Sitting of 21 March 1991

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

  Royal Assent
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  The Consolidated Fund Act 1991

  The Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Act 1991

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 16 April at Seven o'clock.
    Mr. Speaker: As Bills 1 to 8 have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 April.

    TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Tay Road Bridge and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 27 March and to be printed. [Bill 121.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Food Labelling
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what future arrangements he will be making for monitoring the accuracy of food labelling as a result of information recently gained by his Department relating to orange juice.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what future arrangements he will be making for monitoring the accuracy of food labelling as a result of his Department's recent information about the labelling of orange juice.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): My scientists analyse a wide range of foodstuffs for various reasons as part of our comprehensive programme of monitoring and surveillance. I will be following up the particular matter to which my hon. Friends refer with further sampling.
    Mr. Shaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his officials on the way in which this monitoring has been done and on the fact that some major mistakes have been identified. Members of the British public who, like me, enjoy a daily glass of orange juice and want it pure, undiluted and from a properly labelled carton are very grateful to him.
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for that. The fact is that this was a labelling and not a public health matter, but it is not acceptable that orange juice labelled pure and unadulterated should turn out to be rather less unadulterated than it should be.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on this matter? It will give the British public a great deal of reassurance to know that they have officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continually on the watch to protect them from such serious abuse of the food labelling regulations. When may we expect to make further progress with food labelling regulations, finish the period of discussion with our European colleagues and introduce a more comprehensive system of food labelling regulations for fats, salt and sugar?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has always taken a great interest in this. I assure him that we are in the lead in matters to do with food labelling. The Food Advisory Committee has been doing work on this in Britain. Much of labelling is now in the European Community domain, of course, and we take a lead in the Community in ensuring that the public have clear labelling of what is in the products that they buy. It is not my intention to tell the public what they ought to eat; it is my intention to allow them to choose for themselves—that is why they need proper labels.

    Countryside (Access)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about access to the countryside in set-aside areas and environmentally sensitive areas.
    Mr. Gummer: Existing rights of public access are preserved over land which is entered under the set-aside and environmentally sensitive areas schemes. Neither scheme imposes additional obligations as regards access, but the meadowland option of the related countryside premium scheme provides areas set aside for walking and quiet enjoyment by the public.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that, as more than 10 million people enjoy walking as a pastime, at Easter and on other public holidays many honey spots in the countryside will be overused and peace and quiet will be denied to people going out to enjoy them? Is not there a good argument for increasing the number of parts of Britain to which people can gain access and spreading the money that people spend when they go out into the countryside? Will the Government try to incorporate in the set-aside and environmentally sensitive schemes some encouragement to farmers to improve access?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that access is best improved by improving footpaths, bridleways and the like. We must also recognise that in all these areas a balance must be maintained. In our environmentally sensitive areas it is sometimes access that causes much of the problem. I cite for instance, the difficulties in the South Downs where access for people with dogs makes it extremely difficult to graze those areas in the way that would be desirable. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that problems in the Pennine Way now mean that in some cases and circumstances we are spending more there than on similar lengths of the M1.
    Mr. Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the exception of the small areas that he mentioned, there is no particularly good reason why environmentally sensitive areas should have special access to the public, bearing in mind that huge areas of equally sensitive land often adjoin them? My right hon. Friend should concentrate on trying to expand the environmentally sensitive areas, which have been so successful.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not mind my saying that such areas are his creation. The fact that the whole of Europe is copying Britain in creating such areas owes much to his perseverance in the Council of Ministers. I should like to see how best we can extend the scheme as time goes on. I emphasise my right hon. Friend's argument that access must often compete with other aspects of the countryside to achieve a balance. To conserve the countryside, we must sometimes restrict rather than extend access. Environmentally sensitive areas will work only if farmers can farm them properly, so we must ensure that the demands and needs of farming play their part in the balance between them.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Has the Minister any plans to introduce compulsory set-aside if the current scheme does not work out to his satisfaction?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am deeply opposed to the concept of compulsory set-aside, which is damaging both to the countryside and to the
    386
    farmer. I seek a system in the European Community in which each country will take a fair share of the amount of set-aside necessary. A voluntary scheme should set a target to be achieved within each country. A voluntary scheme means that farmers must be paid enough to make it possible for them to look after the land, which is in their interests and the wider interests of the country as a whole.
    Mr. Boscawen: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we must get the balance right in environmentally sensitive areas. In the Somerset levels, which I represent, there is a genuine need for a limited amount of access to see the birds and fauna there. However, if too many people want to come at once, as they often do, they will destroy the areas that we wish to protect.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. We have spent a lot of money and employed much manpower, especially in the Somerset levels, to try to achieve a balance between the needs of farming and those of wildlife. We have discovered that, by bringing both sides together, the level of water necessary turns out to be very different from that which many conservationists had thought. When one is trying to bring two groups together in such a way, it must be realised that total access to the general public cannot always be afforded if wildlife is to be protected. It is important to achieve a balance. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is among the first to say that he wants not access which destroys the countryside but access which opens it up.
    Mr. David Clark: Has the Minister seen the report published today by the national parks review panel, in which he is urged to introduce incentives and payments systems for environmentally friendly farming and public access in all our national parks? Will he do so?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not someone who, having read part of a report, immediately jumps to the Dispatch Box to say what he intends to do about it. First, I want to see what the Countryside Commission thinks about the report, as it was received only today. Secondly, the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will want to work out how best to react to the Countryside Commission's proposals. I am not someone who believes that the future of the countryside can be decided by immediate party-political reactions.

    Food Prices
    Sir Michael Shaw: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the increase in the price of food to consumers as measured against the retail prices index since 1979.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much food prices to the consumer have increased since 1979 relative to the retail prices index.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Since 1979 the price of food has fallen by more than 18 per cent. relative to the retail prices index.
    Mr. Michael Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that that success story owes much to the efforts of British agriculture? Should we not also

    387
    realise, however, that those efforts demand a fair return for farmers who put both work and capital into their enterprises to bring about that success?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that the factor that will most benefit the farmer is for us to get on top of inflation. The farmer makes a contribution towards defeating inflation because of the performance of food prices. It is also true that if the farmer wishes to benefit more from consumer spending, the more he can produce processed products that the consumer wants to buy, the better. Nobody goes into a a shop to buy sheep—they go to buy meat products and the more the farmer can get into that business, the more he will benefit from his own primary production.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend has just said something rather interesting—[Interruption.] It was not so much unusual, but it anticipated the flow of my own question.
    Farmers may well have been contributing to the lowering of inflation. That is unfortunate for them in that they do not receive what they consider to be a proper rate of return. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should therefore concentrate their efforts on getting value added and adding some sex appeal to the crops that they sell?
    Mr. Curry: It is true that people selling unbranded commodities will never receive the same return from them as the people who take the commodity, transform it, package it and give it new appeal. It is equally true that the consumer clearly wants the processed convenience product. The more that farmers can get into that business through greater collaborative effort and greater links with the retail trade, the more they will realise the benefits of their own primary production.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that the price paid to the producers—farmers—is an extremely low percentage of the price paid by consumers? Does he also accept that unless a proper check is kept on the prices paid to producers there will inevitably be a shortfall in production, which will put prices to consumers through the ceiling? Will he endeavour to assist farmers in marketing their produce so that they can gain more for the agricultural produce of their farms?
    Mr. Curry: We certainly try to take our decisions in European negotiations and in the Ministry with a view to helping British farmers get their products on the table in front of British housewives and other people. It is also true that the reason for lower returns in agriculture is the persistence of over-supply in the marketplace. The greatest service that we can do for a farmer is to conquer the problem of over-supply and inflation. When we can do that, the farmer will be able to realise his returns much more easily.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the prices to which he refers, for the first time in the 21 years I have been a Member of Parliament, the farmers and farm workers in Bolsover, Derbyshire and other parts of the country are fed up to the back teeth with the Government and the common agricultural policy? They used to paint the grass blue in Bolsover at election time, but they have said that they will never do it again.
    Mr. Curry: If the farmers were to vote for the hon. Gentleman, they would undergo a rapid learning curve and only make that mistake once.

    Farm Gate Prices
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage farm gate prices have increased since 1979 relative to the retail prices index.
    Mr. Curry: The index of producer prices of agricultural products increased at an average annual rate of 3·6 per cent. between 1979 and 1990, compared with 7·5 per cent. for all items in the retail prices index.
    Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has produced show how essential it is, not least for the farmers in Bolsover, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer continues with policies that will bear down on inflation? When my hon. Friend goes to Brussels and talks to Commissioner MacSharry, will he give him those figures and ensure that if there is any reform of the common agricultural policy, as is proposed, the returns to British farmers all over the country will not be further reduced as a result?
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend and I will be in Brussels next Monday and Tuesday, when no doubt these subjects will be on the agenda. We agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it clear to Mr. MacSharry and our colleagues that, although we agree that changes must be made and that prices must fall closer to those of the marketplace, agriculture should be based on commercially viable farms and the United Kingdom farmer should not be discriminated against merely because he is efficient, modern and effective.
    Mr. William Ross: How many other people in the food production chain from the farmer to the housewife have taken an actual cut in incomes since 1979?
    Mr. Curry: Incomes will not be buoyant if the market is constantly over-supplied. If farmers wish to achieve better returns, the Government must conquer inflation and over-supply and take more interest in producing what the consumer wants in the form that the consumer wants it. If the consumer wants products that the farmer thinks inappropriate, it is the farmer and not the consumer who is wrong. There is only one market and it must deliver what the consumer wants.
    Mr. Marland: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the drop in farm gate prices. Will he confirm that to raise farm gate prices farmers must add more value to their products? Will he further confirm that grant aid and advice is available from the Ministry to encourage and help farmers to find different ways of adding value to their products to make them more acceptable in the marketplace?
    Mr. Curry: Farmers should certainly use all the help that is available. I do not wish to transform agriculture into some form of cottage industry producing pies and salami, but unless farmers get further down the food chain and produce goods that people want by adding value on the farm, they will be stuck with producing unbranded raw materials. As I said, people do not go into supermarkets to buy sheep—they buy products, which is what the farmer must produce.

    Decommissioning
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss a decommissioning scheme.
    Mr. Curry: I see the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations regularly, and it is well aware of the Government's view on decommissioning.
    Mr. Mitchell: In that case, it will be very depressed. Does the Minister recognise that the whole of the British fishing industry is crying out for a decommissioning scheme? Does he not recognise that that is the most effective contribution that he can make to conservation and that unless the Government introduce a proper conservation programme we shall get more daft Euro-measures imposed on us like the eight-day lay-off?
    Mr. Curry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for any influence that he may have had on the letter that I received this morning from the Grimsby fish producer organisation thanking us for our excellent efforts in producing the gear option as an alternative to the tie-up scheme.
    A decommissioning scheme is not the most effective method. Taking out old boats would be bad value and taking out new boats would be bad economics. If some boats are taken out under a decommissioning scheme, the remaining boats must be controlled to prevent them from simply mopping up all the additional effort; otherwise, there would have to be a new system of regulation, including compulsory tie-ups for longer periods than those that we unfortunately have at present.
    Mr. John Townend: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I do not welcome his remarks on a decommissioning scheme, but what other initiatives will he take to reduce the fishing effort? In particular, will he consider making it illegal for prawn fishermen to carry two sizes of net—70 mm and 90 mm—as that makes conservation enforcement practically impossible?
    Mr. Curry: We have just completed a consultation with the industry. We considered whether we should introduce a square mesh panel on nets used for the nephrops fishery. We suggested a 70 mm square panel, but the industry said that it would like to go further. I shall do all that I can to go as far as possible so that we do not catch so many small round fish in the nephrops fishery. That is an important conservation measure.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister accept that he is totally isolated from the fishing community in his opposition to decommissioning and in his support for the eight-day tie-up? Does he understand that even members of the Conservative party are embarrassed by the contemptuous attitude that he showed to Scottish fishermen during the eight-day tie-up debate? When will there be a reversal of policy to support decommissioning and to oppose the life-threatening eight-day tie-up?
    Mr. Curry: To be isolated is not necessarily to be wrong—and I do not accept that I am isolated. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the previous debate are silly. He suggests that fishermen want to be able to fish exactly as they have always fished and yet to have conservation. That cannot be delivered.
    390
    If fishermen genuinely want conservation, they can take their suggestions about mesh sizes further forward. I shall always listen to them. Since I have been a fisheries Minister, not one hon. Member who has asked to bring a delegation of fishermen to see me has ever been refused. That offer remains open.
    Mr. Morley: The Minister knows very well that he is isolated on the decommissioning issue in terms both of the industry and of Europe. The revision of the common fisheries policy provides an opportunity to use the available structural funds to finance a proper decommissioning scheme which takes account of all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. Will he take the opportunity to tap into that funding? Will he also use the opportunity offered by the review of regional policies to extend the Hague preference south from Bridlington to include all the east coast ports?
    Mr. Curry: I know that the Hague preference is a sensitive issue. It is designed for the northern communities. The Scottish industry attaches particular importance to it. Even the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) would agree that it is particularly important to the Scottish industry and to communities in northern England.
    I realise that the Hague preference causes difficulties. As I am anxious that the review of the fisheries policy should be a limited review—I do not want the common fisheries policy to be busted open, because we benefit greatly from it—I should hesitate before introducing that element into the discussions, as it would encourage other people to seek a wider review than we think would be helpful.

    Sheep Industry
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with British farmers about the future of the sheep industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: My colleagues and I have regular discussions with sheep farmers and their representatives.
    Mr. Maclennan: How does the Minister propose to arrest the depressing erosion of incomes of hill and upland farms which are dependent upon the sheep industry? Will he do three things? Will he announce his proposals to end the sheepmeat variable premium? Will he support a private storage scheme to ease the undoubted danger of fluctuations occuring in the market following the ending of the variable premium scheme? May we have a five-year continuance of the wool guarantee, as wool constitutes some 14 per cent. of the incomes of sheep farmers in the hills and uplands?
    Mr. Curry: We retain the option to accelerate the phase-out of the variable premium. When we take that decision, we shall certainly bear in mind the importance of accelerating our exports and getting rid of the clawback.
    Giving a five-year guarantee is not a practical proposition. We recently increased the hill livestock compensatory allowances. About £400 million per year goes into the British sheep industry as a whole, a large proportion of it to the less-favoured areas. We recently increased HLCAs by £142 million. We have a system of market support in the livestock sector which costs us £800

    391
    million per year. That is a great deal of taxpayers' money to support the industry. We are committed to that industry.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend accept. that farmers are worried about the difference between the price that they get at market for their sheep for slaughter and the price that the housewife has to pay? Does he accept that, because of the demise of high street butcheries, farmers cannot easily sell their products to supermarkets, which refuse to take their produce locally? Will my hon. Friend's Department investigate that aspect of the red meat trade?
    Mr. Curry: I have always found that when the farmers have some complaint about the retail sector, it is best to get the Women's Farming Union on to the matter. It appears to be the last paramilitary body in Britain and is extremely effective. I would hesitate to tell shops where to do their purchasing.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister will know that sheep farmers are very unhappy about the severe financial difficulties in which they find themselves at present and are concerned about the Government's policy towards their industry. Will he assure them that there will be no repetition of the French lamb wars which, understandably, caused a major public outcry in Britain last year?
    Mr. Curry: I hope that I have a certain amount of authority at the Ministry, but I am not sure that my writ extends to the behaviour of French farmers. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I attended a Paris show recently especially to advertise the qualities of British lamb on our stand there. We shall do our best to put our producers in touch with French buyers when we can supply what they want and we shall continue insistently to make it known to the French Government that we expect free trade for our product. Despite all the problems, we exported more live lambs to France last year than the year before.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reform of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has to report on reform of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government continue to press for reforms of the common agricultural policy that will make European Community agriculture more market oriented, reduce budget costs, lead to closer integration between agricultural and environmental policies and apply fairly throughout the Community.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the considerable efforts that he is putting into securing reform of the CAP. Will he make every effort to ensure, in any reforms that are achieved, that the British farmer will not be disadvantaged in relation to farmers on the continent?
    Mr. Gummer: As British farmers have already gone through an agricultural revolution since the war, my hon. Friend would expect me to insist that it would be wrong
    392
    for them to be penalised a second time while other farmers failed to go through such a revolution. That is why we so utterly oppose the proposals that Mr. MacSharry has put before the Council.
    Mr. Butler: Whatever reforms are adopted, will my right hon. Friend ensure that British farmers are not the only ones who have to stick by the rules and that farming practices throughout the Community are monitored properly?
    Mr. Gummer: The most important thing is to get people to accept the tough side of a world, in which surplus production bears so heavily on farmers' incomes—that everybody must obey the same rules. We are considering carefully whether there are better ways in which to monitor observance of the rules throughout the Community and, indeed, in Britain, so that farmers can feel that there is a level playing field and a fair deal for all.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that some sectors of agriculture require reform more urgently than others? Does he accept that the growth in lamb production has reached the stage at which some constraints are urgently needed and is he sympathetic to the idea of quotas in the sheep sector?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not think that quotas would be a good thing in general or in the United Kingdom in particular. In the past two or three years there has been an advance beyond sense in the number of lambs produced in some countries, but what is needed is a fair deal in the European Community to ensure that parts of the Community that produce excellent lambs should be able to continue to do so. As British lamb is, without doubt, the best in the world, we want it to continue to be produced and sold and we will not have those activities stopped by those who do not like the competition.
    Dr. David Clark: May I associate the Opposition with the objectives outlined by the Minister in his initial answer to the question about reform of the CAP? Will he publish the Government's proposals for the CAP so that we can at least have the debate on our terms, not on the European Commissioners' terms?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for our policy, but the most important thing is that we should have a debate in the Council and on the Council's terms rather than having debates outside the Council to pat ourselves on the back.
    My job is to get the Community to agree to a reform package. I do not think that the best way to do that is to suggest to the Community that it must accept some prepackaged presentation from this country. My job is to get people on our side. The opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and me to argue with each other here is not as important as the opportunity for both of us to achieve our joint desires in the Council. In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman must accept that it is better to act through the Council which, in this area, has the authority.

