued through the time savings to business and private road users and the improved productivity of commercial vehicles. For schemes in the current roads programme, on average, the present value of benefits, discounted at 8 per cent., is 2·4 times the present value of costs.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been done by his Department
  347
  into the savings on emissions from a reduction in congestion; and if he will publish the modelling and methodolgy used to calculate the relationship between emissions and traffic congestion.

  Mr. Chope
  The research evidence on road transport emissions of greenhouse gases is summarised in TRRL contractor report No. 223, "UK road transports contribution to greenhouse gases: a review of TRRL and other research", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. To predict the impact of individual schemes on congestion, the Department makes use of detailed traffic simulation models. The models make use of information on road link and junction characteristics to predict vehicle flows and speeds which can in turn be used to estimate fuel consumption and emissions. The Department has a substantial programme of research into this and other environmental issues.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of cars registered and in use; and how many car drivers were(a) killed and (b) injured in road accidents for each year in the periods (i) 1980 to 1983 and (ii) 1986 to 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is given in the table. Road accident casualty data for 1990 is not yet available.

  Cars currently licensed and car drivers killed and injured: Great Britain: 1980–1983, 1986–1990

  Private cars currently Licensed thousands

  Car driver casualties

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  1980

  14,772

  1,339

  78,454

  79,793

  1981

  14,943

  1,346

  79,733

  81,079

  1982

  15,303

  1,472

  82,791

  84,263

  1983

  15,543

  1,198

  71,941

  73,139

  1986

  16,981

  1,340

  89,816

  91,156

  1987

  17,421

  1,327

  90,683

  92,010

  1988

  18,432

  1,280

  98,307

  99,587

  1989

  19,248

  1,498

  107,681

  109,179

  1990

  19,742

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorcycles were registered and in use; and how many motorcyclists were killed in road accidents for each year in the periods(a) 1970 to 1973 and (b) 1986 to 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is given in the following table. Figures are for two wheeled motor vehicles, which are motorcyles, motor scooters and mopeds. Road accident casualty data for 1990 is not yet available.

  Although the number of motorcycles registered has declined, the use of these vehicles has increased. Total motorcycle traffic rose by an estimated 53 per cent. between 1970 and 1989.
  348

  Two-wheeled motor vehicles currently licensed and two-wheeled motor vehicle riders killed Great Britain: 1970–73, 1986–90

  Two-wheeled motor vehicles currently licensed (Thousands)

  Two wheeled motor vehicle riders killed

  1970

  1,048

  652

  1971

  1,021

  657

  1972

  982

  626

  1973

  1,006

  641

  1986

  1,065

  665

  1987

  978

  650

  1988

  912

  611

  1989

  875

  636

  1990

  833

  —

  Alnwick (Traffic)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the reduction in traffic within the Alnwick built-up area which would result from providing a direct access from the A1 to the A1068.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Marine Radio-navigation
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement about the future of marine radio-navigation in United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The United Kingdom has been negotiating over a period of time with eight other countries on the possible adoption of Loran C as part of a joint regional system of marine radio-navigation in north-west Europe and the North Atlantic. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State told the House in April 1990 the conditions on which the United Kingdom would in principle have been prepared to enter into an international agreement if it could be achieved by mid-1991. Some but not all of those conditions have been met. But a new factor has been a revised proposal recently put to me by the Racal Electronics Company to modernise and operate the existing Decca chains in the United Kingdom at a lower cost than in their 1988 proposal.

  I have examined the proposal carefully and Racal has made further improvements to it. I now have decided to accept the Racal proposal and to withdraw from the Loran C discussions. Two main factors have led to this conclusion. First, it is now very doubtful whether an international agreement could be concluded and brought into effect within a timescale which would both ensure a three-year transitional period before the closure of the United Kingdom Decca system (under the existing contract by early 1997) and avoid a price increase in the Loran C investment. Second, the revised Racal proposal means that the case has changed significantly in favour of retaining the Decca system, both in the overall economic appraisal and in the effect on light dues. After taking account also of the costs of a change for users, I have concluded that, despite some factors which point towards Loran C, it would no longer be reasonable to impose this change of system on the United Kingdom user community. In reaching this conclusion, I have had particular regard to the representations made to my by the

  349
  fishing and electronics engineering industries against a change to Loran C, and to the fact that the Decca system continues to serve the mariners' needs satisfactorily within the overall requirements of marine safety.

  Our partners in the international negotiations on the Loran C proposal are being informed of my decision. I now intend to invite the general lighthouse authorities to give effect to my decision by entering into formal negotiations with the Racal company on a new contract for operating the Decca system.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to seek the implementation of the new draft regulations on the operation of the orange badge scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce an implementation date for the new regulations governing the orange badge scheme for the disabled.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 June 1991]: I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 21 March at column 212.

  Speed Limits
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent discussions he has had with chief constables and others about the current level of speed limits on motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 June 1991]I have had no recent discussions with the police or others on this question but shall be meeting the M25 Chief Constables' Committee next month and will also be supporting the message of the forthcoming police national motorway campaign that drivers should drive safely and obey the law.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 17 and 18 June.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  A meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council took place in Luxembourg on 17 and 18 June. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council adopted the food credit regulation for the Soviet Union. It reached a political orientation on a regulation covering technical assistance for the Soviet Union and instructed the committee of permanent representatives to continue its work.

  The Council agreed that participation in the negotiations on a European energy charter should be limited to European countries (including the USSR) and the non-European members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Council decided that other countries may accede to the Charter at
  350
  a later stage and, together with representatives of international organisations, may be invited to attend the negotiations as observers.

  The Council agreed on a mandate for the Presidency in its negotiations with EC staff unions on pay arrangements.

  EC and EFTA ministers reviewed progress in the negotiations on a European economic area, which will extend the single market to the EFTA countries. Representatives of the two sides will meet again in Salzburg next week to discuss the next steps. The United Kingdom will continue to contribute constructively to these negotiations, with a view to their early and successful conclusion. We strongly support the idea of a European economic area, which will bring significant economic and practical benefits to the European Community and EFTA.

  Ministers issued a statement welcoming the abolition of the Population Registration Act in South Africa. They also agreed that EC sanctions against Iraq should be maintained. They decided to give active support for the role of the UN in northern Iraq and to examine with the UN Secretary General what further humanitarian assistance could be provided for those in need in southern Iraq.

  European Political Union
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the ministeral meeting of the intergovernmental conference on political union on 17 June.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the ministerial meeting of the inter-governmental conference on political union on 17 June. The meeting discussed the structure of the draft treaty on political union, competence issues, and the institutional chapter of the draft treaty.

  On the overall structure of the treaty, member states and the Commission fall into two camps: those who would like to see a unitary structure with all the activities of the European union coming under the treaty of Rome and those like us who would prefer to see a common foreign and security policy and co-operation on interior/justice matters preserved outside the provisions of the treaty of Rome. The latest Presidency draft treaty is a compromise between these two positions, maintaining three separate pillars of co-operation but attempting to bring them together under a unitary structure. My right hon. Friend argued that, while ingenious, this remained undesirable. The discussion was inconclusive.

  The Presidency has proposed the extension of Community competence in a number of areas. The meeting discussed both the principle and the practical details of these proposed extensions. My right hon. Friend emphasised that we were not convinced of the need to extend Community competence in the areas under discussion.

  Discussion of the institutional chapter focussed on the proposed co-decision procedure between the Council and the European Parliament. A range of views was expressed.

  Several member states thought a co-decision undesirable or unnecessary, others could accept the procedure proposed and some member states wished to see the European Parliament's legislative role expanded even further. My right hon. Friend made it clear we did not see a case for upsetting the existing institutional balance. My right hon. Friend also emphasised the importance we

  351
  attached to ensuring the rule of law in the Community and argued for the United Kingdom proposals to strengthen the court of justice's powers to ensure compliance with its judgments.

  Progress in the inter-governmental conference on political union will he reviewed by the European Council on 28–29 June.

  Mr. Ramesh Kumar
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what evidence relating to the funding of two-way travel, as well as support and accommodation while in the United Kingdom, together with guarantees from the hon. Member for Hendon, North about Mr. Kumar's subsequent departure from the United Kingdom, would suffice to enable a temporary visitor's visa to be issued to Mr. Ramesh Kumar so as to enable him to make a visit to London at the suggestion of and for the purpose of consulting the hon. Member for Hendon, North about matters concerning Mr. Kumar's wife;

  (2) what specific guarantees from the hon. Member for Hendon, North regarding departure after the termination of a visa for a temporary visit to the United Kingdom would be acceptable to enable Mr. Ramesh Kumar to make a visit to London at the suggestion of and for the purpose of consulting the hon. Member about matters relating to his wife.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The immigration rules do not require specific evidence to be produced in support of an application. The evidence necessary to satisfy an entry clearance officer will vary in individual cases according to the applicant's economic, social and other circumstances.

  Libya
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any representations were received from the United States or any other country prior to his decision to reject the recent Libyan approaches for better relations with the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received no such representations.

  Liberia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the French Government about stopping the flow of arms from the Ivory Coast to Charles Taylor's forces in Liberia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None, but my officials have regular contacts with the French Government at which a wide range of issues, including developments in west Africa, are discussed.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Occupational Health Service
  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in preparing a strategic plan for the civil service occupational health service executive agency; and what performance targets have been set for its second year of operation as an agency.

  Mr. Renton
  The OHS prime financial target for 1991–92 is to recover its full costs by charging customers for its services. Its subsidiary targets are to provide its services at a cost of £472 per productive professional day, and at a cost of £25 per case referral. In addition I have set quality targets of 70 per cent. customer satisfaction rated as very good or excellent, tight turn-round times for case referrals, and the issue of 80 per cent. invoices without errors.

THE ARTS

  Local Museums
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his response to the Audit Commission report "The Road to Wigan Pier" on the funding of local museums; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I welcome the Audit Commission's report, "The Road to Wigan Pier?" which makes a number of constructive recommendations for local authorities and their museums and galleries. Officials from my Department have had a constructive discussion with the Audit Commission on the report.

  The Audit Commission's report covered similar ground to the recently published Museums and Galleries Commission report on local authorities and museums. I will be responding to that report in due course.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconcile the figures given in his answers of 3 June,Official Report, column 24, and 6 June, Official Report, column 326, concerning the total number of taxpayers with earnings above the national insurance upper earnings limit; and if he will publish figures separately for the number of employees who are basic rate taxpayers with earnings above the upper earnings limit.

  Mr. Maude
  My answer of 3 June provided the estimated numbers of taxpayers in 1991–92 analysed by range of earnings subject to national insurance contributions. Tax liability depends on the cumulative annual amount of income subject to income tax. The levels of earnings used in the analysis were the combined Total from employment or self-employment for the whole year which were then compared with the annual equivalent of the NIC upper earnings limit. On this basis an estimated 1.9 million basic rate taxpayers whose main source of earnings is as an employee will have earnings above the UEL.

  The answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 6 June

  353
  showed the estimated average number of employees who, in any one week during 1991–92, will be liable for national insurance contributions and whose earnings will exceed the upper earnings limit. Additionally, the answer showed the estimated number of self-employed people who, during the year 1991–92, will be liable for national insurance contributions and whose profits will exceed the upper profits limit.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, columns 23–24, how many reviews of control system and accounting records in money laundering related areas of banks or other financial institutions, have been undertaken; what have been the conclusion of such reviews; and what action has been taken in light of this.

  Mr. Maples
  To date there have been some 160 reports on systems and controls related to money laundering commissioned under section 39 of the Banking Act 1987 as part of a rolling programme of identifying and prioritising particular areas of supervisory interest. Banks generally appear to have appropriate systems in place and have, in particular, been helped in formulating and implementing such systems by the publication at the end of last year of the guidance notes on money laundering for banks and building societies.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the accumulated net receipts of income tax from building societies since 1985–86 and the amount affected by clause 50 of the Finance Bill 1991.

  Mr. Maples
  Accumulated net income tax receipts from building societies for the six years 1985–86 to 1990–91 were £18,097 million, excluding those subsequently repaid as a result of decisions by the courts. Of these, an estimated £227 million would be repaid if clause 50 were not enacted.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in calculating the composite rate of tax for building societies and banks, for each year since 1985–86, if the Inland Revenue took account of the extra payments of income tax subject to clause 50 of the Finance Bill 1991.

  Mr. Maples
  Changes in the timing of tax payments by building societies, reflecting changes in collection arrangements of the kind introduced by the Building Society Regulations 1986, the subject of clause 50, had no bearing on the level at which composite rate was set. However, from societies as a whole there was slightly less income tax due for the financial year 1986–87 than would have been due if the timing arrangements had been left unchanged.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the contributory effects of changes in(a) interest rates, (b) volume, (c) tax rates and (d) the switch from the accrual basis to paid basis of receipts of tax on sums extinguishing liability to tax of building societies comparing 1985–86 with 1986–87 and 1986–87 with 1987–88 and 1985–86 with 1988–89.

  Mr. Maples
  I regret that the information could not be provided without disproportionate cost.
  354
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the cash flow effects to be of change from accrual to paid basis of extinguishing net tax liability of building society investors.

  Mr. Maples
  About £110 million less income tax was received in 1986–87 under the quarterly payment system than would have been due under the old system. However, under the new system, instalment payments amounting to £35 million were due in later years. The new system also affected cashflow within the tax year, by bringing forward the average date at which income tax was payable.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking the expected net receipts of income tax from a building society as an index of 100, what are the index estimates of the maximum and minimum additional payments, consequent on the Finance Act 1986 change retrospectively validating the 1985 regulations, assuming the enactment of clause 50 of the Finance Bill 1991, taking account of the effects of the range of society year end and payment dates.

  Mr. Maples
  Payments due in a year may be advanced or retarded under the new system introduced by the 1986 building societies legislation. At one extreme would be a hypothetical society with an accounting period ending on the first day of the tax year, 6 April, and crediting interest to investors wholly on a monthly basis on the last day of each month. For that society, income tax due on the 11 months' interest credited on 30 April 1985 to 28 February 1986, less that which had accrued in the first six days of April 1985, would be due in four instalments on the 14 March of the 1986–87 to 1989–90 tax years; tax would also be due in each of those tax years in respect of the 12 monthly creditings made between 31 March to 28 February. Taking income tax due for payment under the old system as an index of 100 for the four years together, tax due in those four years under the new system would be 122·5.

  At the other extreme would be a hypothetical society with an accounting period coinciding with the tax year, and crediting interest to investors wholly on an annual basis, on 1 March. For that society, no payment of income tax under the new system would be due in the 1986–87 tax year, except in respect of interest on accounts closed up to 28 February 1987. The 1987–88 payment would be slightly less than in a full year. Taking tax due for payment under the old system as an index of 100 for the four tax years 1986–87 to 1989–90, tax due under the new system, if no accounts were closed, would be 72·5.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rate of economic growth in the United Kingdom per quarter since October 1979.

  Mr. Maples
  Figures of the gross domestic product are available from the CSO database which may be accessed through the Library.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the income from North sea oil revenues received by the United Kingdom for each of the years from 1980 to 1990.
  355
  Mr. Maples
  Annual revenues to the Exchequer from the North sea have been as follows:

  £ million

  1980–81

  3,743

  1981–82

  6,492

  1982–83

  7,822

  1983–84

  8,798

  1984–85

  12,035

  1985–86

  11,348

  1986–87

  4,783

  1987–88

  4,618

  1988–89

  3,179

  1989–90

  2,393

  1990–91

  2,337

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the number of adult male full-time civil servants and the estimated number earning less than (i) half and (ii) two-thirds of the median hourly earnings of all full-time adult male workers on full-time rates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There were about 251,000 adult male full-time non-industrial civil servants on 1 April 1991, and about 49,000 adult male full-time industrial civil servants on 1 January 1991.

  My Department does not collect information on actual earnings of individual civil servants. The available information closest to that requested, on the distribution of earnings of civil servants, is published in the New Earnings Survey 1990 part A table 1 and part B tables 36 and 52. A copy of these reports is in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufactured Goods
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage change by volume in United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods to the existing 11 other members of the EEC from 1970 to 1990; and what was the percentage change in volume of imported manufactured goods from the same countries in the same period.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Statistics of global trade with individual countries are available in value terms only. However, volume indices for total United Kingdom trade in manufactured goods are published in the monthly publication "CSO Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Internal Market Council held in Luxembourg on 18 June.

  Mr. Redwood
  I attended the Internal Market Council on 18 June, the last of the Luxembourg Presidency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) attended for the item on baggage regulation. A number of measures were agreed, and in particular, significant progress was made in two single market priority areas for the United Kingdom—public procurement and insurance.
  356
  In public procurement, there was agreement in principle to a common position on the directive on legal remedies in the utilities sector. This will ensure compliance with the directive agreed in 1990 on public procurement in this key sector (in the same way as a similar directive will ensure compliance with the earlier supplies and works directive).

  The two insurance items agreed will pave the way for further progress towards the single market in insurance. Agreement on the directive on insurance company annual accounts provides a common framework of accounting rules for insurance undertakings, including Lloyd's. The second measure provides for an insurance committee to give expert assistance to the Commission in the exercise of implementing powers conferred by insurance directives, and to advise the Commission on the preparation of new proposals in insurance.

  The Council also reached a common position on the draft regulation concerning checks on baggage of persons travelling on intra-Community flights or sea crossings. The Government successfully negotiated to retain essential United Kingdom frontier checks against drugs and other items. However, the United Kingdom still had significant objections relating to the infrastructural costs for airports and potential inconvenience to passengers; and to the proposed operative date of the regulation (1 January 1993). The Government therefore voted against.

  The Council agreed to a common position on the regulation on the collection of intra-Community trade statistics. United Kingdom concerns that the proposed system would be burdensome to business were reflected in a Commission statement for the minutes.

  The Council also adopted measures previously agreed at Council as common positions. These included the weapons directive (on which a common position was reached at the December Internal Market Council); two amendments to the directive restricting the marketing and use of dangerous substances (the 10th amendment adding cadmium, and the 11th amendment adding Ugilec 121, Ugilec 141 and DBBT); and the Council decision to release an additional 25 million ecu (£17·5 million) for the Community budget for small and medium-sized enterprises for 1990–93.

  There were policy debates (without a vote taken) on a number of issues: the proposed second directive on diplomas; the proposed directive on sweeteners in foodstuffs; and the location of a Community trade marks office. The Council revisited the draft council resolution on trans-European networks, but Spain continued to seek additional finance for the proposal, preventing agreement to the draft resolution as it stands. The Presidency made progress reports on the draft regulation to create a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products; and on the draft regulation to create a European company statute. All these subjects are likely to be considered again at future Councils.

  Finally, the Commission presented its sixth annual report on implementation of single market measures, and the Luxembourg Presidency made a report on progress over the last six months towards completion of the single market. The United Kingdom, along with France and Denmark, were congratulated on their good implementation record for single market measures.

  Radio Equipment
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to allow equipment submitted for type approval to be re-submitted for partial testing, where it can be technically shown that any adjustments could in no way affect the previous tests.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 June 1991]: Formal testing is carried out under strict national measurement accreditation service (NAMAS) accreditation requirements. Where the type test results in a report that shows that the equipment submitted fully meets the technical requirements of the appropriate specification or standard, a type approval certificate is issued to the applicant for type approval by the Radiocommunications Agency.

  If, however, the equipment does not meet the appropriate technical requirements, at the request of the applicant, the type testing may be continued or terminated at that point. The equipment will then be returned to the applicant along with a complete or partial test report. The applicant who may be the manufacturer or importer will in most cases re-design, modify or adjust the equipment prior to making a new submission for formal type testing.

  When re-design, modification or adjustment of equipment to rectify a failure mechanism for one parameter takes place it is possible that other parameters may be affected to a point where they would now result in a type test failure. It would place an unacceptable responsibility on test houses to expect them to make value judgments on the total effect of such rectification activities on the overall performance of a piece of equipment. In some instances it could result in a test house operating outside its (NAMAS) accreditation conditions. Thus the results obtained from a number of separate type tests will not be accepted for type approval certification.

  This approach to type testing and approval is in conformance with current practice in other European Administrations.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for trade and Industry in what circumstances the Radiocommunications Agency issues type approval certificates to companies which are not equipped with the identical test equipment used for type approval testing.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 June 1991]: Type approval relates to an item of radio equipment submitted for type testing and approval against the appropriate specification or standard. The equipment submitted for type approval is required to be a representative sample of production equipment. Submissions for type testing are made by manufacturers or importers who are not assessed as to their technical abilities or access to technical facilities. Notwithstanding this the applicant has the responsibility to ensure that the equipment supplied to the market place complies fully with the specification or standard against which it was approved. Many large radio manufacturers have fully equipped and certified test laboratories which they use in the design and development of their products. However, smaller manufacturers and importers do not have the personnel, financial resources or suitable laboratory facilities to set up fully certified test facilities. In many cases they make use of external test facilities on a consultancy basis.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Aflatoxins
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response his Department made to the proposal in the report of the 22nd session of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants—March 1990—that the maximum level of total aflatoxins should be set at 10 micrograms per kilogram for all foods.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom and a number of other EC states made it clear at the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants that we favoured a limit of 4 micrograms per kilogram for nuts and figs and their products for sale for human consumption.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Food Advisory Committee's consideration of the possibility of a one part per billion limit on aflatoxin in nuts for sale for human consumption.

  Mr. Maclean
  The committee concluded that it would be unrealistic to establish a limit for aflatoxin of I part per billion (ppb) at present. It recommended that the following statutory limits should be introduced:4 ppb total aflatoxin for nuts, dried figs and their products for sale, for incorporation in any compound food or for import for human consumption;
  10 ppb for such imports intended for further processing before sale or incorporation in any compound food for human consumption.