    Self-Sufficiency
    Mr. Ralph Howell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the self-sufficiency of British agriculture in 1979–80, 1984–85 and 1989–90.
    Mr. Gummer: Self-sufficiency in foods that can be produced in the United Kingdom was 71 per cent. in 1979–80, 80 per cent. in 1984–85 and about 74 per cent. in 1989–90.
    Mr. Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he acknowledge the great contribution that British agriculture makes to the economy in general and the special contribution that is made by the cereals sector? Will he ensure that, in any future GATT negotiations, the aggressive attitude of the Americans is kept well in check?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend could not say other than that, on this point, I have been as aggressive as any of the American negotiators. European farmers—British farmers among them—must have equal access to world markets. I will not accept measures that would improve the position of the United States but reduce the opportunities for Europe. However, concentration on self-sufficiency could easily hide the fact that we need to increase our sales in the rest of Europe, as well as the fact that our home market today is the whole of Europe, not merely the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the balance of trade deficit in agricultural products between the United Kingdom and the rest of the Common Market about £5,000 million? Does not it demonstrate that, for the United Kingdom, the CAP has been a ghastly and costly failure? That is especially so in view of the fact that, since 1979, the Government have contributed about £14,000 million under the CAP. Does not this demonstrate the need for reform of the CAP as a matter of drastic urgency and will the Government do something about that? Secondly, could not British farmers contribute more to the production of the nation's food?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has got his facts the wrong way round. The common agricultural policy has enabled us to produce a great deal more of the food that we need. However, the consumers of Britain want choice. The hon. Gentleman said that the balance of trade deficit in agricultural products is £5,000 million, but the foods that that figure covers include many that cannot be produced in this country. However, there is £2,500 million worth of food that we could produce. I do not recommend that people buy British when British is not best, but I believe that farmers, other producers, manufacturers and retailers could do a great deal more to use home sources, so long as they produce food that the public want. It is for the consumer to decide; we have to meet his demand.

    Agricultural Tenancy Law
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the response to his consultation paper on the reform of agricultural tenancy law.
    Mr. Gummer: The closing date for responses to the consultation exercise is 13 May. Early indications are of widespread acceptance of the need for change, but, quite properly, the various interests are taking time to prepare their considered responses. All comments will be weighed very carefully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and myself before any decisions are made.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the serious decline in the agricultural rented sector since the end of the second world war? Does he agree that it would be in the best interests of British agriculture if that trend were reversed? Will he ensure that any new agricultural tenancy legislation will be positive enough to encourage the industry to be dynamic and flexible, so that it may be able to compete in the 1990s? Does he agree that freedom within contract might be the best basis of any new legislation?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The tenanted sector is indeed in decline. We want to improve the opportunities for new entrants to the farming industry. The only way to achieve that is to ensure that more land is available. That is why I have made some radical propositions for change in the landlord and tenant scheme. I am pleased that there is widespread acceptance of both the need for more land and the need for radical change.

    Farm Gate Prices
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much farm gate prices have increased since 1979 relative to the retail prices index.
    Mr. Curry: The index of producer prices of agricultural products increased at an average annual rate of 3·6 per cent. between 1979 and 1990 compared with 7·5 per cent. for all items in the retail prices index.
    Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows that the British farmer has given tremendous value for money to the consumer in the past 12 years? Does he further agree that if every other industry in Britain had achieved efficiency and productivity improvements comparable with British agriculture during the same period, we should be one of the richest nations on earth?
    Mr. Curry: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend The farmers of Richmond, Skipton and Ripon are in the forefront of the achievement of which my hon. Friend speaks.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): The incidence of confirmed cases of BSE over the past 12 months is 3·9 cases per thousand of the total adult cattle population in Great Britain and 0·24 cases per thousand of the adult cattle population in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's advisory committee on BSE was forecasting a monthly incidence of 350 to 400 cases? Does he share my concern that the actual incidence for February was more than 1,500 cases? How does the Minister explain the actual incidence so greatly exceeding the estimate? What does he intend to do about that? In the interests of farmers, consumers and animals, will he now review his decision to close a number of veterinary inspection centres?
    Mr. Maclean: All the safety measures are in place to protect the public and that is our prime concern. Independent experts are constantly reviewing the safety precautions that we have taken. As for the number of BSE cases, if the hon. Gentleman studies the figures and graphs that we produce on a weekly basis, he will see that the predicted pattern usually rises in February and March every year and declines during the rest of the year. This year is no exception. The BSE incidence is following the pattern of previous years.

    Food and Drink (Exports)
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to boost British exports of food and drink.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government are firmly committed to supporting Food From Britain in its efforts to encourage exports of British food and drink.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister aware that the £5·1 million deficit on food and drink was the biggest of any sector in this country's trade deficit for last year? Is he further aware that half that deficit was with countries with no particular climatic advantage over Britain, such as Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium? Will he acknowledge that in those countries, seven times as much money is provided for the budgets of bodies such as our Food From Britain to enhance the export and sale of food and drink? Will the right hon. Gentleman pull his finger out and do something to ensure that Food From Britain has an adequate budget relative to our economic needs?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should realise that much of that money comes from the industry. He asks me to pull my finger out, but I urge him to remind the House that the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesman on agriculture has told people that he does not eat British sausages and will not eat English apples. While the Labour party undermines products from this country and casts aspertions on the safety of British food, the hon. Gentleman is in no position to tell me how to deal with Food From Britain.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the raspberry is a most pleasant fruit and that over 80 per cent. of the raspberries grown commercially in the United Kingdom, and in Europe, are grown in Tayside. Is he aware that this marvellous export—the raspberry—is at risk because the European Community is allowing dumping from eastern Europe?
    Mr. Gummer: I have been fighting to protect the British raspberry not just to help my hon. Friend's constituency but because I am particularly fond of raspberries. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Government support British products and believe that British raspberries are the best that one could have. I hope that the same support for British products will come from the Labour party, which is constantly undermining our producers.

    Butter and Meat
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what improvements he plans to the scheme to distribute butter and meat.
    Mr. Curry: This year I intend to give preference to organisations capable of distributing products widely throughout their community and to groups of smaller organisations co-operating in the same locality.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister admit that his organisation of the scheme has been the target for widespread criticism? As organisations have to receive a minimum of 1 tonne of butter or meat, may I ask him to do everything possible to help with transport costs? Will he ensure that the butter and meat are available to the largest number of people, including all pensioners and not just those on income support?
    Mr. Curry: No, I will not. It would be ridiculous to try to distribute the food to all old-age pensioners. I can think of some old-age pensioners in the House who have no need of hand-outs from the taxpayer. It is much better for the food to be directed to the homeless, the destitute, those on income support, those on family credit and those living in hostels, as was intended. That is a much better solution to a rather bad scheme.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Eastham: Noting that unemployment has gone up by more than 300,000 in 10 months, to the highest rate in any EC country, may I ask why we have the second deepest recession in 10 years when we have our own coal, our own natural gas and our own North sea oil bringing in £90 billion? The CBI is telling us that by the end of the year 2·25 million people will be unemployed and that unemployment will increase further next year. What is the Prime Minister's excuse for that?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will also have seen the very strong welcome from the CBI for the measures in the Budget that will help the cash flow and reduce the taxation of businesses. He will also be aware of the unprecedented amount of help available for people who are unemployed. We have geared that particularly to the areas where unemployment is most severe.
    Sir Timothy Raison: Will my right hon. Friend consider the grave famine that is developing in Africa? Will he make sure that we and the European Community deliver quickly as much aid as possible?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is studying precisely that matter at the moment.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree that Question Time is an appropriate moment for him to apologise to taxpayers for the £14·3 billion that his Government have wasted on the poll tax fiasco?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should explain his phoney figures, for he will know that included

    397
    in his figure is £3 billion for non-payment created partly by his own side urging people not to pay and that the vast majority of the remainder is money that is available to provide extra money for local services. Would he remove that extra money for local services?
    Mr. Kinnock: It was the Prime Minister who described the poll tax as uncollectable when he spoke to his hon. Friends earlier this week. After wasting all that money, why is he not big enough simply to say sorry?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman did not listen. The money that he has counted as wasted is money that will be available for local services. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that money is wasted on local services he should make it clear.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to reschedule his visit to the Vickers tank factory in Leeds which he had to cancel a few weeks ago due to bad weather? Is he aware that many people there would like to hear from him, following his visit to the Gulf, how the Challenger tank performed and would like to express to him the urgent need for the Government to come to a decision on the replacement contract for the Chieftain tank?
    The Prime Minister: I was certainly sorry—[Interruption.]—that I was unable to make that particular visit. [Interruption.] I am always happy to spread a little amity in the Chamber, so I repeat to my hon. Friend that I am sorry that I was unable to visit the factory, when I would have been able to tell the workers that the Challenger tank performed absolutely magnificently in the Gulf—far above the expectations that anyone could have had of it. I hope that we shall soon be able to draw all the lessons that we need from that and make a decision on Challenger 2.
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Prime Minister aware that the toast in Scotland tonight will be to absent enemies—Thatcher and the poll tax—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We use the constituency name here.
    Mr. Sillars: It will not really matter in Scotland, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: But it does here.
    Mr. Sillars: I am talking about the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and the poll tax. When will the Prime Minister acknowledge his personal political debt to the non-payers who destroyed the poll tax by making it uncollectable? If we had not done so, it would still be here, she would still be here and he would not be the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: In what he has just said the hon. Gentleman makes clear precisely why his party is so unattractive and undesirable. I am sure that his remarks are not remotely the feelings of the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend sympathise with the disgust of the great majority of the British public at those people who have not paid their share towards local government finance? Will he give an undertaking that people who have not paid their community charge will be pursued?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly will. My hon. Friend might share my view that the disgust is redoubled at those people in elected positions who have perhaps persuaded people not to pay.
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kennedy: As regards the scheme for a reduction in overall poll tax figures, announced by the Chancellor in the Budget statement this week which has become known, I gather, as the Ribble Valley rebate, will the Prime Minister explain why those who will benefit most are those best able to pay and why the people who are still on rebates in the lowest category of income, by the Government's definition, will not enjoy the same degree of reduction from the real poll tax figure which they have to pay? Can that possibly be just?
    The Prime Minister: I would not have expected such a stupid question from the hon. Gentleman. Even he should recognise that one cannot give a rebate to people who are not expected to pay in the first place.
    Mr. Burt: Should not the real apologies in local government come from the spendthrift Labour councils which have broken ceiling after ceiling and from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen who still refuse to spell out their proposals to control local authority finance?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, they will not spell out their proposals. They do not know what they are. They are still dithering.
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Prime Minister recall that on nine occasions he supported the poll tax legislation through the House and cast his vote accordingly? Does he now regret that? If he had his time again, would he give such strong personal support to that legislation?
    The Prime Minister: I indicated clearly throughout the debates on the community charge that I thought that the principle was correct. The hon. Gentleman will know our new proposals in a matter of moments and he might reserve judgment until then.
    Mr. Lester: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far from what Opposition Members say, the greatest contribution that this place makes to society is that we all believe in the rule of law and in the ways in which one can change laws within the democratic framework, not by protesting or refusing to pay the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the principle of what my hon. Friend said. However, I think that he was being over-generous when he said that everyone in the House believes that. Clearly, some Opposition Members do not.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Prime Minister recall that in the 1989 autumn statement he predicted that inflation would be down to 5·5 per cent. at the end of last year and that he revised that figure to 7·25 per cent. in the last Budget? In fact, it turned out to be over 10 per cent. What credibility should we give the Chancellor's forecast that inflation will fall to 4 per cent. by the end of the year when the rise in average earnings is 9 per cent., electricity prices are to go up by 13 per cent., water charges are to go up by 16 per cent. and petrol will rise by 20p a gallon?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is accurate in saying that inflation is currently higher than I expected it to be. However, he will also know that it is not just my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's forecast that inflation is falling dramatically. That forecast is shared by almost every independent forecaster and I think that the hon. Gentleman will see the accuracy of it in the months to come.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the part played by small firms in turning west Norfolk into an economic success story? Is he aware that during the past few weeks they have lobbied hard for various Budget measures? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor listened to them and that Tuesday's Budget was an outstanding Budget for small businesses?
    The Prime Minister: It certainly was an outstanding Budget for small businesses and my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest in them, is in a good position to judge that. His view was reflected by the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, which described my right hon. Friend's Budget as
    "one to bring a smile to small businesses."
    That is the clearest possible illustration of the way in which small businesses have accepted the Budget.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what further plans he has to visit the Gulf region.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Corbyn: That is rather strange since the question was about the Gulf.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Corbyn: I am quite good at lip-reading and I assume that the Prime Minister said that he was not preparing to go to the Gulf region again. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister should visit the Gulf region and assess the results of the war. There were 150,000 casualties and deaths, there is martial law in Kuwait and environmental destruction throughout the region. It is the product of arms sales. Does the Prime Minister consider that all the money that has been spent by the Government on the Gulf war compares unfavourably with the miserly figure of £28 million spent on the African famine? Should not the right hon. Gentleman now create peace in the Gulf and give resources to solve the African famine?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman in his litany missed out one or two material facts—the liberation of Kuwait for a start. He also missed out the fact that the Iraqis were murdering Kuwaitis, dismantling Kuwait, damaging the environment and committing unpardonable sins. I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman does not recall that.

    Engagements
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carrington: The proposal in the Budget to establish high street share shops is greatly welcomed by all of us who want shares in public companies to be more widely held by the public at large. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that high street share shops must conform to all the provisions of the Financial Services Act?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that to my hon. Friend. The proposed high street share shops will be subject to the Financial Services Act. That will certainly be made clear and I very much hope that this new way of distributing shares will be successful.