  The proposed limits of 4 ppb is as strict as any set by other EC member states.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when and in what form he will issue proposals for revised aflatoxin limits for consultation.

  Mr. Maclean
  We aim to consult on draft regulations under the Food Safety Act 1990 establishing maximum limits for aflatoxins in certain foods stuffs in the course of the next few months.

  Canthaxanthin
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has consulted the United States Government regarding the use the canthaxanthin in food and feedstuffs.

  Mr. Maclean
  Scientists from this Department and the Department of Health have discussed the use of canthaxanthin in food and feedingstuffs with United States colleagues.

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the expenditure in the United Kingdom under the common agricultural policy on(a) fruit and (b) vegetables, indicating whether the expenditure was on (i) export refunds, (ii) disposal measures, (iii) production support or (iv) other measures in each case; if he will list which fruits and vegetables were involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  This is an operational matter for the chief executive of the Intervention Board Executive Agency who will write to the hon. Member.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will permit the publication of research tests for BSE identification by Harash Narang on samples of bovine brain tissues supplied by his Ministry.

  Mr. Gummer
  Publication of the results of Dr. Narang's research is a matter for him and not the Government, but we would welcome it.

DEFENCE

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in deployment are planned for Her Majesty's ships based in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In line with our overall intention to reduce the Hong Kong garrison in stages between now and 1997, all parts of the garrison are kept under continuous review.

  HMS Endurance
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has plans to pay off HMS Endurance; and whether there are any plans for a replacement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No decision has been taken to decommission HMS Endurance. The requirement for a replacement is being considered. No decision has been taken.

  Grenadier Guards (Accident)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps he took to satisfy himself beyond all reasonable doubt that the finding of the board of inquiry into the accident at Batus, Canada, on 7 July 1989 that no one is to blame for the incident was based upon proper investigation and well-founded evidence as heard by the board of inquiry;

  (2) what steps he took to satisfy himself beyond all reasonable doubt that the finding of the board of inquiry into the accident at Batus, Canada, of 7 July 1989, that the soldiers were adequately briefed for the execution of their task was based upon proper investigation and well-founded evidence as heard by the board of inquiry.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The board of inquiry into the accident at the Batus range on 7 July 1989 was convened 360
  and conducted in accordance with the procedures laid down in Queens Regulations for the Army 1975 and the Board of Inquiry (Army) Rules 1956. The board's findings were considered and accepted by the relevant authorities in the chain of command.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which country accepted responsibility under paragraph 28 of part IV of the exchange of notes between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Canada of 26 November 1979, for the clearance of, including the removal of unexploded rounds from, the area of land in Batus, Canada, upon which Grenadier Guardsmen Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey were ordered to spitlock a trench on 7 July 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The general agreements in the exchange of notes under which United Kingdom forces use the Batus range are amplified by the range standing orders. These cover the clear-up procedures that take place after each exercise, including the requirement for the disposal of unused or unexploded munitions. The responsibility for the clear-up rests jointly with Batus staff and the forces who have undertaken the training exercise.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the date of entry into the Army of Guardsmen Sean Povey, Adrian Hicks and John Ray and their respective ages at the time.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not my Department's practice to release personal information without the prior consent of the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a Minister last visited the training site in Canada where Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray were serving in June and July 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The last visit by a Minister to the Batus training area was made in July 1989 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) when Secretary of State for Defence.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received that the board of inquiry into the circumstances which led to the serious injuries of Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray in July 1989 be reconvened.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have received several letters and questions from hon. Members on behalf of the three soldiers. The question of reopening the board of inquiry was also addressed in the House in an Adjournment debate on 3 June at columns 129–36.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Kensington High Street: Designation
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Kensington High Street is a designated road under the Local Government Act 1985.
Earl Howe: No, my Lords. The designated roads in this area are Cromwell Road, Holland Park Avenue/Bayswater Road and the Earls Court one-way system.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. That makes clear why Kensington High Street has at present very restricted access for vehicles. However, is the Minister aware that every day trucks get stuck in the road-narrowing system there, and that the traffic has to back-up to enable trucks to enter the bus lane which they are not entitled to use? Will the Minister tell us whether the new traffic director for London will be able to consider whether this road is an important artery into London which might help to relieve the congestion in Cromwell Road? That is to become a red route.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the width restriction to which my noble friend refers was imposed by the local highway authority on a temporary basis. That was because of the identification of possible weaknesses in the bridge which carries the high street over the Circle and District Underground lines. I understand that remedial work is planned to commence later this year or early next year. I should expect a notification to be made to the Secretary of State if there was any proposal to make the restriction permanent.
With regard to the second question, it is not intended that the high street should be included in the provisional network published in the Traffic in London document in December 1989. That was the document which defined the proposed priority routes in London. Therefore, I anticipate that the traffic director, when appointed, will have no direct responsibility for Kensington High Street.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary decision? The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has raised is extremely important. I hope that we do not have to wait until some dreadful accident takes place before we act on the proposition put forward by the noble Baroness.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has every intention of carrying out remedial works to the bridge
338
to which I referred. Those works are likely to start later this year or early next year. It is not known how long they will take.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does this not illustrate the weakness of the post of traffic director which is to be set up? His activities will be entirely confined to red routes and not to solving the rest of the problems of London traffic.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has remained fully in touch with the Department of Transport on this matter. The department is satisfied that all correct procedures have been adhered to.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, even if the department is so satisfied, assuming that the road works take a long time to complete what action does the Minister suggest should be taken? We on these Benches have pressed time and time again for adequate consultation on these matters.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to bring the comments of your Lordships today to the attention of the borough. I shall ensure that he does so.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that this action by the royal borough amounts to a lorry ban, which merely puts additional pressure on other road works? Without a cohesive plan to take care of necessary and remedial works, chaos is bound to ensue.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in the view of the borough on which the onus in these matters rests, the barrier has no significant effect on the designated road network in the area. Therefore it is not a matter for official notification to the Secretary of State. That is a view with which the department agrees.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, does the borough have the finance set aside for the remedial work?
Earl Howe: My Lords, an application for a transport supplementary grant is under consideration at the Department of Transport. The result of that application is not yet known. However, my understanding is that the money will be found by the borough one way or another.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not the case that if the traffic director is to be responsible for the red routes, he will not be able to deal with that matter completely unless he can look at possible alternative routes which might take some of the traffic load? At present there is a great deal of work going on in Brompton Road and Cromwell Road. The additional road space would help to alleviate the traffic problems in London.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said, the question of priority routes is a matter to be decided when the traffic director is appointed. I am afraid I cannot anticipate his decision.

Nuclear Deterrent Capability
11.12 a.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are proposing to increase Britain's strategic nuclear capability.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, it is fundamental to our security that our strategic nuclear deterrent remains credible. The Trident force will provide the minimum capability necessary to maintain an effective independent deterrent into the next century.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does not the noble Earl agree that we already have the capacity to inflict unacceptable damage on an adversary? Why are the Government not content just to maintain that? Why are they now building a very much more powerful fleet for the mid-1990s, a fleet with greater range, accuracy and penetration, and independently targeted war-heads? Why are we seeing this great lift in Britain's strategic nuclear capability? What world events have made it necessary?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord's questions with three points. First, as I said in my Answer, the Trident operation will be a minimum deterrent. Secondly, Soviet defences are increasing and will increase further. Thirdly, Trident must last well into the next century.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that by the year 2005, if nothing happens, British and French nuclear weapons will, according to a US Congress Research Service report published in 1989, be equivalent to some one-fifth of US nuclear forces as opposed to 2 per cent. in 1985? Does that not upset the balance between Britain and France and the United States; and does it not argue for participation by Britain and France in the START negotiations?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we cannot determine our deterrent needs by reference to the size of superpower arsenals. Even after the envisaged START 1 cuts are implemented, the United States and the USSR will each retain more than 6,000 strategic warheads. Our Trident force will be in no way comparable.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has not the maintenance over several decades of a nuclear deterrent by the United States, ourselves and our allies had a beneficial effect on the peace of the world by making the Soviet Union think again about the possibility of nuclear war? Is my noble friend aware that the Soviet navy is at present being re-equipped on a very large scale? Should not that factor be taken into consideration?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend. Nuclear weapons are for war prevention and 45 years of peace in Europe prove the success of nuclear deterrence. In answer to my noble friend's second point, I believe that he is right about the increase in the Soviet navy.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, have the Government any evidence that the Soviets are increasing their nuclear capability? Is the re-equipment of their forces primarily conventional or nuclear?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as far as I understand it, the increase is nuclear rather than conventional.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Government's commitment to a bigger deterrent related to the deterrent forces of the great powers? In reply to me the Minister justified the Trident fleet on the ground that the Soviet deterrent had increased in size. Is he not aware that President Bush said a few days ago that the United States and the Soviet Union are 96 per cent. of the way towards drastic cuts in their strategic nuclear deterrents? Is not a great deal of the new submarine construction and naval construction in the Soviet Union defensive in the sense that it is aimed against the very many naval vessels capable of delivering nuclear missiles against the Soviet Union?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I repeat what was stated at the London summit on 5th to 6th July last year when the alliance leaders met. It was stated:
"We will remain a defensive alliance and would never in any circumstances be the first to use force. None of our weapons will be used except in self-defence".
The main factor that must be remembered and one which is of fundamental importance is the defence of the realm.

Alberta Consulate: Closure
11.17 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will defer the closing of Her Majesty's consulate general in Alberta until they have had an opportunity to discuss this action with the Premier of Alberta on his forthcoming visit to London.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, no.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that particularly courteous reply. Is he aware that the Premier of Alberta is in London at the moment? Rather than rushing into this decision, it surely would have been better manners, if nothing else, when he was going to be in London to have consulted him on a matter affecting his province very considerably. Can my noble friend confirm that several of our European neighbours think it well worth while to maintain their consulates general in Alberta?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we are aware that the Premier of Alberta has been, and remains, in London this week. The Premier is already fully aware of the reasons for our decision to close the post in Edmonton and of the steps we are taking to ensure an effective protection of our interests in Alberta from our post in Vancouver. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the

341
Foreign and Commonwealth Office met Mr. Getty, the Premier, on Wednesday evening. We have been pleased to find that the disappointment about the closure, of the post has been accompanied by a welcome degree of understanding of the problems we faced and the way we were proposing to organise things in the future.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, has it not become perfectly clear since our last exchange in the House on the subject a few days ago that the disappointment and distress in Alberta about the Government's decision to close the consulate are very considerable indeed? Will the noble Lord convey to his rig ht honourable friend the reasonable point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? The House would regard it as less than courteous if the Government did not make arrangements to discuss this matter with the Premier of Alberta while he is present in London. On another point, can the noble Lord give the figures for our exports to Alberta and our imports from Alberta during the year 1990–91?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I really think that all the courtesies have been observed. Before his visit this week, the Premier of Alberta had spoken with our High Commission in Ottawa. Mr. Getty is fully aware of the reasons for our decision to close the post in Edmonton and of the steps we are taking to ensure effective protection of our interests in Alberta from our post in Vancouver. Moreover, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has explained the situation in reply to a letter from the Deputy Premier of Alberta.
It is always sad to close a diplomatic post. The decision about Edmonton, and other posts, was taken only after the most careful consideration. With regard to the final question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I am afraid that I do not have the figures for the exports and imports he mentioned. However, I shall be pleased to write to him on the matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Foreign Office is aware that the Rockies lie between Edmonton and Vancouver?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I did refer to a map; and, indeed, both the officials and myself are aware of that fact.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend now answer the part of my question in which I asked explicitly whether several other major European powers were retaining their posts in Edmonton, thereby indicating, of course, that they thought they were well worth maintaining? Further, in the context of his last reply to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, is my noble friend aware that the idea that you am look after Edmonton from Vancouver, which is 500 miles away across the Rockies, is received with derision?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, our allies—that is, the United States, the Germans and the French—all maintain offices in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. In addition, the Americans
342
have offices in Calgary, Halifax and Quebec City. The Germans have offices in Edmonton, and the French in Edmonton, Quebec City and Moncton. Therefore, there are differences.
We have every reason to suppose that we can service Alberta properly in the way proposed. I hope that my noble friend will accept that there are reasons for this; it is not just a matter of economy. The opening-up of Eastern Europe has also required us to find 23 extra diplomatic staff and give aid through the creation of know-how funds. A new post is to be opened in Kiev, and elsewhere we have re-opened missions in Damascus and Tehran. I am sure that my noble friend will understand the significance of these changes in the present circumstances.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the German Government have also increased their representation in Eastern Europe. Why is it only the British Government who have decided to shut their mission in Alberta? It seems to me an extraordinary decision.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we have to set priorities. Given the financial pressures on operations by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we have, with great reluctance, closed the post. For the same reason, we are considering a limited number of further post closures. Others of our allies are closing posts around the world.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, is it not an extreme argument to suggest that we should turn our back on the British Commonwealth in order to secure greater representation in Soviet Russia? Is my noble friend aware of the great sensitivity of the matter and the fact that the countries which make up Canada are states with their own governments, their own Parliaments, their own traditions and their own culture? Is he also aware that it is just as insensitive to tell the citizens of Alberta that they have to go to a neighbouring province as it would be to move the Scottish Office to Cardiff and tell the Scots that there was a perfectly good air service?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, Ministers attach great value to our relations with Canada and have worked hard, with success, in recent years to re-energise them. The closure of the Edmonton post does not reflect any change in that attitude. As I said, as a result of the Premier's visit, I believe that the Albertans are taking a sympathetic view on the matter, even if they are disappointed.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that our commercial and industrial relations with Alberta are probably at as high a level now as ever? Is he aware that, for example, British Gas recently acquired an investment in Alberta worth 500 million dollars, that the Albertan oil companies have a big interest in the North Sea and that our water companies are working in Alberta? That is just an illustration of the strength of the effective commercial and industrial ties that exist between us. In those circumstances, does he not think that the Government could gain great credit by going back on, and postponing, their decision?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot offer the prospect of postponing the decision. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his remarks. I join him in paying tribute to the British activity in Alberta.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, despite what my noble friend the Minister said, is he aware that there are many of us, including myself, who in a small way are trying to increase business between the United Kingdom and Canada? Is he not aware that Alberta is probably the one province in Canada, especially as regards Calgary and Edmonton, where such business is transacted? Has he had any contact with the Anglo-Canadian Chamber of Commerce? If not, will he at least ask his right honourable friend to consult that body?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not aware of whether we have had that contact. I shall certainly pass on my noble friend's message. I believe that the servicing of Calgary, which is important, will continue unchanged from what it was formerly.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, as regards this great deployment of people from Alberta to Eastern Europe, Tehran and other places, can the Minister say how many of the people who were working in Alberta speak Eastern European languages or, indeed, Farsi?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I wonder whether that question is relevant.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question which is particularly relevant. It is quite possible that many more Eastern European states could be created as time goes on. Therefore, can we now have an assurance that the situation which we are discussing will not happen again, and that no British Commonwealth country will suffer in its relationship with the United Kingdom if there are further states created in Eastern Europe?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot give any such assurance. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we care deeply for our representations in Canada and elsewhere.

Tank Fleet Modernisation
11.27 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in another place about replacement of the Chieftain tank.
"In his Statement to this House on 20th December 1988, the former Secretary of State, my right honourable friend the Member for Ayr, announced the Government's intention to replace the Chieftain with a new tank. The Challenger 2 tank being developed by Vickers was to be given the opportunity over the next two years to demonstrate that it could meet three demanding milestones. At the same time, my department has conducted an
344
extremely thorough assessment of three other contenders—an improved version of the US Abrams tank, manufactured by General Dynamics; an improved version of the German Leopard 2, manufactured by Krauss Maffei; and the French Leclerc tank manufactured by GIAT.
"This work has been greatly helped by the full assistance which we have had from the companies concerned and from their governments.
"In reaching our decision, we have had to take into account a wide range of factors, many of which did not apply two-and-a-half years ago. Chief among these is the major political and military transformation within Europe which will mean that, by the mid-1990s, over 30,000 fewer tanks will be ranged against NATO in Europe. This has led to our study of Options for Change and allows us to make significant reductions in the size of our tank fleet.
"But the main battle tank remains at the cutting edge of a modern army and without it high intensity conflict would be impossible. Indeed, the Gulf war has demonstrated the continuing importance of the tank in the land battle.
"A decision of this magnitude requires a wide range of factors to be carefully weighed and taken into account.
"Our appraisal has now been completed. We have reviewed the progress of the Challenger 2 programme, in which Vickers Defence Systems have achieved all the performance criteria known as milestones. We have also assessed the competing claims of the Leopard, Abrams and Leclerc tanks. I can inform the House that, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory contract terms, we have decided to go ahead with the Chieftain replacement programme and to place the order for the new main battle tank with Vickers for Challenger 2.
"In making the choice of the new tank, an important consideration has been the advantage of maintaining a single ammunition type within the smaller fleet. In addition to this order for Challenger 2, and taking into account the lessons of the Gulf war, we intend to proceed with a substantial upgrade programme for the Challenger 1 fleet. In particular, this programme will significantly increase the firepower of the Challenger 1 fleet by the fitting of a new and more powerful gun.
"As a result of the acquisition of Challenger 2 and the enhancement of Challenger 1, the British Army's tank fleet will be well placed to meet its new commitments, both within NATO's rapid reaction corps and elsewhere.
"The choice of Challenger 2 testifies to the skills and capabilities of British industry and will deservedly ensure jobs at VDS and its sub-contractors. It is an excellent tank and likely to command close attention among our friends and allies. I am confident that Challenger 2 is exceptionally well placed to compete in these important overseas markets where there are genuine defence needs.

345
"This announcement carries forward the process announced by my right honourable friend in July last year. As he then made clear, our aim is to achieve smaller but better forces. The Government are determined to ensure that our armed services receive the equipment that they need to do the job. This decision is an important step in that direction. I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We generally welcome the Statement. We congratulate Vickers on its success in being the Government's choice. As the Minister will be aware, there has been a long period of uncertainty, and we must be glad that that period of uncertainty is now over. Nevertheless, the Statement gives rise to a number of questions which I should like to put to the Minister.
The Statement claims that the British Army's tank fleet will be well placed to meet its new commitments both within NATO's rapid reaction corps and elsewhere. That must mean that the Government have a clear idea of the number of Challenger 2s that they will order. I should be grateful if the Minister would let us I, now that so that we can judge whether the tank fleet will be well placed to meet all its new commitments.
Secondly, while I welcome the upgrade of Challenger 1, especially with the new and more powerful gun, I should like to ask whether there will be any upgrade of the Chieftain fleet, for instance, with a new turret or a retrofit? Is that on the agenda or has it now left it?
Thirdly, in considering the size of our future battle tank fleet, have the Government been persuaded by our commitments under the CFE arrangements or have they been dominated by the Treasury? That is an important point which has been raised many times in defence debates in your Lordships' House. We should like firm government assurances on that matter.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful to the Minister and welcome the Government's decision, which is a tribute to the skill of the workforce and to the Chieftain's performance in the Gulf. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, it ends a long period of expensive uncertainty to which Vickers was committed. On those grounds, we welcome the decision.
The Statement refers to a smaller number of tanks. We await with great interest the figure which we are entitled to know. Does this not once again show the importance of trying to standardise some of the weapons in operation in NATO? How many different main battle tanks will there now be in NATO? Why have we failed to reach agreement on a European main battle tank which might have had just as favourable repercussions, if not better, for the British arms industry? What attempts did we make to reach agreement and why did they fail? The smaller each national fleet of tanks becomes, the greater becomes
346
the argument for a standardisation of weapons, and the greater the necessity for European countries to get their arms procurement act together. However, that does not detract from our welcome. We believe that the decision is the right one in all the circumstances.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the broad welcome that they gave the Statement. They asked how many tanks were to be ordered. We expect to order enough to replace two regiments of Chieftain tanks. There is to be no refit for the Chieftain, about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked. He asked about numbers and the justification for them. As I said, we plan to replace two regiments within a planned smaller tank fleet. That is the number we consider necessary for our functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about the allies' main battle tanks and how many different tanks there are. There are now four main battle tanks within NATO, those of the United States, Germany, France and Britain. Interoperability was clearly an important consideration. We gave careful consideration to the achievement of interoperability with our allies in the rapid reaction corps. But, given the size of the intended order, there was no opportunity materially to enhance interoperability within the allied tank fleet; so we concluded that our contribution would be stronger if we had interoperability within our own fleet which will include a capable tank.
11.35 a.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, my noble friend has made an announcement which we accept as being the right one. My congratulations go to Vickers on complying with all the points that the Government put to it so as to win the contract. My noble friend pointed to the opportunities that will be available to Vickers to export that main battle tank to our allies and other friendly nations. In doing that, will Vickers be subjected to the commercial exploitation levy on the product? Vickers has invested much of its own money in this product, and there is a good case for it to be zero-rated—if that is the correct word—on the commercial exploitation levy, if it arises in the future.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend welcomes the decision. He raised an important point about sales. The prime consideration is to provide the Army with first class equipment. Potential sales are always a factor taken into account in equipment procurement decisions. Potential foreign customers will have seen Challenger 1 in action during the Gulf campaign. That operation demonstrated its battlefield range and its superb night fighting capability. On the question of the levy, I understand that normal practice is to have the levy.

School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill
11.38 a.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Belstead, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

347
The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill is a short Bill; it is straightforward; the principles which it enshrines have not proved to be particularly controversial. But I believe that over time it will have a profound and beneficial effect on the quality of the education offered to the children in our schools.
The quality of that education depends in large measure on the quality of those entering and remaining in the teaching profession and the quality of the leadership which is given. That in turn is influenced by the public perception of teachers' status and of their professionalism in educating the nation's children. Teachers themselves have done much in recent years to rebuild the public's confidence, and their own, in their professional abilities and commitment. It is the Government's clear purpose, through the establishment in this Bill of a review body for teachers' pay and conditions, to show their commitment to enhancing still further the esteem in which the teaching profession is held.
Let me remind noble Lords of the position in 1987, when the present temporary arrangements for determining teachers' pay and conditions were set up. The Burnham machinery had broken down amidst scenes of bitterness and confusion. The education of large numbers of children was being wilfully and unnecessarily disrupted. The Government and parents throughout the land decided that enough was enough. The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act was passed and Burnham abolished. Teachers received a generous pay increase and, most importantly, the teachers' pay structure was fundamentally overhauled with an emphasis on rewarding achievement and responsibility.
The interim advisory committee took over where the 1987 restructuring left off. Its four reports have greatly extended the capacity of employers to respond to local priorities. Local management of schools means that more and more decisions are taken by the people who know best—the governing bodies. Should anyone doubt what can be achieved in terms of motivation and morale by creating a structure and a climate in which there can be effective management at school level, they need look no further than the IAC's latest report.
Teachers have responded by getting on with doing what teachers do best—teaching children—and they have done far more than that. They have successfully introduced a range of essential education reforms and responded positively to the challenge to raise standards and improve the service they provide. Change, I acknowledge, is often unsettling, but the teaching profession as a whole has risen to the challenge.
It is in recognition of this changed climate that the Government have concluded that a review body should be established to make recommendations on their statutory pay and conditions of service. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made plain his personal commitment to a well-paid and well-qualified teaching force and his belief that teachers should be given parity of treatment with other key professional groups.
348
The school teachers' review body, unlike the existing review bodies (for the Armed Forces, for doctors and dentists, for nurses, midwives and professions allied to medicine, and the Top Salaries Review Body) will be established by statute. These others have established their mode of operation through custom and practice. There will be one other significant difference: the school teachers' review body will not be a simple pay review body. It will consider pay, professional duties and working time in the round.
In all other essential respects the school teachers' review body will match existing review bodies. Its members will be appointed by the Prime Minister; it will report to him; it will not be given a financial constraint; written evidence will be invited from all relevant representative organisations, supplemented by oral presentations; it will receive technical support and assistance through a secretariat provided by the Office of Manpower Economics, answerable directly to the review body itself; it will decide for itself what weight to place on the various evidence presented, including the Government's, and may commission evidence on its own initiative; it will make recommendations as it thinks fit. Finally, the Government have given an undertaking that recommendations of the school teachers' review body will be implemented in full unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary—exactly the same undertaking as for existing review bodies.
The Government's proposals, however, are made on the basis that teachers will recognise their professional responsibilities and will not in future take industrial action about matters within the review body's ambit. The vast majority of teachers recognise the benefits of review body status and professionalism and see industrial action for the damaging nonsense it is. Five of the six teachers' associations have given clear and unequivocal support to the principle of a review body status for teachers. In that, they are speaking not only for their own members but are also, I have no doubt, reflecting the views of very many members of the National Union of Teachers.
The Government believe that teaching is an honourable profession which deserves—and by the same token should not lightly jeopardise—the respect and esteem of society. That, in essence, is what this Bill is about.
I turn now to the Bill itself. Clause 1 provides for the appointment of a review body by the Prime Minister and requires the review body to consult interested parties on the matters which are referred to it. Its reports are to be submitted to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State and are to be published. The clause also makes clear that the review body will be concerned only with statutory conditions of employment—that is, pay, duties and working time. Just as now, teachers and their employers will be free to agree non-statutory conditions of employment as they think fit.
When matters are referred to the review body the Secretary of State may direct it to have regard to particular considerations. These are likely to include the Government's views on the need to recruit, retain

349
and motivate sufficient teachers of the right quality within what can be afforded, as expressed at present in the level of education standard spending set by government. The Bill, however, does not give the Secretary of State the power to impose a financial constraint, as he may do at present when giving a remit to the interim advisory committee. This is a key distinction between the IAC and the review body.
Clause 2 provides for the making of orders to give effect to changes in teachers' pay and conditions. But it also requires the Secretary of State to consult the local education authority associations, teacher unions and of hers about the review body's recommendations and on his proposals for implementation.
Clause 3 enables grant-maintained schools, if they so choose, having consulted their teachers, to opt out of the statutory arrangements and to decide matters for themselves. I believe it is right that governors of grant-maintained schools, who employ the staff and pay the bills, should have this flexibility. We considered carefully whether to extend the same freedom to local authorities. I can think of some authorities who would use it wisely, but many others may riot. An authority, unlike a grant-maintained school, can load the cost of an irresponsible settlement on to its local taxpayers. But I look to the review body to give all employers within its purview a proper degree of flexibility within the national framework.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 are largely technical; Schedule 1 deals with the details of the membership and proceedings of the review body.
The Bill will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint. It is the Government's wish, if possible, to bring the Bill into effect without delay and to ask the review body to make recommendations on school teachers' pay and conditions for the year beginning 1st April 1992.
The Bill is a tribute to the dedication of the overwhelming majority of our teachers and to their achievements over the past five years. It marks a watershed in the evolution of the teaching profession and will give it the recognition and stability it needs to face the challenges of educating our children for the 21st century. The reaction of my right honourable friend's announcement confirms what we on this side of the House have always known: that the majority of teachers are dedicated professionals, committed to providing the best possible education to the children entrusted to them. It is precisely because we respect their professionalism that we have made the offer of a review body. It is both an acknowledgement and a guarantee of their professional status. I believe it will be widely welcomed for that reason. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
11.47 a.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the quality of the education we provide in our primary and secondary schools is far more dependent on the quality of the teaching profession than on anything else. The nature of the curriculum, systems of assessment, standards of
350
equipment and accommodation and the structure of school leaving examinations are all important but they pale into insignificance when compared with the quality of our teachers. Teachers' input is absolutely central to children's learning, to children's progress and to young people's acceptance of the value of education. Bad teachers can blight a child's chances in life in a more devastating way than any other failure of inputs in our schools. Good teachers can make all the difference to a pupil's performance and to his or her motivation to learn more.
Investment in the teaching profession is the most essential element in a successful education system. However, it is not just investment that counts: it is also a public recognition of the importance of teachers; it is support for them in the difficult role they have to play in modern conditions; and it is public encouragement and praise for what they achieve, sometimes against the odds. I was glad therefore to hear the noble Lord, speaking on behalf of the Government, praise teachers. For the same reason, I was saddened the week before last to read of yet another attack on teachers by a leading politician—this time none other than the Secretary of State for Education.
The quality of our teaching profession is determined by a number of factors. It is determined by the talent and ability of those who come forward to be teachers. It is determined by their training which includes in-service training. It is determined by the system's capacity to retain good teachers, to retain the best teachers. It is determined by opportunities for promotion and by other aspects of their conditions of service. Above all, it is determined by their pay which influences all the other factors that I have just listed. How much we pay teachers and how we decide this are central questions. I am therefore rather sad that so few Members of your Lordships' House have decided to take part in the debate on the Second Reading of this important Bill. When the Government decided to abandon the Burnham arrangements, which had determined teachers' pay for many years, they set up an interim advisory committee in which teachers played no part in negotiating their pay. Many of us, while certainly not lamenting the demise of Burnham, were critical of these arrangements. Above all, we have been critical of the fact that for nearly five years teachers have been denied satisfactory, permanent pay machinery and have had to rely on temporary arrangements. The Government produced a Green Paper on teachers' pay machinery as long ago as 1987. They promised the teachers and their employers that pay settlement machinery would be restored by 1990. The Government broke that promise. Here we are halfway through 1991 debating a Bill on teachers' pay and conditions, the provisions of which cannot be implemented until 1992.
This long saga has been made worse by the Government's recent handling of the legislative process. They brought in one Bill earlier this Session and spent a considerable amount of time on it in another place only to withdraw it and replace it with the Bill before us. The previous Bill actually left

351
Committee in another place. There was then a long delay with no date fixed for the Report stage and Ministers pretending that the reason was lack of parliamentary time. It is extraordinary that Ministers should claim they suffered from a lack of parliamentary time in a Session in which we have had one of the lightest legislative programmes for a decade. The claim was clearly ludicrous. The Government were simply trying to cover up the disarray they were in on this matter.
In the Government's original Green Paper there was no reference to a review body—the central proposal in this Bill. Indeed it was explicitly rejected as an option. In the four years of consultation it was never discussed. It is then suddenly pulled out of a hat and the previous Bill is abandoned halfway through its progress through Parliament. Is not the extraordinary history of the handling of this important matter yet another sign of the uncertainty and indecisiveness on central questions of policy that now seem to characterise this Government? Whatever the merits or weaknesses of the Bill before us, no one could condone the way the issue has been handled.
Having made those points, let me welcome the fact that we at last have before us some proposals for dealing with teachers' pay and conditions on a permanent basis. Let me begin by saying that on these Benches we have nothing against the idea of a review body in principle. Indeed, if a review body were to be the best route to improve the pay of teachers—bearing in mind that they have had no real-terms increase in their pay since 1987, in spite of the fact that there is a consensus in the country that they ought to be better paid—we would even be able to give it a qualified welcome. However, while not opposing the idea of a review body in principle, we are concerned about some aspects of the Bill which lead us to believe that these particular proposals for a review body are flawed. They are especially flawed with respect to the powers that they give to the Secretary of State.
As the review body will make recommendations to the Prime Minister on changes to teachers' pay and conditions, it is important to ensure that the power to set aside these recommendations is not only carefully structured but is also subject to proper safeguards. The Secretary of State has said that the recommendations would be accepted unless there were "clear and compelling reasons" why this should not happen. The Minister repeated that statement today. The Secretary of State has repeated it on several occasions. I am inclined to believe him for I am sure he is an honourable man. But a different and less honourable Secretary of State may use the powers of direction and rejection that this Bill gives him in a wholly undesirable way. Why is the Secretary of State taking powers beyond those he says he wants or will use? Other review bodies do not have such powers. We shall certainly wish to table an amendment in Committee to write on to the face of the Bill that the review body's recommendations will be accepted unless there are "clear and compelling reasons" not to do so. Moreover, any decisions to overturn the recommendations should be subject to affirmative
352
resolutions by both Houses of Parliament rather than simply being subject to annulment through resolutions of either House. It is important that stronger safeguards are built into the Bill.
A further concern we have is how the review body's recommendations are to be funded. We understand that the pay review body is to take account of standard spending assessments for education. But if a major increase is recommended for teachers' pay, it will be important to increase the standard spending assessments. To do other than this will leave the employers in an impossible position. They would be faced with the requirement to pay teachers more without the funds to do so. This would mean cutting other parts of the service or sacking teachers to make ends meet, or both. This could hardly be a good deal for teachers. And a good deal for teachers is something we all want to secure.
I welcome the fact that the Government now recognise that it may be reasonable to make extra provision above that originally planned in order to provide the necessary funding. However, the suggestion that the standard spending assessment would normally cover it seems unrealistic in the light of the proportion of local education authorities' bills taken up by teachers' pay and the size of the education service relative to other services. Any suggestion that efficiencies in other services could cover the cost of a substantial improvement in teachers' pay really will not wash. I hope the Government will take back any suggestion that this would be possible. There is no point in introducing an independent review body unless some commitment is made to fund its recommendations when they have been accepted by all the parties. The suggestion that recourse will be made to phased awards when funds are not available is an admission that its recommendations would not be fully implemented.
There is also concern about the membership of the review body. It will have before it many complex issues relating not just to pay, but, unlike other review bodies, also to conditions of service. For that reason there ought to be a provision as there was in the 1987 Act for,
"persons having relevant knowledge of or experience in education"
to be members of the review body. I am puzzled as to why the Government are unwilling to accept this. It would seem to me more likely to lead to well informed recommendations. Surely some members of the review body should be qualified in this way. I have no doubt if such an assurance were provided the confidence of the teaching profession in the proposals in this Bill would be enhanced.
Finally, there is concern about another U-turn the Government have made with respect to flexibility for local authorities. When the previous Bill was being discussed in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary appeared to favour local authorities being able to opt out of national pay structures in the interest of greater flexibility. There was certainly some rather wild talk about the so-called advantages of this from some government supporters. I am delighted that arguments of this kind have not found any place

353
in the present Bill. They are sheer folly. However, the Bill has now swung to the other extreme in actually increasing constraints on employers to act flexibly on the question of conditions of service, while perversely allowing grant-maintained schools to opt out of the nationally determined provision altogether. The Bill departs from the previous consensus that local authorities can, through locally agreed contracts of employment, develop the national framework of conditions. That seems to be an unwarranted restriction on local flexibility.
We shall, of course, have the opportunity to take up this and other matters in Committee. What we now need above all is acceptable machinery for determining teachers' pay and conditions which commands widespread support. The status of our teachers must be raised if our education service is to flourish. For too long teachers have been messed about. It is high time to give them a better deal. This is needed in order to recruit and, above all, to retain high quality teachers. Only when they are retained can we be secure in the hope that educational standards in Britain can improve.
11.58 a.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I wish from these Benches to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, for the clear way in which he has introduced the Bill. During the Second Reading of the first Bill that was introduced in another place last November the Secretary of State, commenting on the interim arrangements made in 1987 for determining teachers' pay, said that it was time to put more permanent machinery into place. As we all know, the machinery contemplated in November proved to be anything but permanent. However, I do not wish to make too much of a meal of that for it is the present Bill that we now have to consider.
I should like at the outset to make it clear that my noble friends and I fully support the principle underlying the Bill, namely that the pay of school teachers in England and Wales should be determined by an independent review body. That support was evidenced by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place when, in contrast to the action taken by the Labour Party, they voted in favour of the Bill at Third Reading.
The main reason for our support is that the last thing that is now needed is further delay and confusion. The House's primary concern today should be, through giving the Bill a Second Reading, to help to restore the morale of teachers by correcting the way in which they feel they have been treated in recent years. I very much hope that by the time the Bill leaves this House it will have the general support that it deserves.
It is plain that the great majority of teachers welcome the concept that their pay should in future be determined by an independent body. I am not now speaking of the various trade unions representing teachers' interests, although even in their case it is significant that only one, the National Union of Teachers, opposes the Bill in principle.
354
Much of the discussion in another place was concerned with doubts as to whether the review body proposed by the Government would be truly independent. On that point perhaps I may say at once that I very much welcome the assurance given by the Minister of State at Report stage—to which the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, referred this morning—that the secretariat of the review body should follow the pattern of other such bodies in being provided by the Office of Manpower Economics so that the teachers' review body:
"will receive the support and advice of the same kind and quality, including support on statistical and technical matters. from the same independent source as other review bodies". —[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/91; col. 447.]
Having said that, on these Benches we have a number of reservations about the details of the Government's proposals to which we shall wish to return in Committee. They concern among other things, both the composition and powers of the review body. I recognise that, following the normal pattern, its members are to be appointed by the Prime Minister. At the same time it seems to us that there is a good case for ensuring that as under the 1987 Act, as the noble Baroness mentioned, some at least of those appointed should have practical knowledge and experience of teaching.
I noticed that at Report stage in another place the Minister resisted an amendment proposing that before appointments were made there should be consultation with those representing the interests of local education authorities, school governors and teachers. He did so on the grounds that that would be contrary to the principle of an independent review body. However, he said that interested parties would be free to put forward names for the Prime Minister to consider. In Committee we may well suggest that that assurance should find expression on the face of the Bill.
Next, in Standing Committee in another place the Minister said a number of reassuring things about the powers of the review body which do not at present feature in the Bill itself. For example, at col. 26 of the Official Report, he said that the review body would be able to work to its own agenda. In other words, as I understand it, it will have the power to consider matters other than those referred to it by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) of Clause 1 of the Bill. That assurance, too, it seems to us merits inclusion in the Bill itself.
Then there is the question of how the pay and conditions of sixth-form college teachers should be determined. Under Clause 5 of the Bill they are deemed to be school teachers and are therefore covered by the review body. Yet it is plain from the Government's White Paper on further and higher education that in England and Wales responsibility for sixth-form colleges is later to be transferred from local authorities to the new further education councils which it is proposed should be established. To say the least, that places the teachers involved in an invidious position. In terms of career development alone there are at present strong links between teachers in sixth-form colleges and in those secondary schools. We should therefore think carefully before allowing those links to be broken. If the pay and conditions of

355
teachers in primary, secondary and grant-maintained schools is to be determined by a statutory review body, it is difficult to see the justification for excluding sixth-form college teachers from the same treatment.
Indeed, similar considerations extend to colleges of higher education, polytechnics and universities. They do not come within the ambit of this Bill and it would not therefore be appropriate to discuss their position in Committee. However, one wonders why the pay and conditions of teachers and lecturers in those institutions should not also be determined by a review body. Under the discredited bargaining system now applicable to them, the Secretary of State effectively has a veto over settlements reached between vice-chancellors and the Association of University Teachers. In the 1987 White Paper on higher education the Government acknowledged that the current negotiating machinery for university lecturers was defective, but they have since done nothing to improve it.
I can speak with some authority on the matter because for 10 years, until recently, I was chairman of a university council. There is a widely perceived unfairness, as the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said, not only in the way salaries of university teachers are determined but in their salary levels. I was frankly astonished to learn that the Secretary of State did not even have the courtesy to meet representatives of the CVCP to discuss the question of a pay review body for university lecturers.
When the matter was raised on Second Reading of the Bill in another place the Secretary of State referred to the fact that at that time the AUT was balloting its members on whether to take industrial action in support of its pay claim. It has not done so. The Government's proposal to establish an independent review body for school teachers has been made on the basis, as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, has told us this morning, that teachers will not in future take such action on matters within the review body's ambit. If a review body is now to be established for school teachers, who in recent years have taken industrial action on a number of occasions, would not a review body for higher education equally ensure that such action would, in the words of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers in support of the Bill, recede into the mists of history. I do not see the logic of the Government's position in this regard. I should be grateful, therefore, if in replying to the debate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would explain it, if he can.
As has been said, when the Secretary of State announced his intention to establish a review body for teachers he said that its recommendations would be accepted unless there were what he called "clear and compelling reasons" why that should not be done. That wording is not included in the Bill. Surely it should be.
From Clause 2(9) it is plain that if the Secretary of State decides to make any, in the words of the Bill, "material modification" to the review body's recommendations, his decision will be subject to annulment only by a negative resolution of either
356
House of Parliament. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, we think that a decision to overturn the review body's findings should be validated by an affirmative resolution in both Houses. That is not simply because we are talking about an annual pay bill of about £10 billion.
It may be said that such positive parliamentary endorsement is not required in the case of other review bodies, but the review body for teachers, unlike others, is to be a statutory body set up by Parliament. In our view, therefore, it is Parliament which should positively take responsibility if the body's recommendations are to be rejected by the Executive. That is the procedure now operative under the 1987 Act which established the interim advisory committee. Immediately after this debate we are to discuss an order provided for under the 1987 Act and based on that very procedure. I am glad that it is the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who is to reply to this debate for it was he who, in support of that procedure, said on 26th January 1987 at col. 1224 of Hansard:
"I really do think that that is a sensible balance. It promises that your Lordships' House as well as another place will not be obliged to spend time on matters where there may be little controversy, while ensuring specific parliamentary approval is secured on every occasion when the Government want to alter any aspect of the committee's advice".
On the question of finance, the Government have undertaken that no predetermined financial constraints will be placed on the review body. On the other hand, we are told that pay levels will have to be set within what can be afforded. Local authorities are understandably concerned that they may be able to finance the treatment agreed for school teachers only by having to make unreasonable reductions in other public services. I am sure that this is a matter to which the House will wish to return in Committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said, Clause 3 obliges the Secretary of State, on application by the governing body of a grant-maintained school, to make an order exempting teachers in that school from a pay and conditions order. The clause further stipulates that, before making such an application, the governing body must consult the teachers whom it employs. I welcome that safeguard for it shows that the Government have taken heed of the advice pressed on them when the first Bill of this kind was discussed in another place.
The fact remains that, during the passage of the Education Reform Bill through Parliament, the then Secretary of State gave assurances that grant-maintained schools would be treated no more favourably than those controlled by local education authorities. If a pay review body is judged to be the appropriate determinant for LEA schools, surely, to avoid the poaching of teachers and to provide a reasonably level playing field generally, its findings should apply also to grant-maintained schools.
Moreover, under Clause 3, the Secretary of State has been given no discretion to accept or reject an application by the governing body of a grant-maintained school to be exempted from a pay and conditions order. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will tell us why that is so.