Local Government Review (England)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement outlining progress on the review of local government—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House, and the country, too, have been waiting for this statement.
Mr. Heseltine: The House will remember that when I announced the review on 5 December I explained the comprehensive nature of our review. For the first time we are looking at the structure, functions and finance of local government in the round.
I should like to thank the very large number of people and organisations who have put forward their views. I do not need to tell the House that they have not always been compatible one with another.
We took as our starting point our firm belief that the local delivery of certain services—many of them essential—is a central feature of a pluralist society. Local government must enable local people to exercise continuing influence over the quality and the range of the services which Parliament entrusts to them.
Local government is responsible for the efficient delivery of these services. We need responsible, elected local authorities, not only to provide a check and a balance to Westminster, but also to reflect the multiplicity of aspirations amongst local communities.
But, given the primary responsibilities of central Government, local government cannot be a fully independent power in the land. It traditionally derives its power from Parliament, and it must complement and not compete with central Government in its activities.
Within this framework, we believe that councils should be accountable for their actions and that there should be a direct and visible relationship between the costs of services and the local bills to which they give rise. We believe that those bills should be spread widely and fairly throughout communities; that they should bear some relation to people's ability to pay; and that it should be possible to levy and collect them without difficulty.
These principles are guiding our review. I am able to announce today some interim conclusions and, in other areas, to narrow the options so as to proceed to more detailed consultations.
Many parts of England now have, in effect, unitary local government. The Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils were abolished in 1986. The Inner London education authority went in 1990. There is little demand for their restoration. Indeed, it is difficult now to perceive any real role that they played.
Outside the main conurbations, leaving aside the valuable rolë played by parishes, the system of two principal tiers is being questioned. Also being questioned is the continued existence of certain of the authorities which were created by the local government reorganisation of 1974, but which have not succeeded in inspiring local loyalty. Another challenge is that the role of authorities is changing as they increasingly become enablers rather than direct providers of services.
There is, therefore, now an opportunity to think afresh about the structure of local authorities. But the Government do not see this as an opportunity to impose
402
a new pattern of local authorities according to a national prescription. Nor do we believe that it is necessary to have a uniform pattern of authorities in every part of the country. Local people should have an important role in determining what structure of local government best reflects their community loyalties. That does not mean, therefore, the wholesale abolition of either county councils or district councils, nor even unitary authorities everywhere. It means arriving at the right solution for each community. We intend to adopt a practical approach in response to local views and local conditions, but it seems likely that we shall move to a larger number of unitary authorities.
We shall, therefore, consult on the proposition that a local government commission shall be charged with responsibility for evaluating the most appropriate form of local government for individual areas, taking account of the wishes of local people and putting forward proposals for reform. We will proceed area by area.
The reduction in the local tax burden and the correspondingly larger contribution from central taxation announced in my right hon. Friend's Budget statement imply a need to consider whether a number of functions should now be brought into or financed directly by central Government. That would be without further changes to the balance between central and local taxation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is bringing forward today proposals for such a transfer in one area of his responsibility.
The issue of how local authorities are managed is no less crucial. The problems that local authorities face are compounded by the cumbersome internal arrangements for the management of councils. The committee system—which dates back to the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835—requires that all decisions are taken collectively by large numbers of councillors, in full council or committees. Too many councillors spend too much time achieving too little.
Consequently, it is difficult for local government to attract and keep enough men and women of the right calibre both to lead what are now multi-million pound organisations providing a range of key services and to represent properly the interests of the people who elected them. We believe, therefore, that there should be a new look at the internal workings of local authorities to improve the decision-making process. I shall issue a consultation paper on these issues.
Alongside that, we also want to develop further the idea of the enabling council. Many of the Government's policies have been designed to move power to individual members of the community—in particular, the right to buy, the tenants' charter and local management of schools. Compulsory competitive tendering has also been part of that process and we will be looking at ways to make it more effective and to carry it forward. In particular, we will be looking at new areas where contracting out should be applied. Those will include professional and technical tasks, as well as manual tasks. Housing management, legal services and computer services could all be added to the list. The success of a local authority must be measured not by its size, but by the quality of the services delivered, from whatever source, by its responsiveness to its clients and customers and by the value that it squeezes out of each pound of taxpayers' money.

403
I now turn to the question of finance. A local tax base is essential if there is to be any meaning to the concept of local government. But local government services cost a great deal of money—more than £50 billion in the corning year—and the burden on local taxpayers has become too great. We have therefore decided to make a fundamental shift in the amounts which central and local taxpayers pay towards the cost of local government services. This change will take effect in 1991–92, and will reduce local taxation to a level that should be sustainable in the longer term.
The first consequence of this was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. We have concluded that it is right to reduce the present average headline community charge of £392 in England for 1991–92 by £140 to £252. The average amount payable by charge payers, after allowing for the community charge reduction scheme and benefits, will then be considerably less than this. To secure this, my right hon. Friend is providing a further £4¼billion from national taxation to local authorities.
As a result, in 1991–92, the community charge will be raising less than rates in their last full year. For the coming year, locally raised finance will fund 22 per cent. of local government expenditure, compared to 34 per cent. this year. And these figures are before the substantial benefit of rebates and the community charge reduction scheme.
To achieve these objectives, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and I are today introducing in the House a short Bill. If enacted, this will have broadly three effects.
First, it will provide that the community charges which authorities have set for 1991–92 are replaced the day after the Bill's enactment by new charges £140 lower. Councils will not need to meet to set the new charges, but they will be treated in all respects as if they were set by authorities in the usual way.
Secondly, my right hon. Friends and I will be empowered to pay grants to charging authorities to make up the loss of income resulting from the reduction in charges brought about by the Bill's provisions. It is also our intention to pay grant to cover authorities' additional administrative expenses arising as a consequence of the Bill.
All this means that where authorities have already issued their charge bills for 1991–92—I know that some authorities have done so—they will, after the Bill's enactment, need to issue fresh bills reflecting their new lower charges. We propose to amend the regulations on the community charge demand notice slightly to provide the basis for the new bills but we believe not in ways that would result in significant changes to authorities' computing arrangements. We are revising the profile of payments from the non-domestic rates pool to ensure that our proposals have no significant effect on authorities' cash flow.
These proposals do not affect the operation of the community charge reduction scheme or community charge benefits, though it will, of course, be necessary to recalculate entitlements under both schemes.
My Department has written to local authorities, and to the local authority associations, explaining the details of all these arrangements. Clearly, it is desirable that the new charges should be in place at the earliest opportunity. Accordingly, we shall be looking to Parliament to consider the Bill as a matter of urgency.
404
Having reduced community charges to reasonable levels, we shall expect local authorities to restrain their spending to keep them at those levels. I shall therefore be prepared to use my capping powers rigorously again in 1992–93.
Having achieved a reasonable balance between funding from national sources and funding from local tax, we need to address the question of the local tax itself. I referred briefly in my opening remarks to the principles which I believe should underpin any form of local tax. Let me spell them out.
First, accountability. As far as possible, a local tax should buttress the accountability of a local council to its taxpayers. People should be able to see some link between what they are being asked to pay and what their council is spending.
Second, fairness. Nobody likes paying taxes. But in our society taxes have to be basically acceptable to taxpayers; and to achieve that they must be perceived to be fair.
Third, ease of collection. Any tax will require administrative arrangements to collect the revenue, including measures to chase up those who are late in paying. But if the tax is too difficult to collect, the costs of collection become unacceptable.
Fourth, most people should make some contribution. We believe that it is right that, as far as possible, any tax should take some account of the number of adults in each household so that they contribute to the cost of services provided by the local councils which they elect. This principle has gained a wide measure of acceptance.
Fifth, restraint. No tax is acceptable if it is levied at penal rates either as a result of local authority overspending or because the burden on any individual or household is excessively high. We are adamantly opposed to excessively high bills for a minority of electors—a feature of the old rates system.
In accordance with these criteria, we have reached our conclusions about the future of the community charge. In spite of the comprehensive system of income-related rebates, and the reduction scheme that we devised, the public have not been persuaded that the charge is fair. We have therefore decided that from the earliest possible moment the community charge will be replaced by a new system of local taxation.
After a careful reappraisal of the options, we have decided in principle to bring forward a new local tax under which there will be a single bill for each household comprising two essential elements, the number of adults living there and the value of the property. There are a number of ways of assessing values, on a capital or a rental basis, which require careful evaluation and extensive discussion and consultation. But it is our intention that the system that we introduce should have the following features: it should reflect people's concern that the system is fair; the balance of funding as between central taxes and the new local tax should be broadly in line with that announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday; it will be essential to ensure that local taxpayers do not face undue changes in their bills as a result of the introduction of the new local tax arrangements: there will therefore, need to be arrangements to protect them during the transition to the new system; the system should ensure that regional variations in property values do not lead to disproportionate bills in high price areas; there should be rebate arrangements to protect people on low incomes from making a

405
disproportionate contribution to local taxation; there must also be restraints to ensure that local taxpayers do not face excessive bills as a result of overspending by local councils, either before or after the introduction of the new system: there are a number of ways, including capping, by which this may be achieved.
I made clear at the beginning of this statement my commitment to the institution of local government. But, for its part, local government must recognise economic reality and the duty and responsibility of central Government to manage the economy. Central Government also have a duty to protect local taxpayers from excessive bills.
I intend to publish a consultative document after the Easter recess setting out alternative approaches and dealing with these issues. At present, the Government have no intention to propose changes to the uniform business rate. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales will be making separate statements about the outcome of the review as it relates to those countries.
Let me summarise. We have already dealt with the burden of the local tax. I shall shortly publish consultation papers on structure, internal management and the new local tax. We will conclude the period of consultation in the summer. Depending on the outcome of that consultation, we intend to introduce legislation setting up the local government commission and providing for the new local tax in the next Session of Parliament. We anticipate that the first of the new authorities could be in place by April 1994. We shall consult local authorities on the basis that the new tax could be in place in 1993–94.
The proposals that I have outlined will establish a system of local government which will carry through into the next century. These proposals are designed to end the sterile quarrel between supporters of central and local government. They should attract men and women of sufficient quality and commitment to restore authority to and confidence in local government. They should enhance the quality of services and give extra momentum to the pursuit of value for money. They should result in a local government which puts people first. I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. Bryan Gould: We have just heard the most complete capitulation, the most startling U-turn and the most shameless abandonment of consistency and principle in modern political history. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who cannot bear to be present, was famously not for turning. The Secretary of State and his new Prime Minister have not only turned; they have been through a revolving door. May we be assured that the new Prime Minister will not complain tomorrow that he has once again been bounced by this latest leak by the Secretary of State of his own proposals?
We have not heard from the Secretary of State a single word of contrition or apology. Will he now make a formal apology to the people of Britain for 12 years of arrogance, to local government for unprecedented chaos, and to millions of people who have been driven to despair by shattered services and unfair and ever rising bills? Is it not
406
astonishing incompetence that, after 12 years in office and £13·5 billion of taxpayers' money, the Secretary of State still cannot tell us what he intends to do?
What happened to the Prime Minister's assurances on Tuesday that we would have all the answers this week? How could a Prime Minister on top of his job make promises on Tuesday which his Secretary of State is unable to fulfil on Thursday? Why are we left not with the answers but with the questions? Why have we not had answers to the most obvious questions? When will the charge take effect, what will be the valuation rate, how many people will be assumed to constitute a household, what will be the size of the poll tax element, and how many people will be losers?
Is not the problem that, while the Secretary of State clearly concedes that the poll tax flagship has been holed beneath the waterline, the wreck is still afloat and is a danger to all shipping? What the Secretary of State told us today, with its continued uncertainty and confusion, its inevitable doubts and delays, is in effect that the poll tax bills will keep on coming—this year, next year, in 1993 and in all probability in 1994 as well. Why will not he accept our offers of co-operation on a Bill to abolish the poll tax, on the basis of our fair rates proposals—the only way in which we can ensure that this year's poll tax bills will be the last?
Is it not clear that under the Secretary of State's proposals the poll tax will still be with us even after 1994? This is the tax that refuses to lie down and die. Under those proposals, will not people continue to be taxed simply because they live and breath? Are we not still faced with a head tax, with all the problems of a register, with all the unfairness of a flat rate tax, and with all the difficulties of extricating money from people with no income? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he cannot rely on the electoral register to solve his problems without putting a price tax on the right to vote and then inviting people to sell that vote at a price which may be as much as £150 or £200 per vote? Are we not left with all the objectionable features of the poll tax but with all the difficult and transitional problems of a new and untried property tax? Are we not faced with a pig-in-a-poke tax, a bed-and-breakfast tax, a property poll tax, a tax on the roof over one's head and a tax on the heads under one's roof?
How can the Secretary of State be confident of persuading his own party to support these proposals in the Division Lobbies? Does he recall the right hon. Member for Finchley assuring the country that she would never introduce a property tax? Does he expect her to follow him through the Lobbies? And what of himself and all his Front Bench colleagues—indeed, of the whole Tory party, all of whose members fought the last election on a manifesto commitment to abandon property taxes? Are they now to be whipped through the Lobbies—and how many of them will refuse to follow?
Are not the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for reorganising local government, vague as they are, also driven by the poll tax? Should not structure determine finance rather than the other way round? Why is the poll tax still in the driving seat, spreading its malign influence not just through education and through the whole of the Budget strategy but into the whole structure of local government, too? Are not this a Government who, despite their belated confession of terrible error, are still in thrall to the monster that they created?

407
There is, after all, some justice in the spectacle of the Government continuing to pay a heavy price for their poll tax debacle. The tragedy is that the rest of the country will also continue to pay that price—the price of a mistake borne of arrogance and perpetuated by a leaking and limping Government who, on the evidence of this broken-backed and blood-stained statement, are too weak and divided to correct their own error.
Mr. Heseltine: It will be apparent to the whole House that we have achieved more in three months than the Opposition achieved in 11 years. I repeat, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who obviously did not hear what I said, that we shall consult on the basis that the new local tax will be in place for the year beginning 1993.
Let me return to the spirit with which we began this review a few months ago. The hon. Gentleman has criticised our proposals. I will make him an offer: I would be very happy to include his proposals in the consultative process that we are about to begin—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us.
Hon. Members: Labour party Members are leaving.
Mr. Heseltine: I am not quite sure who is deserting the sinking ship, but I should like to help the hon. Gentleman a little more.
To conduct that consultative process with the thoroughness that the hon. Member for Dagenham would want, I need to know answers to some questions about the costs of the fair rate proposals. The House knows that, in the past few days, we have put £4¼ billion into switching the incidence of responsibility from local people to the centre. The Labour party said that it would not have increased VAT to do that. What would it have increased? I need to know the answer so that I may consult thoroughly. If people need to know exactly who will pay how much, which is the complaint of the hon. Member for Dagenham, he must say precisely where he wants the tax burdens to fall. When the Labour party has worked out the answers to those questions, we shall have already won the next general election.
Mr. Bob Dunn: If there are any apologies to be made in the House today, they should be made by the Labour party, which allows law breakers to sit on its Benches.
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State be a little more precise about the equalisation arrangement to reflect property values between the north and south. and within the regions?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Obviously, we must address the equalisation problem in the consultative document. It is not possible to do so in general terms, but we must weigh up the various elements of the local tax before making a judgment. Some remarkable figures have been quoted as the likely consequence of our proposals for people living in the south-east, but they bear no relationship to reality.
On my hon. Friend's first point about the discrediting of local government, it is impossible to overstate the damage that has been done to the institution of local government by the behaviour of many Labour-run local councils.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Why has the Secretary of State chosen to move from the most unpopular local tax ever to the second most unpopular local tax ever? He has gone straight from the frying pan into the fire. We have not learned much about the new tax this afternoon, except that it will not be based on people's ability to pay, which is the clear characteristic of a local income tax.
Will the Secretary of State accept our welcome for the fact that his proposals on structure follow closely—even, in places, word for word—our proposals? Why does not he accept our whole package and recognise that fair elections for local councils, together with a fair tax, could make local government responsible and genuinely local?
Mr. Heseltine: I very much appreciate the conversations that we conducted with the Liberal party. They were in marked contrast to the wholly irresponsible position of the Labour party, which so lacked confidence in its proposals that it would not even discuss them.
We started our review in the hope that we could find a measure of agreement on the various aspects of local goverment. We have been able to meet with the Liberal party on some of the approaches that we have adopted and I have no ground for complaint about that.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not pursue the option of a local income tax as advocated by the Liberal party. There were several reasons, one of which was that the mood of the country means that it would not be inclined to want to entrust its income tax rates to local Labour-controlled authorities. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman at great length and with courtesy, I was persuaded not to follow his arguments, but to reject them.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I support much of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the first part of his statement. However, now that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a huge sum of money available to reduce the community charge, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had put that money into improving the rebate system rather than reducing the total, might not the community charge have become acceptable in two years' time? The fact that my right hon. Friend has suggested a two-tax system that will be just as hard to collect as the present one, will not be related to ability to pay and will create a new class of losers might be simply because he decided to make his statement on the Ides of March.
Mr. Heseltine: As my right hon. Friend rises behind me, I do not think that anyone would suggest that he has a lean and hungry look. I very much welcome his support for the first part of my statement. To receive any agreement or support at all when dealing with the reorganisation and reform of local government is something of an achievement, so I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend suggests that we should have taken the hypothetical concept of allowing the community charge to run on, perhaps spending more and more money and underpinning it with more and more social security arrangements. That is not a credible basis on which to sustain a tax. First, the tax is widely perceived as not being as fair as was originally intended and hoped. Secondly, there are undoubtedly collection difficulties because of the significant number of changes during the course of a given year. Therefore, introducing a new, local tax that