357
In conclusion, I should simply like to reiterate that, although as I have indicated we on these Benches have a number of reservations about the details of the Bill, we support its underlying principle.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lady Blackstone on her introductory comments from our Benches. She is always a great pleasure to listen to on matters of this kind in view of her competence and her concise presentation of the case, which, in the field of education, is a great help to the layman. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, with his usual examination of the detail of a Bill of this kind, has compiled an agenda of some importance for the Committee stage.
I do not know whether I am wrong in my impression, but it appears to me that Bills come from another place these days singularly unclear and unfinished. Our work in scrutinising Bills from another place seems to increase. One of our functions is that of a revising Chamber, but, when I read, as I have done, the proceedings in another place on this Bill and on the Bill of last November, I can see what goes wrong down there. For one thing, there are far too many interruptions of the leading speakers to enable the reader to retain any idea of what they are talking about. One finds that Ministers are interrupted before they have got going and they have great difficulty in getting back into the debate. When they do, everyone has forgotten what they were saying before and a certain amount of repetition occurs. Quite frankly, I find it tedious to read the proceedings in another place on all matters relating to education. On this Bill and the Bill of November last year —the main, No. 1 Bill—a whole range of subjects, including teachers' conditions and the state of education were thrown into the debate quite early on and one wondered how the Second Reading of the Bill was ever reached.
I have had a long association with the problem. It goes back to the days when the late Sir Edward Boyle, who later became Lord Boyle, was trying to make sense of the Burnham scheme. That certainly broke down. I came to the Houghton Committee in 1974 because, the Burnham scheme had broken down and it was impossible to achieve a settlement through the usual procedures. The Scottish teachers were on strike. I went to Scotland within the first fortnight of my appointment and was met at the station in Edinburgh by a huge placard which said, "Hurry up, Houghton!". That shows what an impatient lot they are up there. They do not give you a chance to begin. That was certainly a criterion with regard to the pace that the Committee had to keep up in trying to reach its conclusions.
Perhaps I may comment on two aspects of the nature of the staff of the education service which are a constant source of trouble in relationships with the Administration. Teachers are so highly intelligent and alive to the responsibilities and professional aspects of their job that they have many different opinions. One finds refinements in the organisation of the teaching profession that one does not find in, say, the Civil
358
Service. The problem in all staff relations in the education service stems from two disturbing factors: first, the disunity among the teachers' organisations and, secondly, the fact that they have never dealt with one employer; it was always two. The differences between local education authorities and the department and the Treasury were often the cause of the lack of progress of the Burnham Committee. It is difficult to overcome those two problems.
When I started work on the Houghton Committee in 1974 I called all the teachers' organisations together and said, "Look, I've heard that you've never before all appeared together in one room. Well, you're doing it now and you'll continue to do it throughout the proceedings in this Committee. I shall not see any individual union separately. We shall have all the discussions with the teachers at the same time so that we all know where we stand". That approach worked very well indeed.
Again, in negotiations on a matter of this kind, staff interests cannot, with the best will in the world, always sort themselves out. In addition, some institutions can never reform themselves from the inside. That is why, on occasion, it is useful for an outside body to look at them. I am glad that the review body will now begin on a permanent basis with more authority and, I am sure, with better results. It is not only acceptable, it is the only possible solution at the moment, with the education services undergoing such rapid change.
In my researches I have not discovered why the No. 1 Bill, which had its second Reading in November, started in Committee of the House of Commons but then ceased to be discussed and seemed to run into the sand, being followed by the No. 2 Bill in April this year. There must have been a sea change in the Government's attitude toward the proposals in the November Bill. I viewed that Bill with deep anxiety. Quite frankly, I did not think that it was a workable scheme. The Bill that is before us this morning is the best solution in the present circumstances.
I should like to raise one or two points about scope. I am not clear, first, whether "school teachers" includes head teachers and deputy heads, and, secondly, I am not clear about the polytechnics. When I was involved, the polytechnics were included but the universities were not. That was an inconvenience and I shall come to the universities in a moment. The polytechnics will now come under a different regime as regards government responsibility. However, I have lost sight of where they are intended to go and should be glad to know.
With regard to university teachers, there is some indignation among the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals. Some terse correspondence has passed between the committee and the Government. It seems to me that there is some discontent there. I mention that because, when I was involved with teacher's pay, the university teachers were waiting in the wings. Their case was being looked after by Sir Alec Johnston, the former chairman of the Board of the Inland Revenue. The university teachers waited for us to produce a report. They wanted to see the report on teachers' pay before proceeding with the negotiations on university teachers' pay. However, by

359
the time university teachers' pay was dealt with, the economic atmosphere had deteriorated seriously, and they were right in believing that they suffered from the delay. When it came to their turn, the Government were by no means as ready to settle on such reasonable conditions as they would have been otherwise.
Two other points arise. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, have referred to one of them; namely, the Government's attitude and power as regards the recommendations of the review body. This is most important in connection with teachers' pay because the whole Burnham set-up was in constant danger of interference from government. To begin with, agreements could be reached between the employers' and teachers' organisations and overthrown by the Government. Later, the Government took part in the Burnham Committee itself so that they could participate in the decisions that were reached. That helped.
The Civil Service Whitley Council, to which I have been devoted ever since it began in 1919, has a proviso that the decisions reached are implemented subject to the overriding power of Parliament. One has to reserve to the overriding power of Parliament really large settlements which affect hundreds of thousands of people and have considerable economic consequences. But the Government should be very careful not to interfere with the recommendations of review bodies except in fully understandable, if not acceptable, circumstances.
We have had experience of that already with review bodies. The tendency has been for the Government to accept the recommendations but to introduce them by instalments. That can have its justification in certain circumstances. But one has to vest in a review body a considerable amount of responsibility for coming to decisions virtually in the name of the Government—in the name of the Government but not necessarily in harmony with their views every time. Something very special is needed before one considers overthrowing the recommendations of review bodies. It means that for good reasons the Government have placed in a committee their responsibility in the public interest to settle a matter rather than have it settled within the machinery of direct contact between the interests involved. The committee becomes, as it were, the representative of the Administration in the matters under consideration and its responsibility should rest very heavily upon it. In deciding its composition, that aspect of the matter should be borne in mind.
One should also consider how variations, if any, are to be carried out. I understand that there is now a negative procedure for statutory instruments, whereas under the 1987 Act they were sent to both Houses of Parliament. I believe that we should have the affirmative procedure in connection with any statutory instruments laid which vary the conditions and recommendations of the review body. They are important enough for that. That point also should be borne in mind.
We are sufficiently familiar with the way in which review bodies work to have considerable confidence that this one, being a statutory body, will receive the
360
full weight of public confidence. We have to proceed as well as we can with the other big changes that are needed in the education system. Let me add that one of the advantages of a review body in the present circumstances is that it can make comments in its report which nobody else can make. The employers cannot, the unions will not want to, and probably the Government will not wish to say these things. But, in making its recommendations, a review body can express views, and that may be a good thing to do. I tried to do it in my report all those years ago but it is very difficult for a chairman to introduce into his report on the agreed document too many of his own views about what should be done in the future.
Certainly conditions of service should have been within our terms of reference but nobody wanted them to be included. The belief that teachers and professionals should have no rigid and stereotyped conditions of service forbade us to consider what was in some respects the most important aspect of the matter; namely, their claim for higher remuneration and greater confidence. So that aspect should be included. The statutory conditions of service should leave a great deal of flexibility for local education authorities and the schools themselves to adjust their resources to the needs of the curriculum or the types of people in their particular areas. Teaching will not be a nine to five job anyhow but some flexibility is needed. One can distinguish between the statutory conditions of service and those which form part of extra services rendered by teachers as part of their professional interest and devotion to their task. I believe that introducing such a distinction will make some difference.
I can only wish the Bill well. It is very important that education shall now come to the top of the political agenda. We must be sure that we deal with all the matters involved with enough imagination and consideration to achieve the best results for the future development of the education service.
12.30 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have had an interesting debate today on which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, brought to bear her formidable knowledge of the education service. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, also brought his wide experience of education and training. We have now heard from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who, when I first started working in politics, was a household name (as he still is) because of the important report which he brought forward during the 1970s.
We on this side of the House have made clear in the speech given by my noble friend Lord Cavendish that establishing a review body should do a great deal to restore the status of the teaching profession within our society, to raise the morale of teachers and ultimately to benefit the education of the nation's children. In all essentials, except for the fact that it will deal with conditions as well as with pay, the school teachers' review body proposed in the Bill will be identical to those review bodies which deal with other professional

361
groups. In all those cases there is a general recognition of the substantial benefits which the privilege of review body status brings.
The noble Baroness spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. Not unreasonably, she criticised the Government for withdrawing one Bill and introducing the Bill before your Lordships' House today. However, that was done precisely because, as the noble Baroness said, the quality of teachers is the fundamental ingredient in the education service in our country. Teachers have demonstrated their professional commitment by the way in which they have tackled the major educational reforms that the Government have introduced. The interim advisory committee's reports bear witness to their efforts and their achievements.
However, last year the air was full of talk of disruption for one reason or another, either because of pay, conditions of service or the education reforms. I believe it is fair to say that there was a division between the teachers' organisations about what pay machinery ought to be introduced. But I would argue that today there is strong support for the principle of a review body among the teacher associations. Indeed a vast majority of the associations is in favour. It is for that simple reason, and for the deeper reasons concerning what has happened in the education service (in particular in facing the reforms) that the Government believed it was right to change course, and to bring forward this Bill providing for a review body.
In that general context, I welcome a great deal of what the noble Baroness said. However, she will forgive me if I say that the problem so far as concerns the Government is that whereas we hear that the Labour Party has nothing against a review body in principle, there is continued opposition to certain aspects of the Bill. We shall not have a situation in your Lordships' House such as we had in another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, reminded us, in which the Opposition voted throughout against the Bill almost on principle. But there is not agreement on the Bill.
I realise from the noble Baroness's speech that, like the Opposition spokesman on education in another place, the noble Baroness believes that the power of direction in Clause 1(4) is one of the main issues for noble Lords opposite. The main thrust of the noble Baroness's argument was that the clause gives the Secretary of State unprecedented powers to give directions to the review body. Perhaps I may examine that briefly. Under the provisions of the Bill, can the Secretary of State constrain the review body's freedom to make recommendations as it thinks fit? I wish to say from the Government Front Bench that from my reading of the Bill he cannot. Can the Secretary of State prevent the review body from considering any matter? Again it is important for me to say that from my reading he cannot. Clause 1 defines the review body's duty to make recommendations on any specific matter referred to it and to report within a set time. But its report will be able to range more widely if it considers that to be appropriate.
362
Your Lordships have expressed concern over the way in which references are made to the review body. Throughout the debate today there has been apprehension that there may be a prevention from making recommendations across the range of pay and conditions, despite what I have just said. That is not the Government's reading of Clause 1(1). My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would expect to ask the review body to report on a regular basis and, except when making limited references asking for advice on a specific issue, in his remit letter my right honourable friend would expect to invite the review body to address any matter concerned with school teachers' statutory conditions of employment as it thinks fit. In fact a review body would not need such an invitation. When it has been asked to report on any matter, it would be able to recommend on any other matter if it thinks fit. The Bill does not preclude that. My right honourable friend would have the power under Clause 2(1) to put such recommendations into effect.
Clause 1(4) gives my right honourable friend the power to direct the review body to have regard to certain considerations. But the review body, having taken those considerations into account, can then make recommendations as it judges best. To suggest that the Government will be able to tie the hands of the review body would be simply wrong. The review body will be required to exercise its own objective independent judgment and to report on that basis. That proposition has a powerful attraction—powerful enough to have attracted the support and good will of five out of the six teacher associations.
Perhaps I may add a word on the giving of directions. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, have expressed unease about the matter. All the Bill enables the Secretary of State to do is to give the review body directions about considerations which it is to have regard. Having had regard to those considerations, the review body will be free to recommend precisely as it thinks fit. However, it is surely helpful to all concerned for my right honourable friend to give the review body at the very start of its deliberations a general indication of the Government's broad policy objectives, and to do so in an open and above-board way. That is the effect of Clause 1(5). I believe that it is also reasonable to require the review body to have regard to what the Secretary of State says. That is all that Clause 1(4) provides for.
Perhaps I may flesh the matter out. The considerations which the review body would be asked to have regard to would no doubt include matters such as the Government's desire to recruit, maintain and motivate sufficient staff of the right calibre to stay close to the present pay and conditions structure, to move towards more flexible pay arrangements targeted towards meeting specific needs. I suggest that those are matters on which it is right and proper for the review body to know the Government's position from the outset. I do not believe that such considerations could constitute unacceptable restrictions on the review body's freedom to recommend as it thinks fit.

363
Perhaps I may make a brief reference to affordability. I believe that there is agreement between both sides of the House that, whatever arrangements are in place, the Government have the final word on a pay settlement. That will be as true for the review body under the Bill as brought forward as it is true for the interim advisory committee. However, again there is a crucial difference. The Government will undertake to implement the review body's recommendations unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. That places teachers on exactly the same footing as other review groups.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, raised the affordability issue and will probably return to it in Committee. Although there is agreement between the Front Benches of the noble Baroness's party and mine on the use of the words "clear and compelling", the issue is one of interpretation. Without wishing to be too pedestrian perhaps I may remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend in another place made the point that if in future the review body were to make recommendations which had not been anticipated by the Government, the Government must then face the fact that when they take a decision, in particular on the authority of the Prime Minister, they must consider carefully whether the decision can properly be funded. My right honourable friend said that normally he would expect the standard spending assessment to cover the situation, but it might not. One must then consider whether efficiencies could reasonably be made in other areas or whether it might be necessary to phase.
I listened carefully to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, about the essential need for government to think carefully and responsibly about funding. For that reason I have covered the points that were raised. When the Government look at any clear and compelling reasons why it might be necessary to make some modification to the funding of a review body report, those are exactly the criteria which exist at the present time for the other review bodies, although it is true that they are in non-statutory form.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, suggested that the words "clear and compelling" should appear on the face of the Bill. In his Statement to the House on 17th April my right honourable friend gave an undertaking that the Government would implement the review body's recommendation unless there are such reasons for not doing so. In using that form of words my right honourable friend was deliberately replicating the commitment given by the Prime Minister in respect of recommendations from the existing review bodies. Therefore, teachers will enjoy exactly the same assurances as do the other review body groups.
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords raised the issue of membership. We are setting up a review body and not an interim advisory committee. The Prime Minister is not constrained in the way that the noble Baroness would wish; namely, having members with knowledge of, and expertise in, education. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the health service
364
review bodies specifically exclude from membership representatives of the professions whose pay they determine. That may be a matter to which the noble Baroness will wish to return, but for the moment that is my reply.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the anxiety is that some members of the review body should have requisite knowledge and experience of education; it is not that all the members should be in that category. Indeed, I should be opposed to that suggestion because it is desirable that independent outsiders look at the issue of teachers pay. I make the suggestion in particular because the review body will be looking in detail at conditions. That is not true of the other review bodies. I do not believe that the Prime Minister would be greatly constrained in having to appoint a small number of members of the review body who have such experience. After all, there are many people around.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I entirely take the noble Baroness's argument. I understand the point she makes that there are conditions in the mix as well as pay. I assure your Lordships that provided my right honourable friend the Prime Minister can obtain people to do the job it is possible that we shall be able to appoint people who can reach the right conclusions on both pay and conditions. However, at the moment, that is not written on the face of the Bill. I understand the noble Baroness's point and I hope that I have made my position clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness spoke about grant maintained schools. The noble Lord said that there needs to be a level playing field, otherwise there could be poaching of teachers. He also said that my right honourable friend should have the power to reject a grant maintained school's application in order to make its own arrangements. I suggest that the budget of a grant maintained school is determined by the same formula as is used for local education authority schools with a proportion of its central budget, if it can use that more wisely, being able to go to teachers. Therefore, I believe that the playing field is level.
As regards the noble Lord's second point, that is a management decision for an individual school. It is not my right honourable friend's place to second guess the grant maintained schools. However, as the noble Lord fairly said, staff must be consulted before schools make proposals. I know that the noble Lord welcomed that—
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the Minister understood, did he not? I referred not so much to grant maintained schools in general but more particularly to those which have opted out?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, indeed I did. The noble Baroness bracketed her comments about the grant maintained schools with the points that local authorities have made recently about changing their situation relating to non-statutory conditions of service. I am aware that local education authorities have expressed anxiety that some existing non-statutory conditions of service which have little if

365
anything to do with pay—for instance, duties and working time—would nonetheless be caught by the definition of statutory conditions used in the Bill. My honourable and right honourable friends in another place have said that they will look carefully at the points which the employers have raised. It is not my colleagues' intention that the review body should concern itself with matters other than the central areas of pay, duties and working time. If there were agreement that a particular condition of employment, perhaps among those presently to be found in the Burgundy Book, should remain in the non-statutory areas but there was nonetheless doubt that that would be the effect of the Bill, my right honourable friend would certainly be prepared to exercise his power under Clause 5(3) to remove any uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, spoke about teachers in sixth-form colleges. If he will forgive me I shall not follow him down the road of university teachers. He was right in saying that once the new further education sector has been established, teachers in sixth-form colleges will no longer fall within the scope of the review body. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that lecturers in polytechnics do not fall within the scope of this Bill; it is concerned entirely with school teachers. The lecturers to whom the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred will be covered by new arrangements which will be set up for all staff in the new sector.
The Government intend pay and conditions in the new sector to be settled through negotiations between employer and employee. We believe that there should be the maximum freedom for institutions to set pay in response to their own needs and circumstances. The detailed arrangements for the negotiations must be considered by the institutions themselves with the staff concerned and with the Government. Unlike the noble Lord, I do not believe that there is anything contradictory in that proposal. The Government's objectives are to improve as far as possible standards and efficiency and to raise the status of education. Our policies for school teachers and for the FE sector will in different ways achieve precisely that. However, the two sectors have different structures and different needs. We believe that the mechanisms to raise standards and efficiency should reflect those differences—
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he would not follow me down the road of university lecturers. I hope that I made it plain that I appreciate that university education does not come within the scope of the Long Title of the Bill. Nevertheless, the noble Lord may agree that we are discussing the principle underlying the Bill. I suggest that in logic the same principle should apply to university lecturers and school teachers. Perhaps the noble Lord will comment further at this stage or write to me on the subject.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should be only too pleased to write to the noble Lord and to copy the letter in the usual way. I hope that I do not sound discourteous, but this Bill is concerned with school teachers' pay. It arises because of what happened to
366
the Burnham Committee. We are discussing a matter which is different from the university sector. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.
The last point to which I wish to refer, because nearly all your Lordships referred to it, is the use of affirmative or negative resolution. The use of the negative resolution procedure is parallel with the procedure used by other review bodies. In some cases there is no parliamentary procedure at all. As regards doctors and dentists, the Secretary of State for Health makes an order in a manner similar to that provided for in the Bill. For that statutory order, affirmative resolution is not required.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, quoted back to me my words from three or four years ago, which is always rather unnerving. For once perhaps the noble Lord was being rather less than fair. I do not believe that he was comparing like with like. I must check but I believe that my words were in the context of the setting up of the interim advisory committee. Here we are not setting up an IAC but an independent review body. Unlike the IAC, the review body will not be subject to financial constraints and will be free to recommend as it thinks fit. Under Clause 2(1) the Secretary of State is required to consult interested parties on the review body's reports and on proposals for implementation. Therefore, there will be a wealth of consultation and exchange of information. That is yet another reason why we have veered towards the negative rather than the affirmative resolution.
In bringing forward this Bill I believe the Government have given the clearest possible evidence of their commitment to enhancing the professional status of teachers. There has been a wide welcome for the Bill by the teachers' associations. That is right because it is a tribute to what the teaching profession has achieved since Burnham ended with a good deal of chaos and confusion. The Bill holds out the prospect of recognition and stability in the years ahead. I believe that that is good news for teachers, parents and children. Now that the Bill has arrived in your Lordships' House, I hope that your Lordships will be able to support it.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1991
12.53 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1991 be approved. This order will give effect to the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1991. Local education authorities and the governors of grant-maintained schools will then be required to pay teachers at the new rates.
The publication of the 1991 pay and conditions document will complete a process which began in September 1990 when my right honourable friend the

367
then Secretary of State for Education and Science asked the interim advisory committee to advise on teachers' pay in 1991–92. He asked it to look as ways of further increasing flexibility within the pay system in order to improve recruitment and retention, paying particular attention to measures to help LEAs tackle teacher shortages in key subjects or particular areas such as London, and to reward excellence in classroom teaching.
The committee fulfilled its remit admirably and produced the fourth in what has been a series of thorough and well argued reports. It recommended a number of improvements to consolidate the important structural changes introduced last year and to extend local flexibility to make discretionary payments to individual teachers. The committee emphasised the importance of using these pay flexibilities imaginatively and purposefully to meet local priorities, to develop an attractive career structure, to reward responsibility and good performance and to attract high quality entrants to the profession.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science received the report on 18th January and announced on 31st January that he proposed to accept its recommendations, but to stage their introduction in the same way as for the review body groups. He explained that in view of the size of the proposed pay award and for wider economic reasons the recommendations would be implemented in full by 1st December 1991.
Section 3 of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 requires consultation with interested parties before the proposals can be implemented. My right honourable friend considered very carefully the points made by the teacher unions and the employers, but concluded that the Government's proposal to accept the recommendations in full, while staging their introduction in the period up to 1st December, should be given effect.
Implementation of the committee's recommendations will mean very substantial rises for all teachers, particularly heads, deputy heads and teachers who have more responsibility. When fully implemented, the value of the points on the heads' and deputies' pay spine will have risen by 12.75 per cent. and all ranges on that spine will have been extended by two points. The value of points on the standard scale for classroom teachers will increase by 9.5 per cent.
The IAC reaffirmed its belief that incentive allowances have an essential role to play in recruiting, retaining and motivating teachers. It therefore recommended a 30 per cent. increase in the value of the five rates of allowance, taking the value of the highest allowance to over £7,100. It also proposed that an extra 9,100 incentive allowances should be introduced in the 1991–92 academic year, bringing the total number of allowances in primary and secondary schools to nearly 200,000.
The IAC drew particular attention to the importance of rewarding good classroom performance. It recommended that, from 1st September, discretionary scale points above the standard scale should be awarded solely against the criteria of a
368
teacher's performance across all aspects of their professional duties, but with particular attention being given to the quality of their classroom teaching. The upper limit of the discretionary scale will rise to £3,000, and most importantly the discretion to put in place additional scale points will be devolved to the governing bodies of schools with delegated budgets. I hope that governing bodies and LEAs will use this discretion to the full to motivate their teachers and to reward achievement.
These increases in salary points and allowances mean that, by December, average earnings for a primary school teacher on the top of the standard scale will be some £18,300. For a secondary school teacher on the top of the scale the average salary will be about £20,200—some £2,700 above the scale maximum of £17,500.
The IAC also stressed the importance of effective, positive management by heads and deputies in seizing the opportunities provided by the local management of schools. The Government welcome this and have been encouraged by the committee's comments about what they observed in schools with delegated budgets. The TAC noted in its report that in such schools:
"the freedom associated with delegated budgeting was warmly welcomed, and was being used by the head teacher to achieve ends which benefited teachers and pupils: employing additional non-teaching staff to relieve teachers of clerical and other time-consuming tasks; ensuring adequate cover with supply teachers; and undertaking programmes of redecoration and minor building works".
The changes recommended by the committee, and accepted by the Government, will help LEAs and governing bodies to recruit and retain the teachers they need, and to reward good performance. They give governing bodies and LEAs more discretion to make selective payments in the light of local circumstances. They will greatly increase the capacity for local management to manage.
We have just completed the Second Reading of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No.2) Bill. This is therefore an appropriate time to pay tribute to the work of the interim advisory committee. Its clear analyses and far-reaching recommendations for change have won widespread support. The IAC's report provided an excellent basis for the future development of the teachers' pay structure and, by highlighting and encouraging teacher professionalism, has played an important part in preparing the way for the award to teachers of review body status.
The IAC recommendations for 1991–92 are embodied in this order, which is needed to ensure that teachers receive their pay increases. I commend it to the House and ask that the order be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
1 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I hope that this will be the last time that the House is asked to consider an order which derives from the recommendations of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions. We have been considering such orders for