409
combines many of the elements of my right hon. Friend's ideas but also holds out greater certainty of collecting most of the money moves us towards an important consensus.
Mr. John Garrett: Is it proposed that the Government would give evidence, or make recommendations, to the local government commission stating which local authorities they would prefer not to continue?
Mr. Heseltine: It is unrealistic to think that the Government will not have an input into the analysis of something of this sort. I cannot think of any reorganisation of local boundaries in which, in the end, Ministers of the Crown are not involved. Everybody should have a wide chance to contribute to such matters. The hon. Gentleman should bear with me until he is able to read the details of the proposals and the consultative documents. In drawing them up, I shall do my best to listen to points put to me from all parts of the House.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Cassius's in this place sit on the Opposition Benches and that their skill lies in leading the electorate to their death? The answer proposed by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), when he was invited just now by my right hon. Friend to consult again, was a helpless response—"Abolish the poll tax, abolish the poll tax." He had no constructive proposals to offer the British electorate or the Government. I congratulate the Secretary of State on retaining the key element of the community charge, accountability to the local electorate, while bringing in the greater concept of a household service charge.
Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her constructive support. Nothing that we have heard from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) today can in any way be described as an answer.
Mr. Stanley Orme: What will be the costs of collection for the new poll tax—because that is what it is? Will there still be a poll tax register, with people being forced to register as they are at present? Will not the costs be increased? Is this not the poll tax under another name?
Mr. Heseltine: I can understand the dismay of the Labour party and its attempts to suggest that this is a poll tax, but it is not. It is a local tax which is quite different in its concept and application. It is perfectly possible that we shall not need a register to administer the tax. But all those matters need detailed consultation with the local authority associations. I am absolutely amazed that, every time I suggest discussing the detail with anyone, the only party that goes through the roof with indignation is the one that does not believe in consultation and wants to impose its own wholly unacceptable views on everyone in sight.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on producing a system that will preserve the principle that every adult should contribute to the cost of local government, that will take account of people's capacity to pay, that will ensure collection—even from the most notorious evaders on the Opposition Benches—and that will, above all, keep down the cost of good Conservative local government?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is as aware as I am that, on average, a vote for the Labour party puts £50 on the community charge. I welcome his support. We shall ensure that our proposals progress with the greatest dispatch.
Mr. William Ross: As VAT was increased by 2·5 per cent. on Tuesday, may we assume that the extra income will be allocated specifically to local government or to its particular functions? Will he confirm that each elector or ratepayer in Northern Ireland will benefit by £140?
Mr. Heseltine: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the courteous and helpful discussion that I had with him. He has made an important point. This was not an hypothecated revenue that the Chancellor described when increasing VAT by 2·5 per cent. The important point that my right hon. Friend made was that he was broadly creating a new balance between revenue raised from local sources and revenue from the central Exchequer. The single biggest change for which he was responsible was in the balance between the very substantial amount funded from the centre and the amount that will increasingly be funded by the local ratepayer or charge payer. We have begun to reverse the process that began in 1976.
The right hon.Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who I am glad to see in his place, began the process of increasing the amount paid locally when he reduced central Government support. That reduction continued between 1976 and 1979 until my right hon. Friend the Chancellor brought about a significant shift.
On the specific question about Northern Ireland—it is important to shed light on the darkness of Opposition Members, even though it means a slight digression—these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but the same proportions will apply in Northern Ireland.
Sir Hugh Rossi: I welcome the principles enunciated by my right hon. Friend as underlying the new form of local tax that the Government propose, and I recognise that much will depend on the balance achieved in the application of those differing principles, but I urge him to bear well in mind that what counts most in an area such as my constituency is the total demanded of residents by the local authority and the services provided in return for those moneys. Will he ensure that under the new system and structure of local government provision is made to regulate local authorities and greater power is given to the independent Audit Commission to ensure that real value for money is given?
Mr. Heseltine: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's question. We are aware that the issue is one of detail when it comes to the introduction of the specifics of the tax. It is important to issue a consultation document so that local authorities, which must administer the tax, can participate in how it develops. We shall bear that carefully in mind. All right hon. and hon. Members will have a chance to consider the issues in principle before we draft legislation. I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that, in many aspects of local government, the pursuit of value for money has not been taken sufficiently seriously. Our proposals will provide us with an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the midst of all the "interim", "in the future" and "after

411
consulting" proposals that the Secretary of State made, there was the certain statement that we would be paying the poll tax in the 1992 financial year. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We do not know what the figures are." Will he tell me the figures so that when I return to Leeds at the weekend I can tell people what the average three-bedroom house with two residents will pay after 1 April next year?
Mr. Heseltine: I have been as fair to the Labour party as I can be. Can the right hon. Gentleman conceivably answer that question in terms of the fair rates policy of the Labour party? Would it not be easier for him, in giving fair and dispassionate advice to his constituents, if he could compare our proposals with those of his party? am offering the Labour party the chance to do that.
Because of the switch that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made in the Budget, we have brought down the contribution by local payers to such levels that it would be wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to indulge in scare stories in Leeds or anywhere else.
Dame Peggy Fenner: I am grateful that I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, as I should have, being the Member who represents the area with the lowest community charge, apart from two London boroughs, which have heavy safety nets. Of course, my constituents will be pleased to have the extra money that my right hon. Friend concedes that they should have had from central Government. Will my right hon. Friend visit my constituency to find out how we produce value for money?
Mr. Heseltine: If my hon. Friend will come with me, I shall be delighted to attend upon her constituents.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I assure the Secretary of State that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is totally wrong in assuming that the longer the poll tax is in place, the more popular it will become. The people of Scotland have testified to that in opinion poll after opinion poll, as we were used as guinea pigs one year in advance of everyone else.
When considering how to change this tax, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the House what assessment he made of the possibility of having in a unit the size of Scotland a local income tax, based on ability to pay, which could have been implemented in the next financial year? We should not be held back until 1993–94.
Mr. Heseltine: Again, I thank the hon. Lady. She was courteous in coming to talk to us and in giving her views—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is embarrassing for the Labour party. I do not want to repeat my comments about the paucity of thinking behind the Labour party's views. All the other political parties joined our consultations, which were very profitable. We incorporated in the review many of the ideas which we discussed. A desperate bankruptcy exists, and it is to be found among Opposition Members.
We considered a local income tax, but we were not persuaded, for several reasons. First, within the totality of local government, entrusting local Labour authorities with setting the levels of income tax would have given them the power to reverse what was one of the main thrusts of Government economic strategy in the past decade. Secondly, in many local authority areas, where the number of income tax payers was relatively limited and the number of people on a form of rebate or exemption was high, the
412
danger was that people with significant resources would be imprisoned in an area without having any effective control over the outcome of elections there. Adding a local income tax to a national income tax would create confusion in people's minds as to which function or service they were financing—whether local or central.
There were many complicating factors. We decided that a local tax formula would leave a clear idea in people's minds that they were paying a local authority which they could identify for local services.
Mr. John Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when a flagship becomes a navigational hazard the best thing to do is to scupper? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the professional way in which he has set about that job.
Mr. Heseltine: I understand something of my right hon. Friend's thinking, although I could never emulate his language.
Mr. Tony Banks: The question directed to the Secretary of State by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was the first example I have ever witnessed of a Brutus stabbing a Judas. After 11½ years, local government has been reduced to absolute chaos and muddle by the Government's policies. What the Secretary of State has done today is to snatch chaos from the jaws of the poll tax defeat, and local government will suffer for it.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the commission that he is to set up will be able to consult local people and that if local people wish a certain form of government to be instituted, that will be allowed. If the people of Greater London decide that they want a strategic local government structure in London, along the lines of the old Greater London council, will the right hon. Gentleman allow that to happen?
Mr. Heseltine: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I am even more convinced than I was before of the dangers of such a proposal. If the hon. Gentleman were in my position, perhaps he would pause before accepting the advice of a former councillor from Lambeth.
Hon. Members: What about the Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Robin Squire: May I wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a system which will seem much fairer to the overwhelming majority of people in the country and which retains the important concept that most people will pay something? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, for the two years—or whatever period—for which the present system remains, he, and local authorities, will expect all those liable under it to pay, whether they are Opposition Members or people occupying less illustrious positions in society?
Mr. Heseltine: While I was listening to my hon. Friend's important question, I was conducting a further interim review of local government and, on mature reflection, I have come to the view that some councillors from Lambeth are really rather good people.
There can be no shadow of a doubt about the need to collect in respect of legitimate bills issued by the legitimate authorities of our local democracy. There can be no question about that and the utmost rigour should be

413
applied in enforcing the law. Nothing makes that harder than the utterly unforgivable behaviour of those hon. Members who do everything in their power to undermine the process.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the most unbelievably arrogant part of his statement was his assertion that he would "improve the quality of local decision making"? That came from a representative of a Government the quality of whose decision making has so far cost us £13·5 billion. Will the Secretary of State assure us that any future assessment or review of the quality of decision making will include the quality of decision making in the Tory Government?
Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman had spent even a tiny fraction of the time that my hon. Friends and I have spent consulting local councils, he would have discovered that what I said about the ability to manage local authorities and about the sort of people now attracted to them was not a party matter. Everyone is preoccupied about the problem of finding men and women with the time and resource to give to that vital part of our national life. By turning this into a party issue, the hon. Gentleman simply trivialises the debate.
Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend is to be commended on his unwavering determination to reform the structure, functions and financing of local government together, rather than—as in the past, with such unhappy results—separately. Certainly he will not get an atom of constructive help from the Labour party.
My right hon. Friend has not mentioned business taxation, although he did talk about a wider local government tax base. Will business taxation still be left out? Does he recall that a previous Secretary of State, during our debates on local business taxation, assured the House that close and intimate links between the local authorities and businesses in their areas would be reinforced?
Mr. Heseltine: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is fundamental that, in the review, the structure, functions and financing of local government be linked. In my statement, I made it clear that the Government have no intention at present to make changes in the uniform business rate arrangements.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Has not the main cause of the suffering and turmoil in local government been the successive cuts in rate support grant—from 60 per cent. in 1979 to 42 per cent. today? The burden of taxation was switched from central government to local government so that the Government might take the credit for tax cuts, and the local authorities the blame for increased rates and cuts in services. Was not the purpose of the poll tax to sweep away Labour local government by imposing a large charge on everyone in the hope that the town halls would get the blame? The British people had too much intelligence to fall for that scheme. It backfired and swept away the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). Is not the present commotion the sound of panic-stricken rats deserting the flagship?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. The switch in resources, at the expense of the
414
local payer, whether of rates or of the community charge, began in 1976 under the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). By 1979, the rate support grant had been reduced to 61 per cent. It is perfectly true that the change continued thereafter. Not until the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered on Tuesday was the direction reversed. The reversal is to be maintained at about the present rate.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of our constituents fully supported the principles that lay behind the community charge but thought that there were faults in the way in which it was implemented? People will feel that the proposals that he has presented in outline today meet the criteria and, at the same time, are practical. I congratulate him on his refusal to be pushed into presenting detailed proposals at this stage, and on his intention to put the matter out to consultation. That will provide the opportunity to ensure that, before matters are finalised, there has been proper discussion, that details have been worked out, and possible anomalies avoided.
Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have tried very hard to adopt an evolutionary approach. The local tax meets certain criteria that are widely accepted, especially in the Conservative party. It is absolutely fundamental that changes of this sort be introduced following consultation with the people who will have to apply them. That is what we are doing, and we have no intention of allowing ourselves to be stampeded or forced to move faster than we think is compatible with proper completion of the job.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether women with no personal income who stay at home to look after their families will be expected to pay the new poll tax, head tax, adult tax—or whatever he calls it—and whether the joint and several liability proposals will still apply?
Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Lady waits until we have produced the consultation document, she will see the assumptions upon which it is based. There will, of course, be a rebate scheme associated with our proposals. As for the period between now and the introduction, in 1993, of our local tax proposals, we have no intention at present to change the incidence of the scheme.
Sir Peter Blaker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) appears to have confused the Ides of March with the equinox—not that either appears to be particularly relevant.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on one aspect in particular of his excellent statement, and that is the proposal to introduce more unitary authorities, which has the great merit of making it easier for the taxpayer to identify excessive spending authorities. Is he aware that that is particularly relevant in Lancashire, where there used to be several county boroughs and where we now have an excessively spending Labour-controlled county council?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend represents his constituents extremely effectively because when I was in Blackpool not long ago I was left in no doubt about the depth of feeling there. I must not prejudge any local

415
consultations or recommendations of the local government commission, but I understand exactly the strength of feeling.
Mr. John Fraser: In relation to the £140 per head subsidy for the poll tax mark 1, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is wholly unrelated to the demands on, or resources of, the local authority? If there is to be a subsidy for the poll tax in the current year, should it not be based on the principle, from each according to his resources and to each according to his needs? In relation to the poll tax mark 2, will the registration arrangements be substantially different from those obtaining now?
Mr. Heseltine: I have already said that it is possible in the new arrangements that a register of the sort associated with the community charge will not be necessary. It is a detailed and technical matter that must be looked at. We shall be putting forward in the consultation document a number of options—they are not firm proposals now—to deal with the matter because it is important, as I have said several times, that the local authorities become involved at this stage in advising on the most effective way forward. If the Labour party decides to end its ostrich-like silence, we shall listen to what Opposition Members, along with everybody else, have to say.
Sir William Shelton: There will be great sighs of relief among my constituents in Lambeth as a consequence of the abolition of the community charge. Will my right hon. Friend please use his powers to cap the Lambeth budget, which is £8 million or £9 million above the £307 million allowed by the Government? On the other hand, will he urge his Department to be as sympathetic as possible over the back debt repayment due to Lambeth's inefficiency over many years? He must be aware that, of the present poll tax set by Lambeth, little over half is going to pay for the services of the council and the remainder towards the wretched debt accumulated by its inefficiency.
Mr. Heseltine: I am wholly in agreement with my hon. Friend. The new system that we introduce will, of course, be seen as a fair system, but it will also reflect the need for local authorities to bear down on their expenditure patterns. That principle will remain with the new system. It is worth saying that it is not just the community charge that the Lambeth authority does not collect. It does not collect the rents, and it did not collect the rates before the community charge was introduced. The most profound anxieties are developing about that local authority. They exist across the Floor of the House, and there are deep and justifiable concerns on the part of the Labour party because, after all, that party is in control there.
Mr. James Lamond: In the muddle of criteria, platitudes and principles contained in the Secretary of State's announcement, he seemed to forget two principles that we used to hear from the Conservatives. The first was that one could not solve problems by throwing money at them—even though the Conservatives then threw £4·25 billion at the poll tax problem—and, secondly, that the Government had no money of their own because it was all taxpayers' money. Those two points seemed to escape the right hon. Gentleman as he tried to get out of the muddle into which the Conservatives got themselves.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman think it behoves Opposition Members to give him advice now when he was
416
so well advised by us before he introduced the poll tax? We gave him advice on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading of the measure which introduced the poll tax. He took no notice whatever of our advice. Why should we think that he will take notice of any advice that we give him now?
Mr. Heseltine: The more I listen to Labour Members, the more I wonder why I keep asking them whether they want to join the consultative process. Patently they have little to say. If I may offer a personal word of advice in commenting on the hon. Gentleman's welcome conversion to the view that one cannot solve problems by throwing money at them, it is lucky for him that there are so few of his hon. Friends left or he might be deselected.
Mr. Michael Mates: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us are relieved that the new proposals which he has announced today will take account of ability to pay because that is a fair system which is essential to any new tax? Will he accept that I and many of my hon. Friends to whom I have spoken about the matter will do all that we can to unite the party and the people behind the proposals, which this time have been fully discussed and agreed within a united Government and a united Cabinet? In the review, will he pay particular attention to the peculiar way in which the community charge operated among our armed services, who were subject to whims of movement over which they had no control and who must be considered fairly in the new arrangements?
Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the consideration that we have given to members of the armed forces. If I may pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Minister in my Department who has taken a particular interest in the matter, he has showed great concern for those who played such a conspicuous part in the Gulf. We must all be grateful to him.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) for referring to the fact that I have stressed ability to pay. My hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in these matters, and I am glad that he feels that what we have done today reflects his concern.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State referred to a £140 reduction, will he tell us how many people will get a reduction of less than £140 under the new system, taking into account the first transitional relief scheme, the second tranche of transitional relief and the fact that some people pay only 20 per cent.? Since the Tories have consistently told us that 11 million people are not paying the full poll tax, can the Secretary of State tell us how many will not get the reduction of £140 and whether some will not get anything at all?
Mr. Heseltine: All the hon. Gentleman has pointed out is how generous are the schemes that we have already announced. Of course, if we have given people benefits once, we cannot give them benefits again.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for listening to those of us who come from low-rated areas in the north-west for lifting the burden from us? May I thank the Secretary of

417
State too for giving county towns the prospect of running their own affairs, as my colleagues in Blackpool and all the other areas wish to do, so that we may have the opportunity of getting out from under Lancashire county council once and for all?
Mr. Heseltine: I welcome my hon. Friend's observations. The north-west is a particularly important part of the country and we have considered its problems carefully. Again, I am enthusiastic about the way in which my hon. Friend is indicating that there may be local interest in some of the changes that we have in mind. I am sure that she will play her usual active part in pursuing them.
Mr. Allen McKay: The Secretary of State is well known for wanting to get rid of the poll tax, and his Minister of State is well known for wanting to retain it. I am concerned, therefore, that when the Secretary of State was making his statement the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities was nodding in agreement.
It appears that we will get the worst of both worlds—a poll tax based on property. Can the Secretary of State tell me how the tax will be collected? Who will be responsible? Will each person be responsible for his own tax, or will one person in the property be responsible for the whole lot? As he is now keen on consultation, will the Secretary of State overrule his office and meet the leaders of South Yorkshire county council—the South Yorkshire authority—whom his office has refused to meet concerning a difference of opinion among his office, the Department of Transport and ourselves about the funding of the super tram?
Mr. Heseltine: We are in some confusion as to which authority the hon. Member has in mind, but we run an ever-open-door policy in the Department of the Environment and I am sure that we will bring our usual courteous attention to bear on any formal requests that we receive.
The hon. Member referred to the support that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities was giving to what I said during my statement. It would have been impossible—if I do not embarrass him in front of the Prime Minister—for any Minister to give more support to the Secretary of State than my hon. Friend has given me on this matter.
The hon. Member asked how we will collect this local tax. I said in my statement that there would be a single bill to the household; and that will be exemplified in more detail in our consultative document.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very anxious to ensure that all hon. Members who wish to put a question on this very important matter shall do so. I ask hon. Members, in view of the fact that many of the questions have been answered by the Secretary of State, to put new questions and perhaps single questions, and then all of them will be called.
Mr. Michael Brown: I have never made a secret of my support for the community charge, but, as one who has the misfortune to represent a constituency in the ghastly overspending county of
418
Humberside, may I tell my right hon. Friend that the structural reform proposals that he has announced today make his statement worth studying very closely with a view to giving it wholehearted support, not only on the structure but also on the finance? It is the structural reform as well as what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Tuesday which makes it possible now for us to get local government bills down for the people who have to pay them.
Mr. Heseltine: In the spirit of the day, I shall have to continue my consultations with my hon. Friend in order to be sure that he can give me wholehearted support later on.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not fair to say that what the Secretary of State has announced today is nothing more and nothing less than poll tax mark 2, insofar as it relates to the number of individuals in a household and will also call upon information held in the register of electors? Is that not the case?
Mr. Heseltine: No change is necessary in the basis of collecting information in any new system that we have in mind. No one has raised this issue as a problem in the course of designing it. No one has raised it with me as a problem in moving from the community charge to the local tax, so I have no reason to suppose that there is any problem that I must account for.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As we have so acceptably slashed the burden of the community charge upon the charge payer, and as my right hon. Friend has so courageously decided that we could get rid of county councils if the local authorities wanted, some of us are left wondering why it is necessary to introduce a complex property tax which most of us have spoken against for the past 20 or 25 years. Will my right hon. Friend give some assurance that refusal to pay this tax, which might be branded as uncollectable, will not be a reason for withdrawing it in due course?
Mr. Heseltine: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will feel that, as the last question but one referred to it as a poll tax and he sees it as a property tax, it may be that I am entitled to insist that it is a local tax and cannot be defined in any of the neat packages that are being used so to do. I believe that it will be seen as a tax which complies with the principles that I have set out, which means that most people will pay towards it, it will reflect people's ability to pay and it will be seen as fair. It is in no way capable of being described by either of the labels put on it.
What I have said today is not a prescription for getting rid of counties or districts; it is to look at the administration of local government on the ground and come to a view of what makes sense.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State realise that, ever since he first became Secretary of State for the Environment, local government has suffered greater difficulty and its ability to deliver quality services has been reduced? Is he aware that this review will further prejudice the ability of local government to work properly and that it will reduce the confidence and the professional expertise of those who are professionally involved?
When the Secretary of State says that the 22 per cent. and the means of obtaining it will be reviewed, does he

419
include by definition the poll tax or "head" element, or would he permit other ways of raising that relatively modest 22 per cent. Of tax?
Mr. Heseltine: I do not identify the figures that the hon. Member gave from what I have said. If he has any further exemplification that he wants to put to me, perhaps he will write to me and I will try to deal with it. I cannot accept for a moment, however, that what I have proposed will do other than enhance the possibilities and prospects for local government. In all seriousness, my Ministers and I have spent an inordinate amount of time, with great pleasure, talking to councillors of all political parties who have put to us a remarkable consensus of view on what should be done; and it will not serve the best interests of local government if the Labour party now tries to besmirch the opportunities that we are determined to achieve.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend's statement will receive a warm welcome in my constituency where it will be widely seen as promoting a fair system of providing local government finance, in particular, his assurance that properties in the south-east will not be disproportionately disadvantaged because of high value. Will he take it from me, however, that there is a disproportionate disadvantage to business properties in the south-east which were revalued at a time of historic highs in trading and where the UBR has had a disproportionately large impact?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can reaffirm our clear awareness of the imbalances that are thrown up by capital values between one part of the country and another. When we publish our consultation document, my hon. Friend can rest assured that we will address that issue directly. We are also quite aware that there have been changes in valuation since the initial uniform business rate valuations. There are proposals for a regular revaluation process, but I would be very surprised if we have not seen a restoration, at least in substantial part, of the values of south-eastern property by the time we get to that point.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as long as everyone in the household has to pay the same amount of money minus any rebate, it will be totally unacceptable? Why is it that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Cabinet have responded to those members of the Conservative party in the House of Commons who clearly want to keep the poll tax, as has been indicated this afternoon, instead of listening to the overwhelming number of people who time and again have said that they want no poll tax, mark 1, mark 2, mark 3 or anything else? Is it not clear that when the elections come—the May local government elections and the general election—the British people will reject the mark 2 poll tax as they have rejected the mark 1 tax?
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Member will do his best with wholly inadequate arguments to put that case forward, but he will find that it is not very successful, particularly as he will have to explain how his own party is proposing to go to one system of local government finance in one year and then tear the whole thing up and go to another in the following year. He will also have to explain how his party will finance both those systems when
420
it has rejected the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put £4·25 billion into the system.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in south Staffordshire there will be few tears for the poll tax but many cheers for the courage that the Prime Minister and he have displayed? Is he further aware that as long ago as 1974, when the Labour party was in office, our right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was co-sponsor of a Bill which would have introduced the sort of system that he is now advocating and which would have saved us a great deal of aggro?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will not expect me to go too far back in history. When dealing with local government, history has a way of rearing up and smiting one. I thank my hon. Friend for the tribute that he paid to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has unquestionably played the decisive role in bringing about the conclusion that I have announced today.
Mr. Dave Nellist: The Prime Minister said on Monday night that the poll tax was uncollectable because so many people were not paying it and the courts were overloaded. Does the Secretary of State realise that, despite the rout today and on Tuesday, in the words of a saying, it is not over until it is over, and it is not even over then? There are 15 million people in Scotland, England and Wales facing prosecution, the threat of bailiffs or the threat of gaol and the Secretary of State has said nothing about them today. Unless that threat is lifted and compensation is provided to the millions of others who went into debt to try to pay the poll tax, he will find that those numbers will increase from 1 April and that the flagship of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will be his Titanic.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I made express reference to that point, and the answer is clear. The law is the law and bills have to be paid.
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent proposals. Will he bear in mind the reprehensible behaviour of authorities such as mine in Birmingham, which, in setting the new poll tax level, incorporated the Government's transitional relief of 65 per cent. and £25 extra to allow for non-payers of the present rate, making the total £150 higher than the Conservative proposals? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the non-payers are brought to heel as 50 per cent. of them have followed the advice of Birmingham city councillors about non-payment and are council employees?
Mr. Heseltine: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Perhaps he will share the dilemma of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who knows that the irresponsible behaviour of Labour councillors is an every-day, inbuilt definition of the job that he does.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Does not the Secretary of State think that keeping the poll tax in 1992–93 as well as in 1991–92 is totally unacceptable? Does he have so little confidence in his hybrid tax that he has to keep the poll tax that extra year? If by any horror the Tories should win the

421
next general election, what is to stop the headline figure for the poll tax for 1992–93 soaring again? Is not the poll tax still the curse of the undead?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not follow my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement. He made it clear that he intends to preserve in subsequent years the balance that he has struck for 1991–92. Of course that will not deal with overspending local authorities. It will deal with Government support and maintain it at the same levels as have been broadly outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but if local authorities choose to overspend it will still leave bills of unacceptable levels for the local community.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we should move faster. The practical solution is that there is no way of moving from where we are today in a quicker time scale than that I have outlined. That is why the Labour party is prepared to inflict on local government two different systems in two consecutive years.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us supported the community charge because of the unfairness and inequality of the old rating system? I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is absolutely right to hold further discussions with the people who thought that the community charge was unfair. Let them give their views as to how we can make the new tax fairer. Let us hear their views before we settle into another system.
Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. We have considered this matter carefully in Government and have decided that there must be a degree of certainty about our intentions. That is why we have announced that our new local tax will be in place, hopefully, by 1993–94, which we believe is the earliest practical time that that can be achieved. I wholly accept my hon. Friend's point about the unfairness of the old rating system. That is one reason why one is utterly aghast that the Labour party wants to bring it back.
Mr. Max Madden: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has cut a sad and sorry figure today? He has looked and sounded like an old-style ship owner with a leaky old tub on his hands who is not sure how much longer it will stay afloat, how much longer passengers will be willing to pay, how much he is willing to charge them or how he will count them on board. I appeal to the Secretary of State and, more importantly, to the Prime Minister to ease the grief and misery of the British public, sweep away all the commissions, consultative documents and discussion papers and let the people of Britain have a general election so that they can choose between the Tory poll tax mark 2 and Labour's fair rates plans.
Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman is pressing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to hold a general election so that the electorate may be better informed, I am sure that he will press his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to provide the basic information needed to enable a proper judgment to be made about the relative merits of both systems.
Mr. Ian Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for the care and thoroughness with which they conducted the consultations before bringing forward today's proposals. I also thank my right hon. Friend for taking into account the fact that many of us believe that there were not only serious defects in the rating system and the community charge but that by avoiding those and incorporating the better part of those two systems the proposals are likely to command widespread approval in the House and outside. Will my right hon. Friend be reassured about the effectiveness of his statement by the looks of frustration and disappointment on the faces of Opposition Members?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has made a discerning observation about the Labour party. It might feel that one of its arguments had disappeared out of the window.
Mr. John Battle: In setting out his proposals for the longer term, the Secretary of State said that most people should make some contribution. Until now the Government have insisted that everyone must pay at least 20 per cent. Who will be exempt in the future, and why cannot those categories and individuals be exempt now?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not followed the way in which the community charge works. The 20 per cent. was, in large measure, reimbursed through the social security system for those on full benefit.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I represent a constituency where average house prices in relation to average incomes are much higher than in most parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend pay special care and attention to the need to ensure that in those circumstances the new system of local taxation will be fair and reasonable?
Mr. Heseltine: I assure my hon. Friends that we are fully aware of the regional disparity in capital values and the need, therefore, to address that specifically. It will be in the consultation paper. I would go further than that. Like everybody else, I keep an eye on what is reported in the newspapers. I have seen figures quoted for the effect of the proposals that we have in mind for certain parts of the country, principally the south-east, which bear no relationship to reality.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will there be a new poll tax register for the new poll tax, or will the electoral register be used? Different answers have been given to different Opposition Members. It will be a disgrace if the electoral register is used because it will be a direct tax on electoral registration, and that would concern us all. Even with a separate poll tax register, last year 600,000 people were missing from the electoral register. Will the Government produce figures for the position this year? The problem is that these proposals are simply an attempt to have something to say in a general election.
Mr. Heseltine: I have answered that question several times. I said that under the new system we shall not need a register. I have made that clear. Answers to such quesitions will be clear in the consultation document.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will receive a broad