369
far too long. As I said in the earlier debate, the Government have indulged in unacceptable delays in bringing in more permanent machinery. But that does not mean to imply that we on this side of the House are not grateful to those involved in the IAC for the work that they have done; we are. We are also fully aware of the extent to which they have succeeded in winning the confidence of teachers in spite of the fact that many of those directly affected would have preferred a system of collective bargaining. As there may not be another opportunity to thank the committee formally, I should like to do so now.
Many of the recommendations the committee made in its report are ones that we would endorse. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in going through them all and indicating our agreement. However, we strongly support the decision to reward excellence in classroom teaching. We support also the views of the committee on the hard work and commitment exhibited by most teachers. The IAC remarks were based on visits to a number of schools where members were able to observe teachers in the classroom. Were Members of your Lordships' House to make similar visits I am sure that in most cases the same conclusion would be reached.
I should like to add that we strongly endorse the case made for teacher appraisal in the report. That is now recognised as being of great importance in improving the performance and professionalism of teachers. However, as I have said before in this House and will say again, it is regrettable that the Government have underfunded the new system of appraisal. If it is to work well, the funds must be there. I note that the interim advisory committee is also concerned that there are insufficient funds available specifically for training. Appraisal is a complex business and to carry it out effectively those involved must be given good training. It is also crucial to the process of awarding discretionary payments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, referred.
The IAC recommendations for more non-contact hours for primary teachers are also welcome. Her Majesty's inspectorate argued in favour of that development. The task of the primary teacher is becoming more difficult. We are asking them to take on new responsibilities with regard to assessment and the curriculum. For example, we now expect primary teachers to teach more science and to provide lessons in technology. That is quite new. It is difficult for teachers to develop those new skills and do all the paperwork associated with assessment if every minute of the school day, every day of the week, is spent in the classroom with children. I hope that the Government will look favourably at the committee's suggestions on that matter.
I now turn briefly to three aspects of the order that are causing anxiety. The first is procedural and can be dealt with quickly. The teachers' unions have become justifiably concerned about the lateness in the year when this debate takes place. There seems to be a quite unnecessary delay between the completion of technical consultations on the order and the laying of the order before Parliament.
370
The second and more substantive anxiety is about the introduction of discretionary awards in a context where schools' budgets are too low to give any of those awards to their staff. For example, those schools with substantial numbers of teachers at the top of the scale are finding it increasingly difficult to manage on their budgets, let alone pay out discretionary awards. Indeed, there have been numerous reports of very experienced teachers who make a big dent in the salary bill under local management of schools being made redundant. Surely local management of schools was not meant to lead to that outcome.
Most importantly, what is the point of a new discretionary system of payments if there is no money to pay for them? Reports throughout the country suggest that only a small fraction of discretionary awards are being made in practice. What is needed is a proper system to monitor the new arrangements before Ministers make claims that are based on inadequate information. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether a system of management can be set up so that the benefits of a new pay system, which is completely unproven, can be properly assessed.
My third anxiety is about financing the pay award. The government assumption built into the 1991–92 standard spending assessment was a 7.1 per cent. increase overall for local authority budgets, with education receiving 8.8 per cent. The increase proposed for teachers by the interim advisory committee was 11.3 per cent. That led to a totally unsatisfactory situation in two respects. First, it led to a shortfall this year of £420 million compared to local authority estimates of need. Secondly, and perhaps more important from the point of view of teachers, it led to the staging of the teachers' award for the second year running. The Government have in that fundamental respect overturned the recommendations of the interim advisory committee by staging the award. They failed to implement the timetable recommended by the committee and in so doing diluted the contribution the committee sought to make to solve the problems of recruitment, retention, morale and motivation in the profession.
What is the point of setting up an independent review body which spends many months examining what is needed within the parameters set by government—and it has adhered entirely to the guidelines—only to have its recommendations ignored in that crucial respect? In that regard I agree with what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby said in our earlier debate. That overturning of the IAC recommendations cannot create confidence in the new system that we debated earlier today. Nor can it signal to teachers that the Government mean what they say when they claim to value their work.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, for explaining the order to us. We have only just finished debating the merits of the Bill detailing the Government's proposals on how the pay of school teachers in England and Wales should in future be determined. The order before us will soon be overtaken by the provisions of that Bill and I do not therefore propose to say much about it now. However, I cannot let the opportunity pass

371
without regretting the fact that the recommendations of the interim advisory committee concerning the pay of teachers in the year 1991–92 have not been accepted in their entirety. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, remarked, at least in part they are to be staged. Indeed, that is why this order can be approved only by an affirmative resolution of the House.
In many cases, local management of schools means that salary budgets are being funded on the basis of overall teachers' salaries rather than actual salary costs. Local authorities do not have the resources needed to meet that cost; LEAs are therefore having to make some teachers redundant in order to pay others the recommended increase. That is sadly not the fault of the interim advisory committee to whose work over the past four years I, too, should like to pay tribute.
I welcome particularly the emphasis given in the committee's last report to the use of pay flexibilities to meet local priorities, and to the promotion of performance appraisal. I very much hope that with the advent of the proposed review body LEAs will at last obtain the resources needed to give school teachers the salaries that they deserve. Meanwhile, I do not propose to comment further on the details of the order before us. On these Benches we do not oppose it.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for contributing to this short debate. I, too, hope that this will be the last time this order will come before your Lordships' House.
The Government are implementing the recommendations of the interim advisory committee because they represent a very good deal for teachers. They make further improvements to the pay structure and hold out the prospect of enhanced awards for the acceptance of extra responsibility and good classroom performance. This generous pay award will help LEAs and schools to recruit the staff that they need and to motivate the career of teachers.
The Government's acceptance of the IAC's recommendations demonstrates their commitment to raise the status of the profession and its self-confidence. In this respect we are very encouraged by the comments made by the IAC in its latest report. The report notes that there are indications that morale is improving among teachers,
"partly by the increased self-confidence of teachers as they see the successful introduction of reforms and partly by the new freedom available under LMS".
I must now pay tribute to the commitment and abilities of our teachers and the professional way in which they responded to the challenge to raise standards in our schools.
A great deal has been made of the Government's decision to stage this year's supplement. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, raised this matter. Against a background of falling inflation the majority of teachers will be considerably better off. Inflation is now at 5.8 per cent. and is expected to fall further by the end of the year. The effect of the IAC's
372
recommendations is to increase the teachers' pay bill by 8.4 per cent. this year and by 11.3 per cent. in a full year. That is a very substantial pay increase by anyone's standards. It is essential that schools and LEAs develop clear policies for the use of all the various pay flexibilities to ensure that good performance is promptly rewarded and to attract good teachers in the shortage subjects. There is evidence that some LEAs and schools are moving in this direction, but more needs to be done. My right honourable friend made clear in another place that he believes the IAC was right to urge the teaching profession to accept a larger element of the pay bill made available to enhance the salaries of standard scale teachers should be related to performance.
The Government have again accepted the IAC argument that heads and deputies should receive increases which are appreciably higher than those for teachers on the standard scale. As the IAC said, at paragraph 3.46 of its report:
"The role of the head teacher has always been essential to the success of the school, but now more so than ever. Head teachers will need to show clear leadership and able management and to give all their teachers a sense of common purpose in the aims and objectives of the school".
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked about the policy leading to teacher redundancies. There are many reasons why a school's budget may not be as large as the governors and head wish. There is a proportion of money held back by the LEA on its own spending. There is a balance between primary and secondary sectors; there is a change in pupil numbers and then there is the correction of historic inequities where some schools have been unfairly supported at the expense of others. Those schools may have to make budget reductions. That has nothing to do with charging real or national costs against schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, reported on local authorities saying that they cannot afford an award higher than 7.1 per cent. Local authorities may say that they cannot afford an award higher than the increase in 1991–92, total standing spending over the 1990–91 budgets. We do not accept that. If one looks at the figures for education, the increase in 1991–92 ESS over 1990–91 is around 9 per cent. Even that is misleading because it assumes that budgets are the right starting point for making such comparisons; they are not. We still believe there is scope for improving efficiency in education spending.
The noble Baroness mentioned the lateness of the year. We do look at this and I have some sympathy with what she says. I can only say that it is completed as quickly as we can manage. No doubt there is room for improvement.
The IAC has done its job well. We have been discussing today the permanent pay arrangements which the Government propose should be put in place. I hope for the next pay round the Government will be able to ask the review body to take over where the IAC left off and to advise how pay and conditions of school teachers should be further developed to improve recruitment, retention and motivation and therefore the quality of education in all our schools.

373
However, that is for the future. The immediate task is to complete the implementation of the 1991–92 award. I therefore ask the House to approve this order.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he answer my question about monitoring the payment of discretionary awards? There is anxiety that very few of these awards are being provided at present because of the lack of funds in school budgets. Will he say whether during the course of the next school year there will be a proper system of monitoring their payment?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot at the moment answer that question. I shall have to write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1991
1.17 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 1st May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this order, I shall speak at the same time to the other orders standing in my name on the Order Paper.
That is a formidable list of statutory instruments, but their purpose is straightforward. They represent a further advance for the United Kingdom in its efforts to curb international drug trafficking. We are all united in our condemnation of the drug trade, and in our determination to ensure that traffickers shall not enjoy the proceeds of their crimes. It is clear that we must join with our partners around the world to ensure that there are no safe havens for drug traffickers' assets. In doing so the orders enable us to comply with obligations under the United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, or "Vienna" Convention, which we plan to ratify before the end of the month. They also permit us to implement bilateral agreements and arrangements which we have negotiated with particular countries to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds and instrumentalities of drug trafficking.
In making these orders the United Kingdom will become part of an impressive partnership of some fifty countries committed to taking practical steps against the trafficker. As the list of countries grows we will bring forward further orders for Parliament's consideration. We are making it increasingly unattractive to the drug trafficker to perpetrate his crimes, or to enjoy the illicit profits which are one of his prime sources of motivation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Richard, who would normally speak for the Opposition on these matters, I have been asked to say a word. That word is "approve" in the starkest terms. We or these Benches approve the order before us and
374
the other orders. They are interrelated and seek to block up loopholes by which advantage is taken of Britain's absence from existing arrangements.
My noble friend Lord Richard would speak not just for the whole House but for all law abiding citizens and the overwhelming majority of people in this country in dealing with this appalling and heinous situation. That situation does not get any better. Sadly, there is evidence that the drug traffickers are as determined, as are the Government, to win; but this Government and the House are equally determined that they shall not win. Anything designed to help achieve that end will have the wholehearted approval of Her Majesty's Opposition today and in the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (International Co- operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) Order 1991
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (International Co- operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (International Co- operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Order 1991
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Order 1991
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the final Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Badgers Bill
1.21 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendment of s.8 of Badgers Act 1973]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 27, leave out ("have been reasonably") and insert ("reasonably have been").
The noble Lord said: The amendment appearing in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, represents a triumph of hope over experience. Never before in experience have both names appeared on the Order Paper on a subject of this kind. It represents an enormous amount of conciliatory work and discussion between the various interests concerned, both in the later stages of the passage of the Bill through another place and also since it came here. The Committee will notice that as soon as the subject of badgers comes forward for debate there is an influx into the Chamber of noble Lords who have an interest in the Bill. We welcome that larger audience.
Tribute must be paid to all the parties concerned in what has been referred to in the course of this business as the coalition. Never despise coalitions! Sometimes they produce something unobtainable by any other means except after conflict, controversy and other tragic differences.
Amendment No. 1 is an almost hair splitting amendment. The words I move to be substituted for those on page 1, line 27 comply with the statutory form. From the point of view of uniformity there is a difference between the version in the Bill and the version in the amendment. In place of the words "have been reasonably" we seek to insert the words
376
"reasonably have been". I do not imagine that there will be any huge controversy over the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Extension of general exceptions]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(a), (c) or (e)").
The noble Lord said In Clause 3 we come to the exemptions. We have to be clear that we now come to the amendments which are designed to secure the full assent and goodwill of those who represent the viewpoint of the British Field Sports Society and other organisations that are fond of the sports of the field. I need scarcely say that this Bill seeks to afford greater protection to the badger, and not to make it easier for the huntsman; still less to enable huntsmen to do any damage to badgers. It seeks to give the badger more protection. We are carrying the protection further than any statute has carried it before. That leads to a consequence with which these amendments try to deal.
Until now guidelines have offered the basis of what the hunts may do for their own purposes which would not be regarded by the statute law as contravening the law. We offer no opinion about the nature of the activity itself. What we agree to do is to accommodate to the utmost possible extent the need to define precisely in the statute what those who are given exemption under Clause 3 may or may not do. We have not attempted this before. It means that we have to be most precise about what may appear on the face of it to be a lot of tiddly detail.
For example, when the Bill grants exemption to certain people in certain circumstances temporarily to stop up a badger sett, it can be done only with certain materials. A good deal of argument takes place on the use of the words "clean loose straw". Why should it be clean? Is that not an affront to noble men and women in the hunting world who want to stop up the badger's sett for a time? Surely it will be clean. However, if one takes out the word "clean", one can draw the inference that the straw might not be as clean as people would wish. We have thought of a new word that is agreeable—untainted. That is the finesse that we are having to employ in these amendments in order to meet that point of view.
The Bill seeks to stop people destroying badgers and their habitat and interfering with their normal life. It does not seek to stop people hunting. It does not seek to stop practices which hunts have enjoyed by tradition and by guidelines over the years. We are defining what may be done to safeguard what are thought to be the interests of those who want to enjoy hunting and not to carry their rights further nor to take any away. We seek merely to get the matter clearly defined in statute law. We have to do so, otherwise the hunt will be at risk under the precise terms of Clause 1.
When one looks at Clause 1 and takes note of what may not now be done, one can see that it would be possible for some ill-disposed people to say that the hunt was infringing the law. That would be the

377
position unless there is a clause in the Bill which clearly defines what it may do. That is the aim of this string of amendments.
Amendment No. 2 is purely a drafting amendment. By virtue of Amendment No. 3, we seek to insert the words,
"takes no action other than obstructing such entrances".
It will be seen that we even have to deal with entrances. I have already dealt with the content of Amendment No. 4. It proposes to leave out the words, "clean loose" and insert the word "untainted". Amendment No. 5 is identical in respect of page 2, line 13.
I turn now to Amendment No. 6. This deals with a technical but important point. It defines who should authorise the activity under the Bill. The words we propose to insert have been agreed all round. It is also thought desirable that a register should be kept by the authorities mentioned in the amendment as regards those who have been given authority. We must be very careful and precise about the matter. If we have an authority which is transferable and negotiable put into circulation, we shall have some very unsavoury characters walking about stopping up setts and doing other things at the same time. Therefore, the authority which is given has to be identifiably in the hands of those who may exercise the rights in the field which the authority gives them. It is with great pleasure that I propose this group of amendments. I beg to move.
1.30 p.m.
Lout Mancroft: I should like to express my support for the amendments, as my name is associated with them. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made clear, the reason the amendments have been tabled in our joint names is that the sporting groups were able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with the proposers of the Bill. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, this is probably the first time that that has happened. I believe that that underlines the determination of the sporting lobby not to be associated with the practices which the Bill attempts to rule out.
Perhaps I may go through the amendments in detail from the opposite side of the coin, so to speak, to the one shown us by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I shall start first with Amendment No. 2. The reason we wanted to insert paragraphs (a) and (e) in addition to paragraph (c) of Section 2(3) of the Badgers Act 1973, which is in the Bill at present, as an exemption, was that we came to the conclusion that it would be almost impossible legally to stop a badger sett without causing some small damage in terms of footprints, the odd leaf broken off, grass trodden down, or whatever it might be. Not, I may add, that we wish to allow people seriously to damage a sett in any way but it is really impossible to walk over a sett or move over one at any time without causing some damage. Moreover, it seemed to us that if the wild badger was in the sett at the time when it was stopped, it would be technically impossible to move around a few feet above a badger, so to speak, without in some
378
way disturbing the animal. I did take the point that it would be very difficult to ask the badger whether he had been disturbed.
However, it was insinuated in an earlier report that an examination of the time badgers come out at night showed that, if the setts were stopped, that sometimes affected the amount of time a badger would spend outside at night and the time it came out. I must admit that that seems to me to be pretty obscure. But the reason we require this defence, which would possibly not be required for reasonable people, was that we had to bear in mind the fact that some of those who seek to make life difficult for hunting people are not reasonable. Therefore, it seemed that we would need every safeguard possible to ensure that hunts did not constantly face tiresome and pointless litigation. I am delighted to say that the coalition was able to recognise those arguments and accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 3 was proposed by the coalition on the basis that there was evidence to show that in the stopping of a sett—I believe it was in Scotland at some time—an earth stopper had actually jumped up and down on top of it and caused the tunnel to cave in. Again, I find that quite obscure, although I believe it, if that is what was thought to be the case. Therefore, we included this amendment to make it quite clear that the only thing permitted was proper earth stopping or sett stopping, as it is now called, and not jumping around on the top of setts. That is probably bad for the health of the badger which people may be jumping on, but possibly equally so for the health of the person who might be doing the jumping about.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 were clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It seemed to us it would be very difficult to define exactly what is "clean" straw. In fact, there is a school of thought which would say that no straw is ever really clean. There is also the word "loose" to consider. The coalition wished to ensure—and we quite agreed with this—that people should not use straw which had been soaked in kerosene, petrol or anything of that nature. Therefore, the word "untainted" came to mind. It seems to fit in with the wording of the Bill.
Amendment No. 6 deals with the proposed registration scheme. As the Bill stands at present, the earth stopper would only need the "consent" of the landowner. That would be very much against the interests of the tenant farmer or indeed of the occupier with sporting rights. That accounts for the change of the word "consent" to "authority". It is merely an accepted and more useful term in law.
At present, the only hunts that can earth stop and register as earth stoppers are the hunts recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association. The association was happy only up to a certain point. It does not in fact recognise all hunts. The fell packs which hunt very much in sheep country in the Lake District have their own committee. It is known as the Central Committee of Fell Packs, and it is now proposed that it should be included in the Bill. Some harrier packs also hunt the fox. They are now recognised by their own association, the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles. However, more important than those details was the fact that it was

379
really impossible for the central associations to keep such a register. There are many hundreds, possibly thousands, of earth stoppers throughout the country. It is quite impossible for the associations, which have no legal standing as such, to keep these very complicated registers. Moreover, it would not be very efficient because, due to the thousands of people involved, it would be very difficult to keep them up to date. It would be much more efficient for the hunts to keep such registers. We are very pleased that the coalition was able to recognise that fact and to accept these proposals. It is with that in mind that I attached my name to these amendments. I hope that they will be accepted by the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 6:
Page 2, line 5, after ("he") insert ("takes no action other than obstructing such entrances,").
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("clean loose") and insert ("untainted").
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("clean loose") and insert ("untainted").
Page 2, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert ("and that the person is so doing with the authority of the landowner or occupier and is authorised by a Hunt recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association, the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles or the Central Committee of Fell Packs, which Hunt shall keep a register of all such persons.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 20, after ("a") insert ("badger").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a technical amendment. The word "sett" is used. We want it to be clear that we are talking about a badger sett. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Amendment of s.9 of Badgers Act 1973]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 32, after ("1990") insert ("or, as respects Scotland, section 19(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972").
The noble Viscount said: I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the licensing provision in Clause 4 relating to the interference with a badger sett for the purpose of development applies in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord St. John of Bletso Lord St. John of Bletso: moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 49, at end insert:
("(j) for the purpose of the preservation, or archaeological investigation, of a monument scheduled under section 1 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, to interfere with a badger sett within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. The amendment proposes that the Nature Conservancy Council, otherwise known as English Nature, should be empowered to grant licences for the purpose of protecting scheduled ancient monuments from the activities of badgers. English Heritage is concerned that if the Bill, as drafted, becomes law, it will be impossible to prevent badgers from causing damage to ancient monuments. There would also be a risk that archaeological investigations necessary to inform the appropriate management of ancient monuments would be hindered. The licences granted would specify methods of treating setts in such a way as to deal humanely with badgers while protecting archaeological remains, without detriment to the badgers themselves.
Badgers can cause damage to ancient monuments in two principal ways. The first is by physical disturbance to visible earthworks such as burial mounds, hill forts and motte and bailey castles which in extreme cases can lead to substantial collapse of field monuments. Secondly, badgers can cause disturbance to below ground stratified archaeological deposits and artifacts which preserve important information about the past can also be affected. Those deposits need careful scientific investigation if they are to release their evidence, and disruption by badgers destroys their significance and potential.
It is possible to protect ancient monuments from disturbance by badgers by humane methods. The most common is the installation of one-way badger gates and badger-proof fences which encourage badgers to establish setts elsewhere. Licensing by English Nature would allow care to be exercised so as not to disturb badgers from breeding and in other sensitive seasons. It is not English Heritage's intention to harm badgers or to obstruct the principal objectives of the Bill.
The amendment is highly selective, being limited to those ancient monuments of national importance which are protected by being scheduled as ancient monuments. There are currently about 13,000 scheduled monuments throughout England (about 3 per cent. of the country's known resources of archaeological sites). I do not believe that the amendment is controversial. I beg to move.
1.45 p.m
Lord Jeffreys: I support the amendment. It has been drafted to protect ancient monuments scheduled under Section 1 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. It is not aimed at obstructing the Bill's principal objective.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, briefly mentioned several ways in which badgers can damage ancient monuments. It is worth noting a few examples of scheduled monuments where badger disturbance has been reported. They include Canyke Castle on Bodmin Moor, which is an Iron Age settlement; Stouting Castle, a Norman motte and bailey in Kent; Little Abbey, a prehistoric earthwork in Alveston in the County of Avon; and also a burial mound near Maiden Castle in Dorset.