423
welcome, not least because of the proposed review of structure and functions? Does he agree that the unitary authorities of the 32 London boroughs provide a good example of successful structures? Does he also agree that it is necessary to consider the functions of local government expenditure, especially with regard to national services such as the police and fire services?
Mr. Heseltine: I am glad to respond to my hon. Friend. The unitary model in London is preferable to that which existed before, especially for the large urban conurbations. There is no question but that the Government's decision to get rid of the Greater London council, the metropolitan counties and, later, the Inner London education authority has been a remarkable success. It clarified matters and saved money and jobs. That is important. In the context of the review, I do not think that we intend to make further changes to the structure of the London authorities. However, the functions that they perform and their internal management would be included in the consultative process that I have described.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, had the rate support grant remained at its 1978–79 level, the current poll tax would not be £250, as is proposed, but £150? Are not the Government the biggest robbers from local government funds? The record of the Government's attack on Labour-controlled authorities dates back to the Local Government Act 1972, which was the first to cause chaos, to the attack on the metropolitan county councils and on the GLC, all of which were Labour controlled and all of which were abolished because of a political vendetta carried on by the right hon. Gentleman and his cronies. What safeguards will he provide to ensure that the local government commission will not be a Tory quango with the sole aim—secretly, behind closed Whitehall doors—of abolishing Labour-controlled authorities?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me. The idea would not have occurred to me if he had not put it into my mind. Having considered it—albeit briefly—I reject it. As is customary, the independence of the commission will be secured.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only as a result of the introduction of the community charge that local spending was put under the spotlight by encouraging all members of the community to analyse the quality of services and the calibre of councillors? I have no objection to any of his proposals because they marry two systems. Had he not retained an assessment of the number of people in a house but reverted to the archaic system proposed by the Opposition, this would be an old-fashioned party. I welcome the fact that he will continue to consider carefully the internal workings of local authorities. If not, there could be no guarantees of value for money. We must consider contracting out the management of housing and education. If my right hon. Friend wants evidence of poor housing management, will he please come to Wolverhampton? I could fill a book for him.
Mr. Heseltine: It looks as though I shall be busy visiting my hon. Friends' constituencies, which will be a great pleasure. I support what my hon. Friend said. She has particular expertise in internal management systems. I
424
agree that that issue has not been considered for too long, but it will be considered in the consultation exercise that we have promised today.
My statement reflected my agreement that we must move further and faster towards the concept of enabling authorities to offer choice and have competition and to see the vast baronies of power moved from the public sector to a more competitive sector. The idea of marrying two systems by reflecting the number of people in a household was always one of the preferred ingredients of the package from the earliest days of our review.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: How will the Secretary of State's announcement affect one policy which especially concerns the public and which local authorities are already trying to implement—community care?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for asking that question. The Government have announced their plans. Local authorities know the timetable, and nothing that I have said today changes the Government's known position.
Mr. Michael Latham: This is today's shortest question: can we have Rutland county council back, please?
Mr. Heseltine: I am tempted to say, "If you want it", but I must be allowed to define "you" in a very wide compass.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Much of the Secretary of State's statement was taken up with setting up consultations and commissions to rectify the actions taken by the Government since 1979 and the reorganisation by the previous Tory Government of 1970–74. The words that he used to commend the sanitised version of the poll tax—poll tax 2—were similar to those used to commend the original version. Why should the people of Burnley, which is Labour controlled and has a low poll tax, and the people of Ribble Valley, part of which I represent, which is Tory controlled and has a high poll tax, have confidence that the Government have got it right? How much has this sorry saga cost the nation over the past two years?
Mr. Heseltine: The people of Burnley may like to consider the level of expenditure in the Labour-controlled county council of Lancashire. That might colour their view. The verdict in Ribble Valley is that we shall have a Tory Member of Parliament there after the next election.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I shall do my best to call hon. Members. Will they please ask brief questions?
Mr. Anthony Steen: Since most questions have already been asked, besides welcoming the excellent statement, may I ask my right hon. Friend about local government reorganisation? Does he intend to give greater powers to parish councils, especially on planning matters? May I also ask about privatisation and contracting out? Does he envisage the contracting out of planning departments and their architects and planners?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend asks two interesting questions. I have no plans to change the present regimes of the parishes. I do not wish today to be drawn on the

425
question of contracting out planning departments, but there are some interesting ideas about how they could be changed.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the strength of the unitary authorities and the essential factors of comparability between authorities and accountability. If a consensus emerges for the assessment to be based on capital values, will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the idea of capital values being based on rebuilding costs rather than on market values? That might help to smooth out things across the country.
Mr. Heseltine: I am aware that there are many ways of assessing capital values, one of which is by reference to building costs. I ask my hon. Friend to wait for the publication of our consultative document, which will set out a range of options. We can then hold detailed discussions.
Mr. James Cran: On the structure of local government, my right hon. Friend will be aware that in an interim report the Boundary Commission has already decided to recommend the abolition of Humberside county council. When the final report is published, can he assure my constituents in east Yorkshire that that will suffice to get rid of the county and that it need not be re-examined?
Mr. Heseltine: I fully understand my hon. Friend's eagerness. However, he will understand that I am in a difficult position and that I cannot comment on his question.
Mr. Richard Holt: Given the enormity of his task, may I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming forward so quickly on the restructuring and refinancing of local government? If my right hon. Friend listens for a moment, he will probably hear the cheers ringing out from Cleveland at the echo of the fact that that authority is about to go. In the meantime, may I ask my right hon. Friend to watch carefully the activities of that local council? It is currently spending £680,000 on a brainwashing exercise for the people. The council may try to spend similar sums over the next two or three years to save its own rotten neck.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend, as a former local authority leader, has a great insight into the things which local councils occasionally get up to. I am sure that he would not have played any part in such things himself.
Mr. Roger Moate: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Government's approach to local government reform? It will compare favourably with some of the more lunatic proposals for regional government and the like being peddled by all the Opposition parties. On local government taxation, does my right hon. Friend understand that many of us still feel that the burden being imposed on local government is too great? Having started the shift from direct local government taxation to indirect, centralised taxation, will he confirm that he will not preclude the possibility of continuing that process in the course of his consultation?
Mr. Heseltine: It would be only realistic of me to tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been more than generous. He has not only made a significant shift, but he has committed himself to preserving broadly the balance that has been struck. It would be unrealistic to imagine that that will be changed.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations, especially on the earlier part of his statement in which he rightly identified the cause of the problem to be the uncontrolled appetite of local government for more spending? We now face the problem of how to curb that. Will he assure us that he will pay special attention to the true alternative to the community charge—which, incidentally, will be mourned by my constituents who thought that it was a valiant attempt to do the right thing about local government? The alternative is to consider whether services need to be provided by local government or whether they could be carried out more effectively through a competitive marketplace.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises important issues. I wholly support what she says about the need to control spending and to get value for money. It is possible to marry together the provision of local services by enabling authorities with the fact that they do that by contracting out services.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Although I readily acknowledge that this afternoon my right hon. Friend has made great progress in the reform of local government finance and structure, may I assure him that in densely populated counties, such as Berkshire, there is a great desire for unitary authorities? Unitary authorities mean boroughs and districts, and not counties.
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for stressing the popularity that could flow from the concept of unitary authorities. We must now wait until we have a chance to test that in practical terms on the ground.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On the concept of a property tax based on capital values, will my right hon. Friend explain whether the general principle is that a family of three on average earnings living in a £200,000 house would pay twice as much as a family of three on average earnings living in a £100,000 house? Will he also explain what on earth will happen to water rates if we move from rateable to capital values? Will we now pay for our water on the basis of how much the house is worth?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will know that we have in mind over a period to move away from water rates, and the water companies are now considering that matter. It is for the complexity of reasons to which my hon. Friend has drawn our attention that the Government have decided not to adopt a property tax.
Mr. David Martin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a wide welcome in Portsmouth for the opportunity once more to run its own affairs 100 per cent. in Portsmouth rather than having to rely on Hampshire county council—and the sooner the better for Portsmouth?
Mr. Heseltine: I must dampen the enthusiasm of some of my hon. Friends who already assume that we shall set up the local government commission and shall make

427
judgments such as they wish to see within a short time. We must go through a proper process of local consultation once we have set up the commission, and we must test people's mood of what they want.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Will metropolitan authorities be included in the review, given that the unitary principle for local government has been working well in metropolitan authorities, despite Government attempts to sabotage it? Will he give a commitment to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the current metropolitan authorities at borough level will continue after the review?
Mr. Heseltine: In reply to an earlier question, I said that I did not anticipate changing the structure of the metropolitan authorities.
Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement today will be seen as good news by the majority of the British people? They will see his proposal as a far fairer method of funding local government. His statement, which included a reference to the fact that local people will be able to choose, the form of local authority that they prefer, will also be widely welcomed. What impact will his statement have on rate-capped authorities such as Warwickshire?
Mr. Heseltine: I have explained our position on rate capping for the current year. I have no changes in mind as a result of anything that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor or I have said during the past two days. I have explained clearly that we shall look for restraint in local authority expenditure next year, especially in view of the considerable additional money which has been put in to reduce the community charge to its lower level. To ensure that, we shall have to anticipate the rigorous use of capping powers.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. Friend deserves great praise for coming forward with a system that should answer many of the points of unfairness that are perceived in the present system. One of the flaws of the present system is the seeming inability to control local authorities that seem hell-bent on levying at a rate greater than they should. Capping has proved an imperfect instrument for achieving that control. There are some councils—regrettably some are even Conservative—in which the councillors seem to be incapable of resisting the money-spending propensities of the officers who run them. Will it be possible to bear those factors in mind in the review?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The awfulness of some of the high levels of expenditure is that they often go hand in hand with some of the least effective deliveries of services. There is no doubt that the capping regime has had its effect and that it will be a necessary part of our controls as we introduce our new system.
Mr. Robert Banks: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals for consultation with local people about the future of their local government. On the local tax, will he tell us whether he is taking fully into account the cost and the whole operation of valuing properties with the consequent disputes, appeals and fluctuating values, which will have to be taken into account? Will he keep his ears open to alternative
428
suggestions, such as the measuring of property, which would be a far simpler and more accurate way to deal with the matter?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend begins already the process that will flow from the publication of the consultative document. We have ideas, and colleagues may feel that some are rather more effective than the necessity to value every house precisely, although that is one option that we must consider. However, I do not wish to be drawn on that today in advance of the consultative document on the options that we are about to put forward.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the devil is always in the detail. He will not be surprised to know that in a low-spending area such as south Dorset people were pleased when the community charge was sold to them on the basis that they would pay 25 per cent., business would pay 25 per cent. and the Government would pay 50 per cent. They were less pleased when they found out that they were paying 45 per cent., business was paying 45 per cent. and central Government were paying 10 per cent. My right hon. Friend has announced today that the local tax percentage will be about 22 per cent. Will that apply to people in south Dorset, or will they subsidise people in other areas? Can my right hon. Friend, as the Minister responsible for England, assure the House that English local taxpayers will pay the same percentage as Scottish and Welsh local taxpayers?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend represents a beautiful part of our country. He will realise that other areas have wider and sometimes deeper problems. Therefore, there are equalisation processes and the figures that I have given are average figures from across the country. That will remain the position. There will be a variation within those, depending upon the characteristics of the local areas.
Mr. Michael Irvine: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the poll tax has been intensely unpopular in Ipswich, among most of my constituents, and that there will be widespread rejoicing at the comprehensive and well-merited butchery job that he has done on it this afternoon? However, while the unfairnesses of the poll tax have been resented, there has also been a widespread acknowledgement that the old domestic rating system was unfair. One of the great merits of the proposals that my right hon. Friend has announced this afternoon is that they are directed towards putting right the unfairnesses not just of the poll tax but of the old domestic rates system.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to remind us of the unfairnesses of the old rating system, to which the Labour party is now committed. However, I would not accept the graphic language that he used in describing me as having been involved in a process of butchery. I feel that I have been curing the joint.
Mr. Tim Janman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seemingly retaining some elements of the community charge and on giving a welcome added impetus to the need to contract out more local government services. When he publishes his consultation document, will my right hon. Friend clarify which of the different criteria that will now have an effect on what a household pays will be more important? In other words, will two

429
people living in a house worth £100,000 pay more than four people living in a house worth £50,000, all other things being equal, or vice versa?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will immediately recognise that that depends entirely on the weight that we put on the two elements of the new local tax. This will be one of the many matters about which we shall be consulting. I support what my hon. Friend said about contracting out.
Mr. Barry Field: Did my right hon. Friend hear the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), say on Radio 4 that he expected that the natural drift of the reform of local government would be to the district or borough councils? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be good news for our borough councillors as they go into the borough council elections? Does he understand that, with 43 county councillors, 64 borough councillors and 29 parish and town councils on the Isle of Wight, my constituents will be ticking off the days until 1994? Can he confirm that it is no accident that he promised us that the new system will be in place by April 1994, just before the county council elections? County councils have been the pick-pockets of community charge payers throughout this whole transaction.
Mr. Heseltine: I have had the privilege of visiting my hon. Friend in his constituency, and those points have been put to me on earlier occasions with equal eloquence.
Mr. David Blunkett: I understand that it is the Secretary of State's birthday. I hope that he has happier birthdays in future. I apologise for blowing out his candles.
Does the Secretary of State understand that, in announcing that he has rid us of the poll tax and in telling the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that he is not adopting a property tax, he has invented a hybrid donkey tax which stands on sand and is kept alive by being fed carrots? The Secretary of State has suggested this
430
afternoon a tax that he is not willing to spell out, a tax without a valuation system, and a tax that retains the 20 per cent. contribution, some form of register and the proposals for water metering while not solving the basic problem of ability to pay.
Will the Secretary of State concede that any new valuation system will take at least two years to implement from the day that legislation is completed? That means that, if the Conservatives stay in office, apart from those who live in Wandsworth and Westminster—the only people who have seen their poll tax abolished-the country will have to suffer the poll tax until April 1994. We will suffer the chaos, the cost and the confusion for the simple reason that the Government refuse to accept our fair rates proposal because they are hooked on the idea of numbers rather than on income and fairness and are determined at all costs to get through the general election before announcing what they mean to do.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has raised matters that have been covered exhaustively in the past two hours. I can only say that, if he thinks that his system will stand scrutiny alongside ours, I am happy to compare them detail by detail. I am happy to put his system to the local authority associations for their views so that it can be compared with ours. The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party talk as though we have caused chaos for local government, but I can think of nothing more likely to do that than to introduce two totally different systems of local government finance in two consecutive years. That Labour party policy is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in its own right, but when its plan means that one of those years will see a return to the discredited rates system, it is doubly unacceptable.
I do not confirm that a valuation should take the time envisaged by the hon. Gentleman. Valuations can be carried out much more expeditiously, and we will discuss ways to do so in the consultation document.
The overwhelming view of the House has been a broad welcome for what I have announced today. It has given local government a new sense of opportunity. We are determined to build on that and to develop it. I commend our proposals to the House.

No Confidence Motion
Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the wake of the statement that we have heard, I take this opportunity to give notice to the Government and the House that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are today tabling a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government. It is:
"That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government in the light of their inability to rectify the great damage done to the British people by the poll tax."
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That will have been heard by the Leader of the House, who is in his place.

Further Education
5.27 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the Government's plans for the reorganisation of further education in England.
We are determined to achieve better standards throughout the education service. The national curriculum is improving teaching and motivating young people in schools as never before. Parental choice is being exercised in more and more schools. A new and clearer system of vocational qualifications is beginning to open up exciting opportunities for school leavers. The proportion going on to higher education has nearly doubled since this Government took office, but we still lag behind our competitors in the participation of our school leavers in further education and training, and their achievement of useful qualifications.
I believe that the further education colleges have a vital role in providing education and training for both school leavers and adults. They have never in the past been given the attention that their importance in education policy should justify. Through links with business they are well placed to provide the knowledge and skills needed in the workplace. The Education Reform Act 1988 has given them greater managerial autonomy and they are recruiting more students, but they are still subject to bureaucratic controls from local authorities. They lack the full freedom which we gave the polytechnics and higher education colleges in 1989 to respond to the demands of students and of the labour market. The polytechnics are demonstrating quite spectacularly the gains in increased student numbers and increased efficiency without any loss of academic standards that can be achieved with full independence.
The Government therefore propose to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to form a new sector of post-16 education from April 1993, by taking all further education colleges offering full-time education and all sixth form colleges out of local authority control. They will be funded directly by the Government, through a council appointed by and responsible to me. The funding regime will consist of a basic annual budget together with an element dependent on the numbers actually enrolled. It will be designed to provide a powerful incentive to recruit additional students and reduce unit costs. The further education colleges will also assume responsibility for some adult continuing education.
Spending by local authorities on further education colleges and sixth form colleges in England currently totals over £2 billion of current spending and £100 million of capital. That will become central Government spending with a corresponding reduction in grant to local authorities.
The colleges will work closely with the training and enterprise councils. The Government attach great importance to the developing partnership between TECs and other local interests in education and training. We have already given TECs specific responsibilities in work-related further education. They and the new independent colleges will have much to gain from close co-operation. The colleges will own their assets and employ their own staff. They will provide for an

433
ever-increasing proportion of our young people the preparation they need for their working life in the rest of this decade, and in the 21st century.
I have a duty to ensure that the interim period before the establishment of the new independent sector is as smooth as possible. We must place the interests of the student first and ensure that the work of colleges continues undisturbed. I intend to give the right of transfer of employment to the staff of the colleges that will form the new sector.
I intend to vest the institutions, which I propose will be free-standing corporate bodies, with the land, buildings and plant which they currently use. I intend to seek Parliament's approval in the legislation that I shall introduce for a measure which requires my specific consent for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of the institutions.
I am concerned that from now on local authorities should not enter into new contracts which bind the colleges beyond 1 April 1993 when they begin to manage their own affairs. Such contracts should be entered into only with the specific consent of the governing bodies of the institutions affected. Contracts for a consideration having a value in excess of £50,000 will in addition require my consent. The forthcoming legislation will seek Parliament's approval to a measure with this purpose. I shall also seek Parliament's approval for appropriate sanctions where consent has not been obtained in advance.
I shall seek Parliament's approval for these transitional measures to have effect from midnight tonight. In this way, I intend both to put beyond any doubt the long-term future of the colleges and to enable the transition period to be as smooth and trouble-free as possible. I am placing further details of these measures in the Official Report. My Department will write to all LEAs to explain how these measures will be applied.
These developments will still leave much of the education of young people with school sixth forms. I assure the House of my determination to see good sixth forms continue. Whether under local authority control or in the grant-maintained sector, proposals for the opening of new sixth forms and the closure of existing sixth forms already have to come to me for approval. I shall use the powers available to me to ensure that sixth forms thrive, and to encourage choice between schools and colleges wherever possible.
This new sector of education will have a great deal to offer our young people. Indeed, it is the education and training of our 16 to 19-year-olds which will be at the heart of a White Paper which will come jointly from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and myself in due course. That White Paper will contain further details of the proposals that I have just described. I believe that the proposals will be widely welcomed by all sections of the community, especially those which have always sought to further the interests of further education in Britain. I commend the proposals to the House.
Following are details of the measures:
The Government propose to introduce legislation this autumn to form an independent sector of post-16 education fromApril 1993. All further education colleges, maintained or
434
assisted by a local education authority, offering full-time education, including tertiary colleges, and all sixth form colleges, that is maintained schools which normally provide education only for pupils who have attained the age of 16, will be taken out of local authority control. They will be funded directly by the Government through a new council appointed by and responsible to the Secretary of State. New sixth form colleges and further education colleges, including tertiary colleges, which are established after this announcement will also be funded through the new council, including any grant-maintained sixth form colleges.
Institutions in the new sector, apart from volutary sixth form colleges, will be free-standing corporate bodies, and will be vested with the land, buildings and plant which are currently used by them. I intend to seek Parliament's approval to legislation which requires the specific consent of the Secretary of State for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of the institutions. I shall seek similar powers to ensure that the LEA's interest in any land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of a voluntary sixth form college are not disposed of without the specific consent of the Secretary of State and that the LEA conveys its interest in these to the trustees of the school.
The disposals of land or interests in land requiring the consent of the Secretary of State will include outright sale, granting or otherwise disposing of any leasehold or other interest in land, direct sale and leaseback, any mortgage or other charge designed to raise capital on the security of the land. It will also include any disposal which is made in return for the supply of goods or services. In referring to disposals I include entering into any binding obligation to make a disposal of the kind in question.
To ease the interim period before the establishment of the new sector, I am concerned that local authorities should not enter into contracts which bind the colleges beyond 1 April 1993 when they begin to manage their own affairs. Such contracts should be entered into only with the specific consent of the governing bodies of the institutions affected. Contracts for a consideration having a value in excess of £50,000 will in addition require the consent of the Secretary of State. The forthcoming legislation will seek Parliament's approval to a measure having this purpose.
I shall also seek Parliament's approval for appropriate sanctions where consent has not been obtained in advance. With the disposal of land or interests in land without the consent of the Secretary of State, there will be a power of compulsory purchase with a right of recovery from the local authority of any compensation payable. In the case of contracts, including contracts for disposal, entered into without the consent of the governing body concerned or, where applicable, the consent of the Secretary of State, there will be a right of repudiation, and such repudiation will be deemed to be a repudiation by the relevant local authority, so that any liability in damages will remain with the relevant local authority.
I shall seek the approval of Parliament for these two measures to have effect from midnight tonight. This statement does not affect enforceable obligations entered into before midnight tonight.
Mr. Jack Straw: As the timing of the statement so exquisitely demonstrates, the Secretary of State's announcement has been motivated by nothing whatever to do with the needs of the education service. Instead, it has simply been dictated by the Government's blind poll tax panic. The right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the House this afternoon not as Secretary of State for Education but simply as the Environment Secretary's subordinate.
The whole House will be delighted that the Secretary of State has at last noticed, after 12 years of Conservative government, that
"we still lag behind our competitors in the participation of our school leavers in further education".

435
That is a major admission by the Secretary of State of 12 years of Conservative failure—12 years in which the share of Britain's national wealth devoted to education has fallen, while almost all our major competitors have invested more and have had far better results in their education and training services.
Is not it typical of this Government that, faced with the yawning education and training deficit between the United Kingdom and its major competitors, the only solution that Ministers can find is to set up a centralising bureaucracy, establish a new national quango and deny local people both a voice and choice? The Secretary of State could adduce no evidence whatever to back his claims of a lack of responsiveness to the needs of 16 to 19-year-olds among either further education colleges or local education authorities. The problems that colleges and LEAs have faced were imposed on them by central Government and central Government alone.
Does not the Secretary of State realise that the major problems in increasing opportunity and choice at 16-plus are educational, not bureaucratic? Does he realise that there is an urgent need, as Her Majesty's inspectorate said, to end the jungle of qualifications, with over 200 examining boards for those between 16 and 19? Does he realise that instead we must establish a coherent, unified system of 16 to 19 examinations? The statement said riot a word about that. Instead, the Secretary of State has blighted all chances of sensible reform of examinations for those between 16 and 19.
Does not the Secretary of State also understand that there is the widest support for setting clear national and local targets for improvement in participation rates for 16 to 19-year-olds, as the Labour party has proposed? That sensible reform, backed by both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress, has been rejected out of hand by the Secretary of State's friend, the Employment Secretary.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite what he says, his proposals will place school sixth forms at risk and in financial limbo, with less financial support than sixth forms in further education colleges? What will be the position of both church schools with sixth forms and voluntary-aided sixth form and further education colleges? What guarantees does the Secretary of State give about the future of adult and community education, especially where that provision is contained within existing further education colleges?
Although one understands—especially in view of his record in the health service—the Secretary of State's profound contempt for those who are locally elected to represent their communities, and his desire to place all institutions under quangos appointed by him, what planning or strategic role will local education authorities have in respect of planning 16 to 19 provision?
Nothing has caused greater resentment or loss of efficiency in the education service or greater unpopularity for the Government than piling one hasty and impulsive change after another on the service. Has anyone told the Secretary of State that the last major changes in further education took effect only 11 months ago and have yet to be established? Those changes were made under the Education Reform Act 1988 and, in commending them to the House, the former Minister of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), praised the work of local education authorities. Given the ghastly mess that the Government
436
have made in education and on the poll tax through impulsive decisions taken without proper consultation and consent, would not it be sensible for the Secretary of State to consult those who run 16 to 19 education, those in colleges and schools and the public, before seeking to ram these ill-considered and hasty proposals through the House?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friends and I have been working for some time on these further education proposals and I commend them to the House for education reasons. I have met principals of further education colleges who have pressed me to be allowed to have the independence from local government that we are now giving them. Our proposals will be widely welcomed in the world of education, especially by those in further education colleges, tertiary colleges and sixth form colleges which concentrate on 16 to 19-year-old provision.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) comes in as a little Sir Echo from our debate on the previous statement and tries to imitate his colleagues in their exchanges on the poll tax when he should be addressing the education issues that are involved. When he goes outside he will find that my proposals are welcomed by those in education whose advice he should heed.
Secondly, I am not taking anything under central control, but I am taking colleges out of local government control. The body that we are setting up is a funding council which will distribute the funds and will bear in mind quality that is assessed as I have described. It will otherwise leave the management of the colleges to themselves. Colleges will be free to spend the money and the funding regime will ensure that they increase the participation of students and improve their efficiency at the same time, exactly as the polytechnics have done.
That is modelled on the freedom that we gave to polytechnics in 1989. Polytechnics are not controlled centrally by me, although funds are distributed to them by a funding council. Polytechnics are brilliantly successful in increasing the participation of students in higher education, and we have seen 36,000 more students this year alone. They are at the same time increasing efficiency and maintaining excellent academic standards. Therefore, removing from local government control those responsible for higher and further education institutions which want to be entrepreneurial and to expand opportunities for young people is a good education policy which the hon. Gentleman should not oppose.
The hon. Member for Blackburn made rather strange remarks about funding having more to do with this. He knows that we spend a higher percentage of our GNP on education than do most of our competitors, and that spending per pupil in this country has gone up by 40 per cent. He was right in what he said about the jungle of qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds. We are already addressing that with the help of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications which we have set up. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I are closely addressing that matter and some of the others that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We shall shortly produce a White Paper setting out better opportunities for young people which will include further clarification of qualifications.
I have already said that I shall use my powers to protect sixth forms and certainly good sixth forms which are of benefit to the schools to which they are attached. Parents

437
would also like to have local choice of sixth forms. Voluntary-aided sixth form colleges will be affected by my proposals. They will acquire the new status and join the new sector and I have today written to people in the churches involved to set up a way to have discussions about the mechanics.
Adult education presently carried out and delivered by colleges will also be covered by the proposals and the funding arrangements that I have described. Details on that will be contained in the White Paper. My statement should be addressed by the hon. Member for Blackburn in his capacity as spokesman for the Opposition on education matters. If he addresses it objectively and uses educational judgments, he will welcome and commend my proposals.
Mr. James Pawsey: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will reject the unfounded allegations by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious point of order, not an attempt to interrupt the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).
A written statement was issued to hon. Members when the Secretary of State started to give details of his proposals. The Secretary of State said that from midnight tonight he would take certain action to prevent local education authorities from entering into arrangements with further education colleges. In the written statement issued to hon. Members, the Secretary of State says that he will not seek legislative powers to do that until the autumn. That seems to pre-empt a decision of the House in relation to the Secretary of State taking powers. Is it in order for a Secretary of State to implement proposals from midnight when he has no statutory right to do so and will not have such a right until the legislation is passed by the House in the autumn?
Mr. Speaker: I am concerned with what the Secretary of State has actually said, not with anything that may have been written.
Mr. McCartney: This is serious, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking about what is contained in the written statement that accompanied the oral statement by the Secretary of State. He has said that from midnight he is implementing proposals which will be contained in legislation in the autumn. As I have said, that pre-empts a decision of the House and I seek a judgment from you, Mr. Speaker, on the powers under which the Secretary of State proposes to do that. Is what he is doing ultra vires, because the House has not given him the necessary power?
Mr. Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What I have announced is well precedented. My statement had to contain details towards the end about what I proposed because I was announcing to the House that certain measures would take effect from midnight tonight and that I would later seek parliamentary approval for those steps. That was done when polytechnics were given independence and it is frequently done for changes in taxation and for changes in regimes of this kind. It is to make sure that from midnight tonight local authorities will not be tempted to strip assets, sell land or enter into contracts.
Mr. Straw: Further to. that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tony Banks:: We still have six hours to go.
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, I am stone deaf in one ear and therefore do not have a clue about what he said.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raises an important issue. The Secretary of State tried to wriggle out of it by saying that his action is well precedented. It is precedented only by actions of this Government when they introduced retrospective legislation.
Mr. Clarke: Taxation.
Mr. Straw: This is not about taxation. The suggestion that local authorities will asset-strip further education colleges to which they are committed and have expanded and are up and running is absolutely preposterous. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw that. It shows his hostility to local education. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that no parliamentary approval exists for the Secretary of State's proposal?
Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for the Government. If they are found to be ultra vires, it will be a matter for the courts, but it is certainly not a matter for me.
Mr. McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not trying to delay matters but this issue is vital to the good running of the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, as the defender of the House. The Secretary of State has had two opportunities to indicate what powers under what Education Act he is taking upon himself to carry out certain actions after midnight. Clearly, he has no precedent in law. I do not want to see the Secretary of State before the courts next week arguing with education authorities about their proper and rightful duties in respect of colleges. Perhaps we need an adjournment and some discussion behind the Chair about how to proceed in this matter or we will find ourselves——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McCartney rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] What a bunch of louts. I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that what the Government intend to do is a matter for them. I repeat what I have said to Front-Bench spokesmen that whether the matter is ultra vires is a matter for the courts, not for me.
Mr. Tony Banks: Jack-booted thugs.
Mr. Speaker: We would be well advised to keep the temperature down. I do not know who said that, but I shall allege that I am temporarily deaf.
Mr. Pawsey: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will reject the unfounded allegations by the hon. Member for Blackburn in the same way as the House will reject the vote of confidence motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that when we set colleges of

439
further education free from local education authorities they will be able to blossom in exactly the same way as polytechnics?
Mr. Clarke: I have certainly been assured of that by many of the principals of further education colleges who have been pressing us to make precisely this change. Given their head and the right financing regime, they will have every incentive to improve their efficiency, extend the range of their courses and, most importantly, attract an ever-rising proportion of our 16-year-olds into further education.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Once again the Secretary of State has managed to remove an element of local democracy without, as he admitted himself, tackling the problems of confusion or underfunding in this sector. Can he confirm that local people from whom power has been removed will see no financial benefit, as it is his intention to achieve the change entirely by removing Government grant without allowing any fall in local spending? Conservative Members who have argued for the centralisation of education are now faced with a measure of that centralisation, hut with none of its expected benefits.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to local people how they are to fare in future? In Truro, for instance, there is a proposal for a tertiary college on which we had expected a decision by the Minister next week. How are we to proceed? Is everything to come to a grinding halt until the Minister has published the White Paper and passed the legislation?
Mr. Clarke: The management of local further education colleges and polytechnics was not usually directly affected in the past by local democracy. They were not at the heart of the red meat of local politics—indeed, the sector was sadly neglected. Tertiary education achieves a great deal, but it has never attracted the degree of attention that it deserves. The test of whether it is anti democratic is to talk to some of the principals of the polytechnics. So far I have not found any lecturer in or principal of a polytechnic—including a number of the classic left-wing, bearded variety—who believes that it is a good idea to go back to local government control. Such people have been liberated by the change and have acquired, not lost, freedom. That is what will happen to colleges under my proposals. In the White Paper we shall deal with the details of how new colleges are to develop, but I expect that we shall adopt a system in which the funding council will make proposals of that sort to me.
Mr. David Madel: Is my right hon. and learned Friend looking to members of the training and enterprise councils automatically to become governors of colleges of further education? Will he confirm that the choice facing an upper school now is to stay with the local education authority, to opt to become grant maintained, or to opt to become part of a college of further education?
Mr. Clarke: The answer to the first point is certainly yes. I would expect a member of the local TEC invariably to become a member of the governing body of these institutions. We are not talking about opting for the new status, because at the moment schools under local authority control can opt for grant-maintained status—although curiously further education colleges do not have
440
that choice. So they do not have a natural constituency that we can ballot; their populations are more transitional; so the parent body is not so closely connected with them.
My announcement today means that all further education colleges, all tertiary colleges and all sixth form colleges will transfer to the new sector and be independent of local government from April 1993.
Ms. Clare Short: The real danger of the Secretary of State's proposals is that they will entrench the division between sixth form FE colleges and sixth form colleges. The flaw in our secondary education system has always been the divide between the academic and the vocational, and these proposals will deepen that divide. We need to train all our young people together in a system in which vocational work and academic work are equally respected. This change will be destructive and will further entrench the divide.
Mr. Clarke: I assure the hon. Lady that I share her concern not to deepen that divide. My colleagues and I are working to ensure that vocational education acquires the same status as academic education, so that there are no artificial divisions between them. Sixth form colleges will enter the new sector as a result of my announcement. They tend to concentrate on traditional academic courses, so many of the young people in the colleges that I am talking about will study, for instance, for A-levels; but many others will be doing vocational courses. I do not believe that she is correct to suspect that the proposals will widen the divide.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend's statement represent a further enhancement of this important sector of education? Might it not also be an important step towards ensuring the universal involvement of 16 to 19-year-olds in some form of education and training?
Mr. Clarke: In our forthcoming White Paper we shall deal with the whole issue of how to increase participation by all 16 to 19-year-olds in some form of education or training. We shall set ourselves the aim of greatly increasing such participation. I share my hon. Friend's aim, and I trust that our White Paper will measure up to his expectations.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Although I am persuaded that further education colleges will be better off independently funded than subject to the vagaries of local authority control, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a great danger in the proposals that local education authorities reconsidering the structure of their sixth form and 16 to 19-year-old provision will automatically turn their backs on the tertiary college or sixth form college solution in order to retain control over the education of this age group?
Mr. Clarke: If there is a risk of that it will show that the local authority in question is motivated more by a desire to keep its empire intact than by a desire to improve educational opportunities for young people in its area. I rather share the hon. Lady's fear that such councils exist—I encounter such attitudes frequently when I receive applications for grant-maintained status from schools. We shall have to consider ways in which the new funding council can make proposals to us for opening new colleges