381
While I do not wish to foster any thoughts of complacency, the badger, his culture and his chattels are not under threat of extinction. That is a great deal more than can be said of those ancient British tribes, the Romans and the medieval ancestors of some of your Lordships. For those reasons, I support the amendment and hope that the Committee will feel able to do the same.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I have pleasure in accepting the amendments. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the Bill is designed to protect badgers and not to do unacceptable harm elsewhere. Our main purpose is to make it difficult for the diggers and baiters to carry on their evil activities. We want co-operation in that. Legitimate exemptions and other attempts to safeguard material outside the badger's life are all well and good. We shall co-operate in those attempts, and so I have pleasure in accepting the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord St. John of Bletso Lord St. John of Bletso moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 2, leave Out ("or (i)") and insert ("(i) or (j)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 7, after ("Council") insert ("for England, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland or the Countryside Council for Wales").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is purely literal. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert:
("(h) at the end there is inserted—
"(6) Subject to the following subsections the licensing a authority shall grant a licence to any authorised person a authorising him to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of controlling foxes or rabbits on agricultural land, common land or moorland.
(7) A licence issued under subsection (6) above shall not permit any person—

(a) to kill, injure, take or otherwise harm a badger, or destroy a badger sett, or

(b) otherwise interfere with a badger sett except to the minimum extent as is necessary for the immediate purpose of controlling foxes or rabbits.

(8) A licence issued under subsection (6) above shall have effect from 1st February to 30th June inclusive each year.
(9) The licensing authority, in consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council for England, or the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, or the Countryside Council for Wales, as appropriate, may issue guidance to authorised persons as to best practice to ensure compliance with subsection (7) above.
(10) For the purposes of subsections (6) to (9) above, "authorised person" means an authorised person as defined in section 27(1) (a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, save that a person who is neither the owner or occupier of the land on which the action authorised is taken, nor his employee, shall not be so authorised unless his name is first registered with the licensing authority.
(11) The licensing authority shall have the power to refuse the issue of a licence or to revoke a licence issued to any person under subsection (6) above if, having
382
regard to that person's character and conduct, the licensing authority considers that he is not a suitable person to hold such a licence.
(12) For the purposes of subsections (6) to (10) above, the licensing authority shall be the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State."").
The noble Earl said: The amendment tries to tackle the somewhat controversial question of licensing. It is designed to try to help fox control in our upland areas. Foxes are a pest in those areas. They take lambs and ground-nesting birds. The damage foxes do to hill farmers at lambing time will be obvious to the Committee; so I should like to concentrate upon the other and lesser known side of the issue—the damage foxes do to ground-nesting birds.
I am not speaking solely on behalf of the grouse, although both red and black grouse are affected by foxes. A number of attractive birds such as curlew, green and golden plover, snipe, redshank and merlin, to name but a few, are at risk from foxes. Moorland gamekeepers play an important role in the conservation of those species.
Foxes and badgers tend to move about in those areas. They also tend to share the same holes. It is therefore difficult for shepherds and gamekeepers to tell which of the species is in residence at any one time. The setts, or earths, can take many forms and on the open moors natural cover may often comprise rock piles with miles of interconnecting passages. To place such areas out of bounds to gamekeepers and farmers would be an utter nonsense.
Moorland gamekeepers do not seek deliberately to destroy badgers or their setts. Badgers generally do better on sporting estates because of the protection offered by the keepers than they do on non-sporting estates. There are many instances of badger baiters being apprehended by gamekeepers. I was talking to a rather distinguished Northern moorland gamekeeper the other day, and I had better paraphrase what he said to me. He said, "Don't you realise that the last thing we want to do is to risk one of our terriers, if we think there might be a badger present? A terrier nowadays costs between £250 and £300. We would not risk it if we thought there might be a badger in the sett".
I must say a little about the system of individual licences issued by MAFF which has been mooted. That would be not be an appropriate way in which to deal with the difficulties. MAFF is notoriously slow in issuing licences. My noble friend Lord Mancroft received a letter from my noble friend Lady Trumpington on this very point. She was writing about licences under the Badgers Act, referring to the delays which occurred. At the end of her comments about the delays, she wrote:
"Nevertheless, under normal circumstances we would expect a licence to be issued within a couple of weeks".
Hill foxes are transitory animals and a delay of even one hour is too long. The foxes have moved somewhere else. A day is out of the question and a couple of weeks, in my humble opinion, is complete nonsense. It would just not be practicable.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to look on this amendment with some compassion and favour. Personally, I do not believe

383
that it goes far enough. I should like to see licences covering the entire year. There is a little give on this because the amendment would protect both lambs in the lambing time and the period up to that, and ground nesting birds at their most vulnerable time when they are nesting and having chicks.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I was impressed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, say that the Bill was to protect badgers, not to do harm elsewhere. I feel strongly that if the measure goes through unamended, it will do enormous harm to our moorland areas, quite unintentionally, by preventing keepers going about their necessary work and leaving a large number of our most beautiful birds open to depredation from foxes. I hope that in a spirit of co-operation, the noble Lord will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tryon: I was not here for the Second Reading as unfortunately I had to be abroad, but I assure the Committee that I shall not take advantage of the opportunity on a Friday afternoon to make a Second Reading speech. I thoroughly support the principle of the Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, remembers my father. On our land in Wiltshire he and I have always extended protection of badgers up to the standards that the Bill requires. There is no problem with that at all. I should certainly not be a party to any attempt to water down protection of badgers. Subsection (7) of the amendment repeats the aim of the Bill that no harm should come to them.
However, what concerns me are the knock-on effects mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, on the very necessary pest control that has to be carried out in the countryside. I am not a fox hunter but those who are would not like foxes to be described as pests. However, in many parts of the country they certainly are, particularly in the uplands which the noble Earl described. Also, in many parts of the country, fox hunting control can no longer be exercised for one reason or another; for example, in areas adjacent to electric railways, motorways and so on. It is therefore necessary that foxes should be controlled in many places. The law recognises this because, so far as I am aware, it offers no protection to foxes anywhere.
Rabbits are also on the increase; they are almost back to plague proportions in many parts of the country. They must be controlled, as is again recognised by law. Without that control, arable farming would become virtually impossible. It is unfortunate but true that both these animals are often found in close proximity to badger setts. The process of controlling them can cause minor disturbance. In my experience, they do not share the same burrows as badgers. Rabbits would be frightened to try to live in the same burrow as a badger; they might get eaten by it. Foxes are turfed out by badgers. They do not like sharing their burrow. Nevertheless, these animals are often found in abandoned parts of badger setts where large, convenient holes exist for them to use if the badgers do not wish to use them at that time. The amendment tries to deal with the problem.
384
As the noble Earl said, we have confined the operation of the amendment concerning licences to the period of the year when foxes do most damage to lambs and ground nesting birds. The noble Earl mentioned several species. A rare stone curlew nest in Wiltshire was recently destroyed—probably by foxes. The birds are heavily protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. February, March and also perhaps April are the prime months for rabbit control. That is the time of year when vegetation is at its lowest, the holes can easily be found and the rabbits dealt with. In the spring, the undergrowth comes up and it is hard to find rabbit holes. Many rabbits start living above ground. The amendment covers that point quite well.
This is a reasonable little amendment. It poses no threat to the life of any badger but merely seeks to enable pest control—which remains necessary—to be exercised as it has been for hundreds of years. Like the noble Earl, I was greatly encouraged by the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord St. John of Bletso, that the Bill is to protect badgers and not to cause any problem elsewhere. This is an area where I believe it causes minor problems and I very much hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I wish to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinton. From the farming standpoint, I too feel that the amendment is too gentle. The period from 1st February to June is very short to deal with a real problem. I am absolutely on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, being pro-badger. The last thing in the world I wish to do is to harm their setts or disturb them in any way. It is unfortunate that foxes, badgers and, to a certain extent, rabbits live in the same place. It is not just rabbits that are experiencing a population explosion. The rabbit is, however, a survivor species, as is the fox. The fox is doing very nicely as regards its population size not only in the countryside but also in towns. I do not accept that all the damage caused by foxes and rabbits occurs in the uplands. Many Members of the Committee have spoken about the situation in the uplands today, but landowners in the lowlands can sometimes suffer even more damage.
I was unable to be present on Second Reading but I read the debate in Hansard. Much emphasis was placed on the position of sheep farmers in the uplands of Wales. Today reference has been made to wild birds. Distressing examples have been given of the damage the fox does both to sheep and to wild birds. In those cases foxes must be destroyed. However, I do not believe anyone has made the point that in response to market forces and to a certain extent to the anti-cruelty lobby more and more people are keeping poultry out of doors. The free-range egg has caught on in stores such as Marks and Spencers. People believe it is the healthiest egg they can eat. I believe the Committee accepts that the battery system and the broiler system are not kind ways of keeping fowls. I believe that more and more people will raise their hens out of doors and the damage done by foxes will increase, particularly in the lowlands. If we do not accept this amendment, we shall do a grave disservice to farmers. In the latest issue of Farmers Weekly it was

385
estimated that rabbits cause £10 million-worth of damage a year. I believe that that is an underestimate for my part of the world. I hope the Committee will accept the amendment.
2 p.m
Lord. Mancroft: I remind the Committee and the mover s of the amendment that on Second Reading in this Chamber I and several others drew attention to the fact that possibly the weakest area of the Bill was that relating to the licensing system. The Government will have the responsibility of administering the licensing system. It is worth mentioning that we are now at the Committee stage in this Chamber, and the Bill has passed through all its stages in another place. So far, neither the Government nor the proposers of the Bill have brought forward any concrete proposals on how licensing will work. In their defence, I think it is fair to say that this matter was not considered quite so thoroughly in another place as in this Chamber. However, it was clear that licensing would constitute a problem. It would be sad if this Bill were to fail because the Government had not succeeded in reaching a satisfactory conclusion on how licences are to work. Licences form an intrinsically important part of the Bill. An entire clause of this short Bill is devoted to licences.
I hope that a satisfactory proposition can be put forward today, as it is quite clear that sheep farmers in the uplands and the lowlands and the preservers of game and other wildlife in the upland areas are dissatisfied with the present situation. It is worth reiterating what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said at the start of this afternoon's proceedings. The fox hunting lobby and other field sports interests have concluded that in other areas the Bill is satisfactory. It would be very sad, having come this far, to have this large gap in the smile of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Swinton will come to a satisfactory arrangement on this matter. Licences must be allocated but the way they are dealt with in the Bill at present leaves them to the discretion of the Ministry. That does not appear satisfactory to the movers of this amendment. The amendment seeks obligations and safeguards in this respect. I do not know whether that is satisfactory to the proposers of the Bill, but I hope that it will be.
Having read the amendment carefully, I believe it contains sufficient safeguards. However, the Committee will have to determine whether that is the case. I cannot advise the Committee what it should do on this amendment but I believe that licences now constitute the most important part of the Bill. The licensing system as currently outlined is unacceptable to farmers and to the preservers of game in various parts of the country. Therefore we must get this part of the Bill sorted out.
Lord Addington: I wish to reiterate the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Even someone like myself who is not directly concerned with countryside matters or farming realises that some provision must be made for the control of foxes and rabbits. There are too many of them in certain areas and they are
386
threatening other forms of wildlife. That situation is a direct result of our destruction of the natural balance in our countryside. Therefore we must accept responsibility for keeping a check on the most resourceful and cunning of the predators that remain in the countryside, especially as they interfere with farming. I hope that we will all support any proposal that has a chance of resolving this problem. I hope the Government will propose a scheme to smooth over this crack.
Lord Gridley: I rise to support what has already been said by Members of the Committee who oppose this amendment. I believe it would be impossible to implement the present wording of the amendment, as it contradicts itself in various ways. We have gone to great lengths to protect badger setts and to prevent any harm from coming to badgers if it is necessary to carry out certain procedures for examination of their setts. However, the amendment proposes that:
"Subject to the following subsections the licensing authority shall grant a licence to any authorised person authorising him to interfere with a badger sett for the purposes of controlling foxes or rabbits on agricultural land, common land or moorland".
It continues:
"A licence issued under subsection (6) above shall not permit any person to … otherwise interfere with a badger sett except to the minimum extent as is necessary for the immediate purpose of controlling foxes or rabbits".
What is meant by "immediate purpose" and by "controlling"? It is essential to know what is meant by the words in that subsection.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may give the Government's view on the amendment. We are grateful to the noble Lords who have introduced the amendment because they have raised the important point that, following the passing into law of this Bill, licences under the Badgers Act will have to be issued for the first time not for the taking of badgers but for the control of foxes. That can be described as consequential on the Bill which we are now considering.
It is quite right that those issues should be raised and debated in your Lordships' House today. I accept that there is a need for some amendment along the lines of the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon. The first and most important point is that farmers with livestock need to be able to protect their animals from foxes. We are all agreed about that.
Since this matter was raised by your Lordships at Second Reading, I understand that my noble friend Lady Trumpington has written setting out the Government's views on the question of licensing. Her letter to my noble friend Lord Mancroft dated 17th June was copied to other Members of your Lordships' House who had expressed their concern during the previous debate.
I shall briefly state the Government's position, which was indicated in my noble friend's letter. On the question of general licensing, there is no provision in the legislation for general licences to be issued and the Government do not believe that it would be right to issue such licences authorising interference with badger setts. That is because licences which permit

387
what would otherwise be illegal activities involving protected animals have to be very carefully worded and tightly drawn so as not to allow their being used to undermine the legislation. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate why general licensing is not compatible with this type of legislation, if it is to be effective.
Regarding the licensing system, I am aware of allegations that the Ministry of Agriculture does not issue licences quickly enough. I can reassure your Lordships however, that licences are normally issued within a couple of weeks, and that includes the time taken to consult the Nature Conservancy Council, whose views need to be obtained in respect of each application. Delays occur only in cases of real doubt.
Licences are issued to the owners or the occupiers of land, who may be named representatives of organisations such as a golf club or British Rail, and, in the case of licences to control foxes, they may authorise others, such as fox destruction societies, to carry out the work on their behalf.
Because of the concern which has been expressed about the licensing aspect of this Bill, the noble Baroness has offered to consider any changes which might be proposed to streamline the process, particularly in the case of licences to take foxes out of setts, where a condition of the licence will be that no badger may be killed. She has left the door open and we should be grateful for that. One suggestion which some of your Lordships, and in particular my noble friend Lord Swinton, might consider useful would be for sheep farmers with setts on their land to have their situation assessed in advance of lambing. That might well speed up the granting of a licence should problems with foxes arise during the lambing period. My noble friend Lady Trumpington has also proposed that meetings between the Ministry of Agriculture and interested bodies should take place to resolve the administrative arrangements for licensing. I hope that your Lordships will be reassured by that.
These matters are not always resolved in a day or two and it would not be right for me now to specify in detail how any new arrangements would operate. The noble Lords who have put down the amendment will have realised yesterday how difficult it is to draw up in a short space of time rules which will have to be in place for a long time.
In addition, I understand that there are problems with foxes, which attack game birds such as grouse which are not regarded as property in a legal sense. An amendment to the 1973 Act may be required. We accept the force of that point. However, I do not believe that the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, is the right amendment to achieve that. The proposed amendment is cumbersome and for the most part unnecessary. There may well be a better way of drafting into the Bill the safeguards that my noble friend and the noble Lord wish to achieve. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will consider such an amendment allowing the granting of a licence
388
to interfere with the badger setts only—that is, without harming badgers—for the prevention of serious damage by foxes.
I believe that that might be a better way of proceeding. Such an amendment may enable anyone with genuine problems to obtain a licence. I feel that the House would welcome that approach and I hope that we may be able to come to an agreement on the matter, considering the commendable way that both my noble friend Lord Mancroft and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, have managed to achieve agreement on the Bill.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful for the statement that the Minister has just made on the Government's behalf. I shall return to it in a moment.
I am sure that noble Lords who support the amendment do not wish to exploit my goodwill and conciliatory approach to the Bill. It is not my Bill. It has come from another place as it stands. I ask the Committee to bear that point in mind. The Bill had to go through various dangers and difficulties to arrive here; but it arrived here, and it is here. It is difficult for me to assume a responsibility that I do not feel should rest upon me.
Perhaps I may make one point to the noble Earl who moved the amendment. I saw the amendment for the first time this morning. It is starred on the Marshalled List. I heard yesterday on the telephone that an amendment that might cause trouble was to be put down. I had a brief chat with my noble partner Lord Mancroft on the matter and we both realised the significance and possible importance of such an amendment if it were put down today. If Members opposite intend to press an amendment which has only seen the light of day this morning, they will be acting contrary to the spirit of the House and that will be an undeserved affront to me.
I want to be as constructive as I can on this matter. There is a problem here. Let me add in passing that I know all about badgers and foxes. I have been living with them for nearly 40 years. I have active setts within yards of my house in Surrey. I happen to live close to the deputy president of the National Farmers' Union. I am not usually ignorant of what the NFU thinks on agricultural matters, but I have heard nothing from him about the matter. No word has reached me about any apprehensions on the NFU's part. I do not wish to implicate the deputy president of the NFU in any way, but I want the Committee to understand how exposed I feel.
I received a letter this morning from the NFU expressing the anxieties that genuinely lie behind the amendment, but we have not been given time to convene the coalition movement which has been so constructive and productive so far. It may be that matters mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill should have encouraged certain members of the coalition to bring forward a provision, but I should not have thought that it was a peremptory obligation upon them. I cannot explain on my feet whether it was discussed in detail or who could take responsibility for it not being discussed, but that is part of the area

389
discussed by the coalition parties. If noble Lords opposite do not understand my position on the Bill, we are in danger of losing it altogether in circumstances that will leave some bad blood behind. I therefore ask for a response to what the Minister has just said since, unprompted by me he has put forward the view of the Government on this amendment.
Quite obviously there are difficulties because under the Act this is the first time that we shall have introduced a licensing system. In introducing such a system we need to be clear about who will hold the licences, the conditions under which they may be issued and how to check possible abuses of licences —licences going into currency and getting into the hands of irresponsible and evil-minded people. There may also be the difficulty that, although the requirement is that the licence should be granted where there is a problem of foxes, rabbits or other vermin which have to be attended to, there is nothing in the amendment which provides for a check to be made on the conditions put forward for the issue of a licence.
The amendment states that:
"the licensing authority shall grant a licence".
There should surely be an opportunity for every licensing authority to ascertain the veracity or strength of an application; otherwise licences can become a matter not only of negotiation but of sale. There must be some safeguards or the whole system will be put in peril.
We must bear in mind that under this amendment we confer on licence holders immunity and exemption from Clause 1 under the conditions set out. I grant at once that there are restrictive conditions in the amendment itself. But this is certainly the most difficult clause that has been under discussion so far in connection with the Bill. The work that has been done on it has been quite exceptional.
So we are in this together. Your Lordships' House has to take a responsible view. I adhere to the principle that I set out clearly at Second Reading and repeat now. The Bill does not intend to put fresh difficulties in the way of people who, by tradition and by law, are protected in what they do. There is no intention of worsening those conditions. It is meant to stop the badger being further imperilled under the bogus authority of those who are out to destroy it.
The danger is that licences may come into the hands of terrier clubs who will say that their intention is to keep the land clear of foxes and rabbits but who may go here and there and commit an offence under the Bill. They are prohibited from certain actions under the licence and have to obey the spirit of the conditions under which it has been granted. But there may not necessarily be anybody to ensure that they do obey. There will be no check on them before they receive their licence, so presumably checks must be applied to them when they have it and may be using it freely. No wonder that vigilance for badgers extends throughout the country in the most dramatic form to keep in eye on badger setts everywhere. It is therefore a most serious matter.
Viscount Astor: I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening but perhaps I can clarify the
390
Government's view and assist the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. When I spoke to this amendment, I made it quite clear that when it passes into law this measure will mean that licences under the Badgers Act will have to be issued for the first time not for the taking of badgers but for the control of foxes. That is an important point brought out by the amendment.
When discussing the amendment, I stated that the Government accept that there is need for an amendment along these lines. We would not be against that. I also stated that we believed that this was not the right amendment. I said that if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would consider the amendment in principle, the Government would help him to draft an amendment in order to get the provision right in the Bill. I hope that that clarifies the position.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful for that intervention. I am ready to do as the Minister suggests. If the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment and allow the matter to be discussed between now and Report stage, I shall do everything possible to overcome any difficulties. There is need for amendment. We wish to see the Bill amended. We do not wish the matter to be deferred for longer than to the next stage of the Bill. It would be unfair to ask the movers of the amendment to accept the Bill as it stands and await later attention to the issue that they raise. I want the provisions to be in the Bill and not left as an overspill for future legislation. Let us make amendment in the later stages of the Bill. I am sure that such amendment can be done by agreement. There is no difference in principle between us. However, there must be some safeguards because abuses must be checked. They are rife already and have been for some time.
We have had a good discussion on the amendment. We know the problems. A sufficient number of noble Lords have fortunately attended for the debate to inform the minds of all of us who take an interest in the Bill about the issue involved and the remedy which we all now seek.
I can say no more. I make no threats. I appeal to the noble Earl and to his supporters. I have no Whip. I cannot stand against strong pressure on the amendment. That is why I believe that noble Lords must not put me at a substantial disadvantage in an action about which I was not informed previously. I heard about it in detail for the first time this morning. That is not the way to deal with a Bill or with a colleague in this House. I leave the matter there.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before anyone else intervenes, perhaps I may say this. I had not meant to say anything on the Bill. No one knows less about badgers than I do. I am sorry to say that I have never seen one. As a city boy I am quite intimidated by the serried ranks of country folk facing me. However, my noble friend Lord Houghton has a strong point. The Bill was printed in this House on 14th May. It is now 21st June. It is clearly an important amendment, the principle for which has considerable support. It would be very unfortunate if any noble Lord sought to press

391
an amendment which appears for the first time in print only this morning, five weeks after the Bill first appeared.
I appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, not to press the amendment at this time but to take advantage of the offer made by the Government and by my noble friend to discuss the matter before Report stage.
Lord Boardman: I wish briefly to raise one point arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said regarding the NFU. I have a letter from the NFU dated 20th June in which it refers to its general support for the objectives of the Bill. It states:
"However, we are concerned to ensure that the licence system is sensitive to farming requirements and operates speedily".
The letter refers to some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Swinton. It puts forward suggestions which, if the amendment is not pressed today, it would wish to have taken into account when it is being considered what provisions should take its place.
2.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. It has certainly livened up a Friday afternoon. I was grateful for the comments made by my noble friend Lord Astor but I wondered whether he had listened to a word that I said. I made the point that two weeks was far too long to wait for a licence and he blithely rose and said, "We shall do it within two weeks". This is not a matter that will wait for weeks; it will not wait even for days. The licence must be obtainable in advance.
My noble friend said a great deal about game birds. I do not wish to appear whiter than white, but must point out that game birds are only a part of the issue. I referred to numerous other rare species which nest on our uplands, all of which are at risk if gamekeepers cannot deal with the foxes. Most of the birds are covered by the EC rare bird directives. They receive special support and are highly protected. They would not be covered under the definition of "game"; they are the very opposite of that.
We must strike a balance. The Bill gives enormous support to badgers, which already receive wide protection and rightly so. The Bill is designed to protect their places of residence; their setts. We must strike a balance; we must not give so much help and protection to the badgers that we are putting at risk other equally lovely and admirable species of wildlife.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that Amendment No. 12, which is starred, is new and was tabled only this morning. That is technically correct because a few minor changes were made yesterday in order to try to help the noble Lord and make the matter easier. I believe that he knew yesterday that a similar amendment had been tabled—indeed, it may have been tabled on Wednesday.
I listened to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and by my noble friend Lord Astor. I would rather see something on the face of the Bill
392
which can be amended later. We can work out the solution but there will be something in black and white.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I really must appeal to the noble Earl. It may be that an earlier version of the amendment appeared yesterday or even on Wednesday. However, it is five weeks since the Bill was printed. Clearly this is a difficult matter. An offer has been made by the Government Front Bench and by my noble friend Lord Houghton to discuss it between now and the Report stage. The noble Earl can lose nothing by taking what I suggest is the gentlemanly course and withdrawing the amendment now.
Viscount Astor: I intervene to ask the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, whether he can accept the principle of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Swinton? In that case we shall be able to consider the matter and shall be prepared to bring forward an amendment on Report. The noble Lord was not entirely clear about that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Of course I am prepared to do so—I thought that I had made that clear. We wish to meet the noble Earl's purpose as set out in the amendment but it must be re-examined from the point of view of safeguards in the issue and use of licences. The amendment does not protect the integrity of the issue and use of licences.
I am sure that the noble Earl does not wish to see licences in the hands of people who will use them in order to breach the provisions now in the Bill. I say yes to the noble Earl and ask him to join with us in finding words to cover possible abuses. We must have safeguards. The hunters, farmers and other people concerned have been looking for safeguards of their interests in the framing of the Bill. Clause 3 is intended to provide them; we have tried to meet all the points that have been raised and have reached agreement on them. We wish to meet those made in the noble Earl's amendment. However, he must consult with us in the spirit of the action which has been taken jointly until now. If the noble Earl continues with this, he will bust it all up and the Bill will be wrecked.
I am not in a position to accept the amendment as it stands. Surely it would be improper to insert an amendment into the Bill and then hope to amend the amendment at a later stage. Let us keep the Bill free from amendment and on Report we can bring forward a version which is acceptable to all concerned. We shall then be in the clear and the Bill will reach the statute book. Please do not wreck the Bill.
Lord Burton: I understand that the question of licensing has been under discussion behind the scenes for some time. Further, I understand that when an approach was made to the Ministry of Agriculture to see whether it would be possible to broaden the position as regards licensing, a very frosty reception was received. I have not had an opportunity to speak to my noble friend Lord Swinton lately but I believe he tabled this amendment because the Ministry is being so difficult on the matter. It is at this rather late stage that my noble friend on the Front Bench has

393
made the offer which he made today. I believe that the solution is to accept the amendment in the name of my noble friend, which can be amended on Report or on Third Reading.
Lord Airedale: The noble Earl has been offered the services of parliamentary draftsmen available to the Government. That is a good offer and I urge him to accept it.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He said yes but then added a lot of "buts". I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. When I am asked by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to behave like a gentleman, how could I do anything else?
I reserve the right to come back with this or a similar amendment on Report if a more satisfactory solution is not reached after consultation between my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. However, at present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Amendment of S. 11 of Badgers Act 1973]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert ("signs indicating current use by a badger").
The noble Lord said: I am very moved by what has just happened. I am grateful to the noble Earl. He need not fear because we shall honour our obligations. I am obliged to him.
We must define what a badger sett is. Much discussion has taken place on how one defines a badger sett and how it is to be described. Is a badger sett a place where badgers live, which badgers use or are thought to be using or are occupying? Are they resident there or are they "day schoolers"? We have reached an agreement on the words:
"signs indicating current use by a badger".
Those are simple words but it took us a long time to agree on them. I move this amendment with every confidence that it will be accepted.
Lord Mancroft: My name is also to this amendment. I am delighted that we were able to reach agreement on this area of the Bill. Failure to reach agreement as regards an accurate definition of a badger sett led to the collapse of last year's Bill. There was a problem as to the narrow wording of the definition of a badger sett.
It is clear that it is difficult to recognise whether a badger sett is a badger sett or a fox's earth for those who are not normally able to recognise such matters. Secondly, we had to discuss and decide whether we would extend protection not only to main setts but also to outlying and subsidiary setts, and to those setts which had been temporarily abandoned by badgers. I shall not bore the Committee with the extremely long, convoluted discussions that took place on the subject except to say that those of us who are particularly interested in this area of the Bill—the sporting and fox hunting lobby—are pleased with the result. It has
394
shown what co-operation can achieve. I am therefore delighted to add my name to the amendment and hope that the Committee will accept it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for his remarks on the previous amendment. I did not have an earlier opportunity to do so. I hope also that those noble Lords concerned with animal life will stay on and take part in the debate on smoke detectors, which is concerned with human life.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Citation and commencement]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert:
("(3) This Act shall not extend to Scotland.")
The noble Lord said: I can find no reports of any cases of badger baiting in Scotland. The Bill will inevitably cause problems for land users. I believe it is wrong to impose conditional laws on an area where no problem presently exists.
The Bill contains a number of areas whereby the land user could inadvertently break the law. Many are already experiencing problems—at least I am—and I therefore took the matter up with the Scottish National Farmers Union. Some Members of the Committee may have had a note from that body. It supports the amendment wholeheartedly and it therefore seems unreasonable that the law should be pushed into Scotland where it is neither wanted nor required.
Foxes are a problem in the Highland areas, particularly the hill farming areas, and increasingly on low lying areas, as the fox population steadily increases. It may be of interest that in Abernethy Forest in the few years since it was taken over by the RSPB the population of capercaillie—my noble friend Lord Swinton referred to rare and fine birds —has dropped by two-thirds since vermin are no longer killed. Capercaillie are ground nesting birds, and foxes and pinemartins are probably mopping up the majority of the nests. Some research is now taking place but there seems to be little doubt that that is the main cause. Clearly, from the nature conservation point of view, there is a need to control foxes.
I wish to raise another small point in regard to paragraph (h) of Clause 4 of the Bill. That could cause major problems for those of us who must maintain sea walls. It appears that one will not be allowed to maintain the wall if a badger has dug into it and that could cause serious problems. There are now at least three packs of foot hounds covering large areas of the Highlands with increasing success. These packs of hounds are killing between 400 and 500 foxes a year. Many of these foxes run into holes and are then either pelted or dug out. Inevitably, many of the holes have been dug by badgers. If the Bill were allowed to proceed in Scotland, that would seriously damage fox control. It would be an enormous disappointment if the packs were to have a lot of their good work undone. Equally, it would be quite impossible, having run a fox to ground, to then have to go and get a

395
licence before getting the fox out. According to the Bill, that is what would happen. That is of no use to us. Once having run a fox to ground, the hounds must be removed as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to a nasty atmosphere if my noble friend Lord Swinton presses his amendment. I can assure the House that exactly the same would happen in Scotland if we allowed this amendment to proceed and to cover that area, too.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord, Lord Burton, mentioned that there were no cases of badger baiting in Scotland. Unfortunately for the badger, if we accept this amendment, there will be a danger that we shall establish a great flow of people travelling over the Border to carry out this barbaric sport. Also, if we manage to get a licensing system through which works for England, I suggest that it will work for Scotland as well.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may put the Government's view. I ought to warn the Committee that it would look very odd if we were to split the provisions in the Badger's Act as revised by this Bill so that some clause would apply to Great Britain, and some to England and Wales only. I hope that your Lordships can agree to sensible provisions in the Bill so that it all can apply equally across the whole of Great Britain.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I cannot possibly accept this amendment. It would alter the Bill considerably and would certainly have an effect on Scotland. I cannot take responsibility for advising the Committee to take a reference to Scotland out of the Bill. As the Minister has just said, it would look extremely odd when trying to get greater protection for the badger, and applying new rules to England and Wales, if we exclude Scotland from what we are doing.
The density of badgers in Scotland is much lower than anywhere else in the country. However, the incidence of offences in Scotland is surprisingly high. I have a list here which was included in a report of the National Federation of Badger Groups. If any noble Lord would like a copy, he may have one. It has been issued by the national body on badger groups, and it has provided evidence but not especially in connection with this Bill. It is their report on the situation. The list of offences in Scotland against badgers is surprisingly high. I have a copy of a press cutting here from a Glasgow newspaper. Surely, noble Lords opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, himself, do not want to deprive badgers in Scotland of this protection, provided that we do for Scotland what we hope and expect to do for England and Wales. That is, to protect the agricultural interest in Scotland in just the same way.
There is no separate problem in Scotland so far as I know. However, it is not for me to say what should happen in Scotland. However, I must withhold my support for the amendment and leave it to the Committee to decide.
Lord Burton: As regards the flood of people coming across the Border, this could quite easily be stopped, if this is thought to be a worry, by imposing penalties on those who were digging on private ground without authority. I do not see any reason why something should not be done about this. The majority of landowners would protest strongly if people were to come from Northumberland, or wherever they might come from. As regards excluding one area, I notice that in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mancroft there is a reference to excluding Northern Ireland. If we can exclude Northern Ireland in one part of badger legislation, I cannot see why we cannot exclude Scotland in another.
This Bill will undoubtedly cause problems. It will make the killing of foxes very difficult in some cases. It will have a major effect on wildlife in general. The partridge is becoming a rare bird in the North. This Bill is geared entirely to England. My noble friends in the foxhunting counties have done a great deal to amend and improve the Bill. They have been successful in that but unfortunately the interests in Scotland have been rather slow off the mark. However, now that they realise what the position is, they are coming down forcefully in support of my amendment. The NFU says, "We can't have this. Can you please do something?" The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said just now that he does not know the position in Scotland. I am telling him what the position is. I hope therefore that he will accept it.
Lord Gridley: Can my noble friend on the Front Bench clarify the position? We are considering a Bill which came from another place. The other place took no action about whether the Bill should extend to Scotland. Would it be in order for us to insert an amendment such as this now?
Viscount Astor: I said that I thought it would look odd to split the provisions of the Bill so that one clause would apply to Great Britain and not to the rest of the country. Members of the Committee have made various points. I should point out that the Badgers Act 1973 does not extend to Northern Ireland so the Bill cannot affect that. My noble friend Lord Burton referred to the various problems caused by badgers in Scotland. He mentioned sea walls. That would come under what we discussed in the previous amendment in regard to licences and the reasons for licences. Before Report stage I should be happy to look into whether badgers damaging sea walls would be covered in a licence. I shall do that and write to the noble Lord. If the previous amendment can be agreed as satisfactory by all sides of the Committee I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord so that we do not have this rather odd change between Scotland and England.
Lord Dunleath: The Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 includes provisions to protect badgers. They have turned out to be effective and successful. I am assured of that fact both by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and by an old friend of mine who has been a master of foxhounds for

397
more than 20 years and is very much in touch with the situation. I do not think that we need worry about Northern Ireland in the context of the Bill.
Lord Burton: I am somewhat encouraged by what was said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, particularly in relation to sea walls. However, in other matters we have a different situation in Scotland. That is why I moved the amendment. The question of licensing is to be considered. An open licence for Scotland could well meet the situation. At this juncture I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. If the question of open licensing is not addressed, I shall have to bring back the amendment at Report and press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Badgers (Further Protection) Bill
2.55 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: 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.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Smoke Detectors Bill
2.56 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Wade of Chorlton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [New dwellings to be fitted with smoke detectors]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("who") to end of line.
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should pause for a moment in order to allow all those noble Lords who are more concerned with animal life than human life to leave the Chamber. I shall take what I have to say very slowly.
I wish to make it clear from the outset that the amendments which I shall move today are intended only to be helpful; they are not intended in any way to obstruct the progress of the Bill of which we thoroughly approve. It is certainly not my intention to press any of the amendments to a Division. As my amendments are dovetailed with those of the noble
398
Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, I hope that we shall be able to reach speedy agreement on as many of the issues as possible.
Amendment No. 1 is very straightforward. As drafted, the Bill provides that the fitting of smoke detectors shall be required in all new dwellings which are constructed in the "course of a business" carried on by the person who is constructing or arranging for the construction; in other words, self-build properties are excluded. I am glad to say that this is not simply a matter of bungalows in gardens in Derwentside, although I suppose that that is perhaps the most tragic example of self-build properties which we have seen affecting the planning laws during their whole history.
We are also concerned with the kind of self-build scheme which is carried on by housing associations. There can be a considerable number of self-build houses. It is quite economical for those who have the necessary skills to build them. It seems proper, therefore, that there should not be a loophole in the Bill in this respect. It is not just a matter of what happens when the houses are first built. Self-build houses will eventually come on to the market. It seems to us that the purchasers of those self-build houses have the right to the same protection as the purchasers of any other houses in respect of smoke detectors, just as they have in respect of any other aspect of building quality. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his remarks. I looked around me to see whether there was anyone in the Chamber who was likely to speak on the matter. There is no one behind me. That may be an advantage. One may be crept up on from behind and that is often worse than being crept up on from the front.
It is the intention of the Bill to place the obligation for compliance clearly on the shoulders of the commercial builder rather than the prospective owner who may have commissioned the construction of the building. I acknowledge that that approach has the side-effect of excluding dwellings constructed by self-build groups, but that is a small sector of the housing market only. It could be argued that such people can protect their own interests without the need for legislation to compel them to do so. It is not the Bill's intention to open the door to monitoring what someone does subsequently. It is important that we do not introduce into the Bill an opportunity to check what owners or occupiers have done. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): I say on behalf of the Government that, for the reasons that my noble friend has given, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord's arguments were not an accurate reflection of what I said in support of the amendment. I did not suggest that there should be a subsequent monitoring of the existence of smoke detectors. I said that those who, after the Act comes into force, buy houses built other

399
than in the course of business are entitled to the same protection as those who buy houses built in the course of business. There is no derogation from the accepted scope of the Bill which extends to new building only. I am sorry that the noble Lord thought that I was proposing anything other than that. It is a defect in the Bill, but not a catastrophic one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, after ("detectors") insert ("of the required standard").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 10 and 11 in my name and manuscript Amendment No. 10A in the name of my noble friend Lord Rea. This is an important matter. We are seeking clarification. The Bill contains no definition of the standards with which smoke detectors should comply. It is desirable that, as with so many other aspects of the control of building quality, smoke detectors should be required to comply with a recognisable regulation. Fortunately, there is an acceptable regulation (British Standard 5446: Part 1: 1990), and the amendments provide for that British standard, or any subsequent standard which the Secretary of State specifies, to be made the proper standard for smoke detectors.
The need for smoke detectors to comply, and to continue to comply, to a standard in other words, not just for manufacture but for installation and subsequent upkeep—was recognised in a Home Office publication. Home Office publication FB2 Wake Up! Get a Smoke Alarm was published in 1990. Unfortunately, the publication is defective in that it applies to battery-operated detectors only. It should apply to the whole range of smoke-detector equipment now available.
It is consonant with the Bill's purposes that smoke detectors installed as a result of the Bill should conform to recognisable standards of manufacture, installation and maintenance.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend makes a different point, that relating to disposal. I shall leave it to him to make the point in detail, but I believe that it is properly to be considered in the same debate as the amendment that I move. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: As my amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 2, perhaps I should speak to it now. I have inserted this manuscript amendment because none of the others specifically refers to the important problem of disposal of smoke detectors after they have finished their useful working life. As I understand it, nearly all smoke detectors currently available on the market contain a small amount of a radioactive substance, Americium, which can cause lung and liver cancer in humans and, if it is put on a waste disposal site, can leach into soil and cause water contamination.
This radioactive substance has a long half life of 460 years, so it will outlast by many times the life of the smoke detector, which will usually have a useful
400
life of an estimated 10 to 15 years. The amount of radioactive material in individual smoke detectors is tiny, minute. In itself, it would provide no cause for concern when properly installed in a building. However, according to Mr. Patrick Green, who is a radiation consultant with Friends of the Earth:
"When people begin dumping these detectors, we could have a major waste management problem on our hands … Many homes are installing three detectors. If these are put in the rubbish, you are well above the unauthorised dumping laws for commercial users".
He fears that soil and water contamination may result.
I understand that some reputable firms making smoke detectors on both sides of the Atlantic advise in the instructions that come with the units that old units be returned to the manufacturer for safe disposal. However, I wonder how often the advice is followed. There are other less reputable firms exporting the devices to the UK from various countries around the world. I feel that all householders with smoke detectors should be made fully aware of the need for safe disposal and that effective waste disposal facilities for radioactive materials should be made available in all areas.
Without going into greater detail this late on a Friday afternoon, I wonder whether the noble Lord can satisfy me that this potentially serious health hazard has been carefully considered.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: The whole purpose of Clause 3 is to enable material relating to the standards which smoke detectors must meet and where they should be put and similar suggestions to go into a guidance document and not clutter up the Bill. It enables the requirements to be brought up to date without amending legislation if the standards change. I recognise that the real purpose of most of the amendments is to find out what the approved practical guidance is likely to say. I hope that it will include a reference to the appropriate British standards for smoke detectors. I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of providing written instructions on maintenance. I understand that British standards provide for this to be done.
I should like to see other matters included. I believe that the alarm should be mains operated. There is evidence from America that it is not sufficient to rely on a purely battery operated device because householders all too often neglect to replace the batteries. There needs to be at least one alarm per storey and the alarms need to be connected to each other so that they all go off together. Otherwise, a person sleeping in a first or second-floor bedroom may not hear the alarm going off on the ground floor.
I refer to Amendment No. 10. Clause 3 provides for practical guidance to be issued on ways of meeting the requirements set out in Clause 1(2) of the Bill. That subsection does not attempt to control the subsequent use of the detector and it would be quite wrong and wholly impractical for it to do so. While I can see great value in the provision of advice on subsequent use, I do not believe that the approved guidance document is the right place to provide it. It seems to me that the most that can be done in the document is to pick up the recommendation on the provision of maintenance instructions.

401
I hope my noble friend the Minister is in a position to confirm that the Government intend to include guidance of this kind in the approved document. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will agree that the flexibility of the approved document is preferable to writing detailed technical requirements into the Bill. I hope therefore that he will not press Amendment No. 10.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, kindly wrote to me and gave me notice of the point he has just made. I have therefore made inquiries and, like the little girl who was asked to read a book about penguins, I now know rather more about penguins than I need to know. I know a lot more about radioactivity in smoke detectors than I ever thought I would need to know. I obtained some helpful briefing from the National Radiological Protection Board. I shall try to summarise the information I was given.
There are two basic types of smoke detector for domestic use. One type contains an ionisation chamber with a radioactive source and contains Americium 241. There is also an optical type of detector. Each type has its advantages and disadvantages and the relevant British standard does not indicate any preference between the two types. Under the Euratom directive the UK is required to apply a system of prior authorisation to products destined for household use which incorporate radioactive substances. I understand it is likely that regulations will be made shortly to require goods suitable for domestic use that contain radioactive substances to be approved by the board prior to their supply. These regulations will formalise an existing voluntary scheme operated by the National Radiological Protection Board.
It is clear from the paper I have been sent that the board has already given a great deal of thought to the accept ability of ionising smoke detectors. The amount of radioactivity they give off is well within safety limits. It represents about 1 per cent. of the annual average dose of radiation which we are all likely to receive from all sources, and about 3 per cent. of the maximum exposure which is regarded as acceptable as a result of the activities of man.
The NRPB has developed a comprehensive series of tests to ensure that the radiation source will not become detached or suffer loss of integrity even in abnormal conditions. The noble Lord referred to the problem of disposal. The NRPB has considered the likely effect of the disposal of as many as 4 million units each year, with 80 per cent. going to landfill sites and 20 per cent. to incineration. The board concluded that the appropriate radioactive dose criteria will not be exceeded.
It has been brought to my attention that in the United States a lady dismantled two of the ionising units and ate the two pieces of foil they contained. Apparently she suffered no harm. I suppose it could be argued that she received as high a dose as anyone is ever likely to receive. However, I do not know whether she has since become a walking smoke detector.
There is the matter of what happens in the case of a fire And possible risks to firemen. I can only say that the NRPB has addressed those matters. It has
402
concluded that provided a device meets the NRPB requirements, doses arising from normal use, accidents, misuse or disposal will not exceed the appropriate dose criteria. I hope my comments reassure the noble Lord.
Baroness Blatch: The Government share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that detailed provisions about what must be done to comply with the requirements of the Bill are better dealt with in the approved document provided for under Clause 3 and not in the Bill itself. The same division between broad functional requirements having the force of law and statutory guidance documents was introduced into the building controls system in 1985 and has proved successful in balancing the conflicting requirements of flexibility and certainty.
The Government are thinking on similar lines to my noble friend Lord Wade about the contents of the guidance document. Our present view is that one or more detectors meeting the standard referred to in the amendment would be a reasonable standard of provision in most cases, although there may be some situations, for example blocks of flats, where an installation monitored by a control panel might be considered.
I fully accept what has been said about the importance of maintenance instructions and I hope that we can cover that point in the approved document. However, I should add that the Home Office already provides guidance to householders on the selection, maintenance and use of smoke detectors and we shall be exploring whether it might be possible to link the two sets of guidance in some way.
I should like to reinforce a point made by my noble friend in relation to the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The National Radiological Protection Board has examined the disposal problem. It has concluded that disposal in the normal way—by tipping or incineration—will not create a health problem.
I hope that the noble Lords will feel reassured by what I and my noble friend have said today and will not press the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am broadly satisfied by what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the Minister have said. However, I should like to press the Minister a little further on one point, because she did not refer to British Standard 5446: Part 1 in her reply. I know that she cannot give a firm commitment, but is it likely that the approved document will specify that British standard?
Baroness Blatch: I cannot give an immediate reply to that question. However, I can say that that particular point will certainly be taken on board in our considerations not only within the department but also with the Home Office.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should be grateful if the Minister would find it possible to write to me before Report stage. I am not asking her to agree to that now. However, it is helpful to have these matters

403
on the record. The recognition that there must be standards and that there must be guidance as well as standards is welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("3") and insert ("5").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 stands on its own and relates to the level of fines which would be appropriate for not installing a smoke detector. I remind the Committee that Level 3 provides for a maximum fine of £400, whereas in Level 5, which is the one we propose, the maximum fine is £2,000.
It is always difficult to define what level of fine should apply. However, the important point is that the fine should be significantly more than the cost of complying with the legislation, in other words there should be a significant penalty. Simple smoke detectors can be obtained for two-figure sums, but it could be that the total cost of a smoke detector system for a large dwelling or a block of flats could be very much more than the £400 level of fine which is proposed. In those circumstances I suggest that the fines would not be an adequate deterrent and certainly would not be demonstrated to be an adequate deterrent. I hope that the noble Lord will consider favourably what I believe to be a rather more appropriate level of fine.
Perhaps I may ask him and the Minister whether I am right in thinking that a separate offence would be committed in the case of each detector not installed. In other words, in a building of more than one storey which has to have one detector per storey would it be an offence in the case of each storey? I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said and I must tell him that I have not been convinced of the need to do as he suggests. A Level 3 fine is appropriate to the nature of the offence created by the Bill and is fully consistent with other legislation relating to safety protection measures such as seat belt and motor cycle crash helmet legislation.
It should be remembered that the level of scale fines is being increased in the Criminal Justice Bill and when that is implemented the maximum fine for a Level 3 offence will be £1,000 and not £400 as it is now. In our view that represents a substantial sum, particularly as it relates to each unit—that is, at least each floor—so that in the case of a double-floor house there would be a maximum fine of £2,000, and in the case of a housing estate the maximum fine might be £20,000 or £30,000 which we believe would be a sufficient deterrent. I trust that with that information the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I support my noble friend Lord Wade. In the recent transport Bill I tried to have the level of fines with regard to seat belts
404
increased and was told that I could not do so. My noble friend seeks to do the same thing that I tried to do with regard to the motoring world.
Baroness Blatch: On the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I am advised that it would be an offence for each dwelling, not for each detector. I believe that the noble Lord gave the example of a block of flats.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was not quite what I asked. I asked whether it would be an offence with regard to each detector. I should be sad to hear that it would be an offence only in regard to each dwelling.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I am advised that the provision refers to each dwelling and not to each detector. I support my noble friend and the view that he has expressed that a Level 3 fine is appropriate, especially in its increased form.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am only moderately reassured by those answers. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, that, however he may have been advised on another Bill, I would feel perfectly within my rights if I were to press the amendment. After all, it does not increase Government expenditure. It does not come under the Privilege Amendment. Indeed, it would increase the revenue to the public purse. I should have thought that, on the whole, noble Lords would have welcomed it. However, I am deterred from pressing the amendment to a vote, not only because we support the Bill, but because of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has made about the increase in the standard level fines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 14.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 14 are drafting amendments. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 provides definitions of certain terms. Additional definitions of terms that it is proposed to use in Amendment No. 13 are now included in Clause 6, and the amendments will enable all the definitions to be brought together.
Perhaps I may also mention Amendment No. 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which we do not wish to accept. It would extend the Bill to address issues that fall well outside its intended scope. It would require the installation of smoke detectors in any new building which incorporates a dwelling; for example, an office block with a penthouse flat. Other legislation—notably the Fire Precautions Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act—requires fire alarm systems to be provided in those non-domestic premises that are most at risk. The noble Lord's amendment would simply cut across those existing requirements. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): I should have mentioned that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have no objection to Amendments Nos. 5 and 15, but I am disappointed in the noble Lord's response to Amendment No. 6.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: If the noble Lord will permit me, we were talking about Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 14.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. However, I am disappointed because the examples that he gave do not cover the full range of cases that we think should be covered here. I should have thought that, from the point of view of people living in a dwelling, it is irrelevant whether it is a penthouse, a room above a shop or anything else. They are entitled to the same protection as anyone else.
There is one particular case with regard to which I hope the noble Lord will agree that there is an even stronger argument for having the protection that his Bill would provide; namely, the case of a caravan which is not mobile and is stationed permanently on a site. It is still therefore a caravan rather than a house or flat but very definitely it is a dwelling. I should have thought that the fire risk in a caravan was considerably greater than the fire risk in most normal dwellings.
I am perfectly prepared not to move the amendment, but I should like to ask the noble Lord to consider carefully between now and Report stage whether he would wish to extend protection to caravans, which to me seem particularly to need it.
Baroness Blatch: I agree with my noble friend that Amendment No. 6 radically alters the nature of the Bill. For that reason I do not support it.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, posed another question and I am advised that a flat above an office would be covered. It would still be a dwelling. However, the office itself would not be covered. The other two measures that my noble friend mentioned in the course of presenting his amendment cover that. Perhaps we—my noble friend, myself and my department—could write to the noble Lord on the point that he raised about the caravan.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the assurance that a dwelling above a shop or office would be covered. It would be helpful if any correspondence could take place before Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Relaxation of requirement as to smoke detectors]:
Lard McIntosh of Haringey Lard McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 1, after ("authority") insert ("after consulting the relevant fire authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 15. We
406
are concerned with consultation with the fire authority before any exemption is made. Clause 2 relates to exemptions from the provisions of the Bill.
We accept that there are occasions when exemptions will be necessary. One thinks of cases where smoke detectors would be damaging in, for example, an historic house. It is difficult to decide whether there should be an exemption because human life could be involved. It is obvious that the number of exemptions should be kept to the absolute minimum. I suggest to the Committee that the consideration that should be adopted when an exemption is considered should not be a matter of building control regulations (which is what most provisions of the Bill will come under); it is a matter for the fire authority. If there is a severe risk of fire, an exemption ought not to be granted even if it meant that the historic building could not be occupied as a dwelling. The example of Hampton Court is only too close to our minds. In that case a fire was caused in an historic building—almost the historic building—because the building was a dwelling. I suggest that the fire authorities, which know the nature of the risk, ought to be the ones to be consulted in this respect. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, I have tabled an amendment to deal with this matter, which was raised during Second Reading. Perhaps he might wish not to press his amendment but to consider our amendment, which is the next one on the Marshalled List.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that that is wise. A grouping has been produced and on reflection I believe that Amendment No. 8 should have been included with my amendments. That would have made discussion easier. We are almost certainly in full agreement on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert:
("( ) Before giving a direction under subsection (1) above, a local authority (other than the Council of the Isles of Scilly) shall consult the fire authority for the area in which the dwelling is or is to be situated.").
The noble Lord said: In the debate on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the issue of consultation with the fire service. I accept his concern and have put down my amendment to meet it.
The Bill provides for guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State on ways of meeting the requirement to fit smoke detectors which provide adequately for the early detection of the outbreak of fire. The fire service will be involved in the preparation of that guidance. When such guidance is followed, there will normally be no need for further consultation. The guidance document will provide advice on when individual consultation may be desirable.
However, the noble Lord's concern specifically related to Clause 2 which allows the appropriate authority to dispense with or relax the requirement to fit smoke detectors. There are unlikely to be many

407
situations in which that power needs to be used although the noble Lord has just referred to an important one. The conversion of an historic building into a dwelling was the example referred to on Second Reading. When such a situation arises, it seems sensible to require the building control authority to consult the fire authority before deciding whether or not to give a direction under Clause 2. That is the purpose of the amendment.
The Council of the Isles of Scilly has been excluded from the terms of the amendment because under the provisions of Section 37 of the Fire Services Act 1947 it also carries out the function of a fire authority. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Given the rather quirky exception to the example of my noble friend, the Government are happy with Amendment No. 8. It may be said that building control authorities could be relied on to consult fire authorities on such a matter without creating a statutory obligation. But while such consultations normally occur, there could be problems. The amendment makes clear what is expected. Indeed there is already a somewhat similar provision in Section 15 of the Building Act 1984.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Guidance as to fitting of smoke detectors]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I love "may" and "shall" amendments. I like it even more when I propose to change "shall" to "may". However, this amendment will do to be going on with. It is a probing amendment. I understand that the Secretary of State has the power to issue guidance. It is clear from the debate on Second Reading that guidance will be necessary. I seek an assurance from the Government that, regardless of the wording of the Bill, the Secretary of State will issue guidance. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: The effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to approve and issue guidance on the fitting of smoke detectors. I fully accept that the Bill cannot operate effectively until that has been done. However, I am advised that the amendment would not be in accordance with normal drafting practice.
There is an almost identical provision in Section 6(1) of the Building Act 1984. In that case the verb used is "may", and not "shall". The noble Baroness has already said something about the Government's intentions in relation to the content of the approved document and no doubt she will be able to confirm that such guidance will definitely be issued.
Baroness Blatch: It is an afternoon for being helpful. I agree with both noble Lords that guidance will need to be approved and issued under Clause 3 at the same time as the Bill is brought into force.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The lowest common denominator for an objection to an amendment is to
408
say that the amendment is not in accordance with common drafting practice. That means that it is accepted as being perfectly proper, reasonable and in accordance with what is intended by the Government. I hope that I shall not hear that argument repeated on more important matters. I am grateful for the assurances that have been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 34, after ("fitting") insert ("and subsequent use").
The noble Lord said: This is a continuation of the discussion about standards for installation and, thanks to my noble friend Lord Rea, for disposal. It is essential—I made this point at Second Reading—that there should be instructions for users not only as to the fitting of smoke detectors but also for the subsequent use of smoke detectors. There is a perfectly good precedent for that in the regulations which exist for the fitting of gas boilers. The noble Lord and the Minister have already made the point that mains smoke detectors are more desirable than battery smoke detectors. Nevertheless, one must expect that battery smoke detectors will be installed and that guidance on subsequent use will be required to ensure that the batteries do not run down. I hope that the amendment is thought to be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: We understand the noble Lord's request. The point was covered fully in our discussion on earlier amendments relating to regulations. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord's requirements. I am sure that my noble friend can give further assurances if required.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved manuscript Amendment No. 10A:
Page 2, line 34, after ("fitting") insert ("and eventual disposal").
The noble Lord said: Before withdrawing the amendment I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wade, whether the approved guidelines will contain instructions about the eventual disposal of these devices. I shall study carefully the advice that was given to him by the Radiological Protection Board and the Government, but I wish to know where we stand on the issue before withdrawing the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: There is some confusion on our part because we do not have a copy of the manuscript amendment. I have not seen it, nor has my noble friend. All I can say is that guidance will be included.
Lord Rea: I am surprised because I believed that copies of the amendment had been circulated to all Members of the Committee concerned. It is not my intention to press the amendment today. I shall consult with my expert advisers and may return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Enforcement]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert:
("(1A) Any person duly authorised in writing by the local authority may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purpose of exercising their functions under this Act.
(1B) A person authorised under subsection (1A) above to enter any land shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering.
(1C) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1 B) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine lot exceeding level 2 on the standard scale").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. We seek to clarify the way in which the proposals in the Bill are to be implemented. There will not be too many problems if the requirements of the Bill form part of the building regulations. However, if there is to be any other form of regulation—in other words, if the approved document is to be incorporated other than in building regulations—there could be a problem.
The present position in respect of rights of entry is that in respect of a factory or workplace the authorised officer has an immediate right of entry. However, in respect of the dwelling he must give 24 hours' notice. If access is refused, the authorised person may obtain a warrant. I am not suggesting that there should be anything more than the provision already made in building regulations. However, it seems to be necessary that the enforcement of the smoke detector provisions should be as powerful as the enforcement of any other part of building regulations. I hope that the principle behind the amendment will be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I understand the points made by the noble Lord. I am not convinced on the advice I have received that the amendment is desirable or necessary. The granting of power of entry is always a sensitive issue in this Chamber, and rightly so. We need l o remember also that the word "land" includes the dwelling itself. I do not believe that we should create an additional power of entry unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. In these circumstances I do not believe it is necessary.
The intention is that the provisions of this Bill should be enforced at construction stage. A building control officer already has the necessary powers of entry to enforce the requirements of the building regulations on land where dwellings are being constructed. Surely it is sufficient for him to rely on those closely related powers. After all, he is not likely to be making his inspection solely for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Bill.
Approved inspectors operate by agreement. Therefore, there should be no problem in their case. The Bill does not require building control officers to inspect occupied houses to see whether they have smoke detectors. I find that that is an unacceptable
410
manner of enforcing its requirements. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I agree with what my noble friend has said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What a surprise. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said. But it does not appear to square with the advice I have been given. Perhaps it is a matter to which I can return at a later stage if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of initial notice under Part II of Building Act 1984
.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) an initial notice is in force in respect of any work specified in the notice which consists of the construction of a dwelling (whether such work forms the whole or part of the work so specified); and

(b) the person who constructs the dwelling, or arranges for it to be constructed, does so in the course of a business carried on by him.

(2) So long as the initial notice continues in force, the duty of enforcing the provisions of section 1 above that is conferred on a local authority by section 4 above is not exercisable in relation to the dwelling concerned, and accordingly a local authority may not take proceedings in respect of an offence committed under that section in relation to that dwelling.
(3) Where, in respect of any work, an approved inspector is under a duty to give a final certificate to any person by virtue of section 51(1) of the 1984 Act (certificate of completion of work and discharge of functions), the approved inspector shall not give the certificate unless he has taken such steps as are reasonable to enable him to determine whether or not the requirement mentioned in section 1(2) above is complied with in relation to the dwelling concerned.
(4) If the approved inspector is satisfied that the requirement so mentioned is complied with in relation to the dwelling—

(a) he shall issue a certificate to that effect; and

(b) when he gives to any person the final certificate relating to the work consisting of the construction of that dwelling, he shall at the same time give to that person the certificate issued under this subsection.

(5) Where—

(a) an initial notice ceases by virtue of section 51(3) of the 1984 Act to apply in respect of any work (acceptance by local authority of final certificate); and

(b) the approved inspector has issued and given a certificate in accordance with subsection (4) above in respect of the dwelling concerned;

subsection (2) above continues to apply, by virtue of this subsection, in relation to the dwelling as if the initial notice continued in force.
(6) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he gives a certificate which purports to comply with subsection (4) (a) above and which contains a statement that he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular; or

(b) he recklessly gives a certificate which purports to comply with that subsection and which contains a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause relates to a matter which is of particular concern to the National House Building Council. The intention is that the

411
provisions of the Bill will be enforced by the person who is enforcing the provisions of the building regulations of 1985 relating to other aspects of the construction of the dwelling.
While that is often a building control officer employed by a local authority, Part II of the Building Act 1984 enables building work to be supervised by approved inspectors from the private sector. The National House Building Council has been approved to act as inspector for the construction of most new dwellings. It has asked that the role of approved inspectors should be specifically recognised in the Bill; that is clearly right. It would not be satisfactory if the local authority still had to enforce the provisions of the Bill even though an approved inspector was enforcing the requirements of the building regulations. That was never the intention.
Therefore, the new clause is modelled on the relevant provisions of the Building Act 1984. When an approved inspector is appointed instead of the local authority for the purposes of building control, an initial notice must be served on the local authority. When the approved inspector is satisfied that the work has been completed in accordance with the regulations he issues a final certificate to that effect. When an initial notice is in operation or a final certificate has been given, the local authority cannot take action to enforce the building regulations.
The new clause would operate in the same way. If an approved inspector has been appointed in respect of work consisting of the construction of a dwelling, the approved inspector would also be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Bill. He must certify that he has done so at the time that he issues his final certificate. When such a certificate has been given or during the period when an initial notice is in force, the local authority will not be entitled to take proceedings in respect of an offence under Section 4.
I appreciate that this is a rather complex clause but it is important that the Bill should work in the same way as the Building Act 1984 if duplication of enforcement is to be avoided. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I entirely accept that it would be an anomaly if the new Bill were to be at variance with the Building Act 1984. We do not oppose in principle the use of approved inspectors who are in practice only the inspectors of the National Housebuilding Council. However, I should like an
412
assurance on the record that the delegation to approved inspectors does not apply to Clause 2; in other words, it does not apply to exemptions.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, agreed in his earlier amendment that the fire authorities shall be consulted with regard to exemptions. Clearly it would be an absurdity if that provision were to be nullified by the use of approved inspectors.
Baroness Blatch: It is appropriate that we should end a long week on a harmonious note. I am happy to say that the noble Lord is entirely right in his assumption on the last point. I am happy to say also that the Government agree with the views of my noble friend that the Bill should make an express provision for a situation when an approved inspector rather than the local authority is providing the building control function for a housing development. We discussed how that might best be achieved and are satisfied that the proposed amendment is consistent with the procedures relating to the work of approved inspectors in the Building Act 1984. We therefore support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 24, after ("Act") insert:
(" "the 1984 Act" means the Building Act 1984;
"approved inspector", "final certificate" and "initial notice" have the same meanings as in Part II of the 1984 Act;
"construct" and "construction", in relation to a dwelling, include providing a dwelling by reconstructing or converting a building or any part of a building;
"dwelling" means a house or flat used or intended for use as a private dwelling; and").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. It is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
Returned from the Commons with amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before four o'clock.

  MARINE RADIO-NAVIGATION
  MARINE RADIO-NAVIGATION
  NITRATE SENSITIVE AREAS: PILOT SCHEME
  NITRATE SENSITIVE AREAS: PILOT SCHEME
  QUALITY WINE SCHEME
  QUALITY WINE SCHEME
  FOOD AND DRINK TRADE WITH EC MEMBER STATES
  FOOD AND DRINK TRADE WITH EC MEMBER STATES