441
in certain areas. A council that was neglecting to create more choice in its area might find that the new sector was beginning to offer parents some choice in that district.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I hope that I did not detect in one of my right hon. and learned Friend's answers that he is falling into the trap of beardism—that would be unfortunate and discriminatory. As a recent governor of a college of further education, may I say that it was crystal clear that it would be extremely desirable to do exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend has done—and that I welcome it. When he looks into the funding arrangements, will he ensure that the rundown state of much of the capital stock of these colleges is taken into account?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, which is based on his experience. I am sure that he is not the only governor to have thought that colleges of this sort have been comparatively neglected by local authorities that attach far higher priority to other parts of the education system.
I take note of what my hon. Friend says about capital. Many of these colleges' revenue and capital have been comparatively neglected; we shall consider capital arrangements and probably again use the funding council as our agent to distribute the necessary capital investment.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Secretary of State hesitate before proceeding rapidly on this course until he has considered the view that many people, bearded or otherwise, may express? It is that there is likely to be an excess of centralisation and a greater degree of bureaucracy. Whatever he may say, there will certainly be great anxiety in successful sixth forms. Will he subscribe to the view that education has suffered in recent years from undue turmoil and an excess of dogma?
Mr. Clarke: The universities receive their funds from the Universities Funding Council and are not centralised under the control of central Government. The polytechnics and higher education colleges receive their funds from a funding council and are not under my control or over-centralised. The same will apply to the new sector. The desirable pattern for education is not detailed control by either local or central government. More power should be devolved and delegated and responsibility for and control over funds go to those who work in the institutions themselves and serve on their governing bodies. That is the pattern that we are following.
The hon. Gentleman says that we should not rush into it, but it is necessary to make an announcement and to outline the provisions that will come into effect from midnight tonight simply to ensure that certain local authorities do not start apostating. We have much experience—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is protesting but his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should know that we had to take that measure when the Greater London council began to take similar steps immediately after we announced that we would abolish it.
We are still sorting out problems in the case of the polytechnics. Only a week ago I met a principal who said that his local authority had accepted that the polytechnic
442
now owned the building but still insisted that it owned the grass in front of the building. Such disputes exist throughout the country. Had we not made such arrangements, I am sure that great pressure would be put on many colleges to enter into long-term contracts, binding them to their local authority, and their assets would be clawed back into local authority control. All the tricks of the trade, which many local authorities know only too well, would be used to keep their bureaucratic empires intact.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. Ealing's higher education college is doing well independently of the local authority, which has been a perfect nuisance to it in the past.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State follow through the logic of his statement and consider the position of school sixth forms? Would not it be right for high schools and secondary schools to have arrangements made for them similar to those that he has announced for non-advanced and advanced further education and tertiary colleges?
Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the opinion of those involved with Ealing higher education college is shared by everyone in higher education colleges that have been given their independence. Whereas at present we are offering to secondary schools, including those with sixth forms, the opportunity to seek grant-maintained status, the first step is that the local management of all schools will be placed in the hands of the governors and the head teachers shortly, with 85 per cent. of the schools' budgets under their control by 1993. Beyond that, the best will rapidly move to full grant-maintained status, with 100 per cent. of their budgets under their control and comparative freedom and autonomy from local authority control.
Thus, a parallel course is already set out. The pace at which schools are choosing grant-maintained status is accelerating at a remarkable rate, even in the few months that I have been in office.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Secretary of State accept my party's welcome of the proposal for a White Paper on the 16 to 19-year-old sector? Will he also accept that there will, indeed, be wide-ranging support from those who work in the further education sector in England and Wales—similar proposals will be made by the Welsh Office—and that the funding council will provide an opportunity to combine central funding with flexibility of institutional control in the locality rather than control by the aldermanic tendency, which still exists in too many local authorities? In what ways does the Secretary of State intend to enhance the relationship of adult and continued education with the further education sector? What relationship does he see, if any, between the new funding council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Universities Funding Council to improve access from further education to the rest of higher education?
Mr. Clarke: First, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. He was a lecturer in his time, although I think it was in higher education, so he is knowledgeable on the subject. His opinion will be shared by professionals in education. As he rightly anticipated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will

443
make a statement because there will be a separate Welsh funding council and arrangements for Wales which I am sure he will welcome.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about adult education and access from further to higher education. Those matters are important and we are working on them as part of our White Paper. We shall address those problems directly when we return with our White Paper and our proposals for opportunities for young people of that age across the board.
Mr. John Bowis: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed in the further education sector, not least because it has been calling for precisely that measure? Those who work in that sector will not understand the Labour party hostility to the proposals. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one reason why his proposals are right is that the Government's funding of further education has not always been passed on by local education authorities to those institutions? At long last, it will go to them directly. Will he confirm that this is the clearest possible sign of the Government's commitment to the further education sector and its role in education and training?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right—we have had experience of approving capital for projects in further education, only to discover that when the local authority has obtained the capital approval for such projects the money was not spent in that sector. That shows the practical application of the way in which many colleges have been neglected vis-à-vis the schools sector. I agree that many people in further education will not understand why the Labour party has a blind commitment to keeping up the widest level of local authority bureaucracy and is instinctively hostile to a move that has been demanded by most people in further education for many years.
Mr. Terry Davis: How can students and staff have any confidence in their courses in view of the experience of many people now on employment training courses who are being given less than a week's notice of the termination of their courses, ahead of time, as a result of the advent of training and enterprise councils, which the Secretary of State wants to make responsible for running colleges of further education?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment assures me that arrangements are being made for people to continue their courses. The introduction of the TECs, which I warmly welcome, is not having the consequence that the hon. Gentleman fears.
Mr. Andy Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the valuable service of the Workers Education Association, not only in Nottinghamshire but in our rural communities. As he also knows, it had a raw deal from Nottinghamshire county council this year as regards funding. Will he assure me that it will be taken into consideration under the new funding arrangements?
Mr. Clarke: I have every possible reason for agreeing strongly with my hon. Friend's criticisms about Nottinghamshire county council's disgraceful behaviour this year. As I said, my announcement comprises certain
444
responsibilities for adult education and we shall outline them in more detail and explain the funding regime when we produce the White Paper. The funding of adult education, especially that which is closely related to career opportunities for people of that age, must be protected. We shall take it into account when drawing up our new arrangements.
Mr. Win Griffiths: When opening his statement, the Secretary of State emphatically said that the arrangements were for England. In replying to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), he said that the Secretary of State for Wales would make a separate statement on further education. However, in the order of business, I understood that the statement was on local government finance. Are we now being told that the Welsh statement will be on poll tax mark 2 and further education in Wales?
Mr. Clarke: Wales and Scotland have devolved government. As an English politician, I can never understand the constant controversy on devolution in both the other countries on the United Kingdom mainland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is Education Minister for Wales and my writ does not run there. Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland deals with education in Scotland. Their statements will cover both local government finance and further education.
Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. and learned Friend point out to the House, especially to the Opposition, that on 11 June last year I brought a delegation from the Isle of Wight art and technology college to see the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold)? The college principal and the governor-chairman urged my right hon. Friend to take that action because they were so fed up with the political shenanigans of the Liberal Democrats who have continually cut the budget and politicked with the courses at the college of art and technology. My right hon. and learned Friend's statement will be widely welcomed by the tutors, governors and students on the Isle of Wight. Taken together with the training enterprise councils, it marks a breathtaking revolution that will do us well in 1992.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping to mobilise representations to the Government which led us to take that decision. Several other such representations by my hon. Friends led us to our conclusions. As my hon. Friend made clear, had we not experienced difficulties with the community charge, and were we not changing the basis for local government finance, I am sure that I should have wanted to come before the House with a statement to rescue further education from the vagaries of people such as the Liberal Democrats on the Isle of Wight.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I remind the Secretary of State that at 3.30 pm the Secretary of State for the Environment announced major changes in local government structures, and said there would be a consultation period. However, within three hours, the Secretary of State for Education and Science comes along to the House and makes announcements that will radically affect local government structures and responsibilities. Education is one of the most important local authority functions. How dare he do that and talk about democracy?

445
He comes here like Hitler with a beer belly and says that changes will take place. Exactly what consultations are taking place with local education authorities on those proposals? As he is saying that legislation will be presented to the House in the autumn, does that mean that we are not going to have a June election?
Mr. Clarke: I am confident that educational opinion will support me, and any consultations carried out by the hon. Gentleman would confirm that. I prefer to base my judgment on the educational interests of colleges, not the advice of the hon. Gentleman, who clung like a limpet to his little chairmanship and little power in that completely useless organisation the Greater London council. It was a big car and a big platform for making statements, but he had no powers or responsibilities. Quite a few other spheres of local government would do well if subjected to the sort of scrutiny that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said that he will give local government in the near future.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I can fairly confirm the attitude of one further education college to my right hon. and learned Friend. Recently, the principal and a majority of the governors of Kingston college of further education said that they thought they had been ill done by when Kingston polytechnic was allowed to become free-standing.
May I press my right hon. and learned Friend further on the subject of adult education? He will realise that much of it is conducted in the same buildings as further education. Will the whole or part of further education move out of local education authority control? What about accommodation?
Mr. Clarke: The colleges will continue to make provision for adult education, and the extent to which they do so has been encompassed by my announcements today. We will in due course address the detail, which will certainly include the funding arrangements for that essential part of adult education, preparing young people for their careers. I agree that it forms an important part of our proposals; we shall give more details in the White Paper.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the Secretary of State for Education and Science understand that these measures will be seen as accelerating the disintegration of the unitary system of education, which was introduced by a national Government and agreed to by all parties in the House in 1944? Will not it also mean that there will be three different types of institution competing for the education of 16 to 19-year-olds? What is the approximate proportion of local education authorities' current expenditure on education that the Secretary of State expects to be transferred by these measures? Do not the proposals mean that all existing sixth form colleges will achieve grant-maintained status by law? Were these proposals contained in the last Tory election manifesto?
Mr. Clarke: I will not debate the history with the hon. Gentleman, but the system of education that grew up did so rather by accident. The Education Act 1944 did not even impose a duty on local education authorities to provide schools. It was a matter of chance that they grew
446
up as they did. We reached the position where every school was under the detailed, day-to-day management of local authorities—some good, some not so good and some bad. My preferred method of management is one that distributes the money by a fair method and retains some ability to monitor standards, but puts the day-to-day responsibility firmly in the hands of the principal, head teacher or governing body——
Mr. Straw: That is there already.
Mr. Clarke: That is now being described as "fair" by the hon. Member for Blackburn, who has gone through one of the quickest conversions on policy for a long time.
As for the proportion of local government spending, £2 billion will be affected by my announcement today. Off the cuff, I believe that the total local government spending on education is about £17 billion. Those who have successfully reached the right standard according to the school curriculum will rapidly be able to work out what percentage that is.
Mr. Ian Taylor: When making this welcome statement my right hon. and learned Friend was right to ignore the advice of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), whose asset-stripping instincts were in keeping with the old activities of the Inner London education authority, which laid to waste academic standards throughout London.
The statement is particularly welcome to me. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that Esher sixth form college in my constituency was already considering applying for grant-maintained status, which shows that the system has been running longer than the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) suggested. That sixth form college was worried that it might have been alone, if it were one of the first and only ones to have applied for grant-maintained status. The proposals give a structure to post-16 education which is extremely welcome. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will now turn his attention to items such as inter-authority transfers, which sixth form colleges thought worked badly against them when attracting pupils from out of their areas.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's sixth form college will no longer be unique in its independence, but I am sure that it will be one of the best in the new sector. The problem of inter-authority transfers and their financing will disappear almost completely. The financing of the colleges will depend, first, on core funding, based on planning and judgments of quality by the funding council, then on their success in attracting young people from wherever in the surrounding area to come to good quality courses. That is a much better way of financing the expansion of colleges such as that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the Labour party's passionate defence of ILEA, that singularly useless and unlamented education body that used to control London. The only Labour education policy is the defence of bureaucracy and the dead hand of local government on the day-to-day management of schools.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Secretary of State answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about whether the proposals were contained in

447
the Tory party manifesto at the last election? The Secretary of State has no mandate for what he is doing here today. There is something sinister about a Government who take power away from people in local democracy and put it under the Government's jackboot. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I think that the Secretary of State is like Mussolini, who was Hitler with a beer belly.
Mr. Clarke: I look forward to the next Labour party manifesto to see whether it contains a commitment to hand back polytechnics and colleges of higher and further education to local government control. If such a promise appears in the next Labour party manifesto, I promise the hon. Gentleman that he will face deputation after deputation of lecturers and pupils demanding that the policy should not be carried out. It is symptomatic of the way in which many of the left-wingers with whom I have to deal in local education authorities behave. When their arguments fail, they resort to personal abuse, a level to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has finally sunk.
Mr. Ian Bruce: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend about administrators and advisers who exist within the education departments of county councils? How will he ease the passage of reducing their numbers, which must clearly be done if their responsibility is taken away? After the removal of polytechnics from the control of education authorities, how many advisers and administrators were saved? That is a serious question and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will answer it. I know that Dorset county council already has some worries about losing various schools that want to opt out and reducing the burden of those administrators. Nothing will be saved unless those administrators move elsewhere or sell their services, thus taking the burden of expense away from the local taxpayer.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The changes that we have made, and the steady change to enabling authorities, gives local authorities the opportunity greatly to reduce their central staff, thereby reducing the burden on the community charge payer. I cannot give an off-the-cuff answer on Dorset, but the numbers of advisers should be reduced as a result of the decision that I have announced. Local education authorities are large enough to redeploy those people as they move from those duties. Far too many local authorities do not adequately reduce their central administration, even when they lose responsibilities. I shall not comment on Dorset—it is far away—but my local authority shows signs of having grown like Topsy for many years. Nottinghamshire combines extravagance and sometimes incompetence with poor supervision of its education services.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the most important element of his statement is the acknowledgement that after 12 years of this Government we still lag behind other countries in education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds? Does not that show the Government's failure in providing for our young people?
448
Does the Secretary of State recognise that his statement will cause much anxiety among schools that have sixth forms? How will he use what he called his "additional powers" to protect and secure the future of sixth forms?
What is likely to happen to free-standing adult education centres? The Secretary of State did not refer to adult education centres in his statement, but in response to a question he said that they will be included under the funding council. Is that the intention, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman mistaken or must he obtain that information from the Minister of State? If so, will he give it to the House?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that adult education, which is important to thousands of people, will be put at risk by the statement and by the Government's approach to funding?
All hon. Members recognise the need for a statement on an integrated approach to the education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds. It would have had more credence if the Secretary of State had made that statement first and the institutional reforms had flowed from it, but the education arguments are to be advanced second and the institutional arguments to be made first. That is final confirmation and evidence that the statement is not about education but about the chaos that has been created by the poll tax.
Mr. Clarke: The proportion of our young people in higher and further education is increasing dramatically. I agree that we are behind many of our competitors, but we are catching them fast and making up for past deficiencies in the service. The number of students in polytechnics and higher education colleges is 54 per cent. higher—more than half as many again as when the Government took office.
I expressed the importance that I attach to keeping good sixth forms and to giving parents the choice of a good sixth form where possible. My existing powers will enable me to protect sixth forms because any proposal to open or close one will continue to need my consent and because we can bear in mind the needs of sixth forms when constructing the standard spending assessments in the equalisation measures necessary to distribute grants to local authorities. We can thereby consider the weighting to be given to post-16 pupils.
I did not say that adult education colleges—free-standing institutions that deliver solely adult education—would be covered by my statement, but that the adult education responsibilities of an FE college would be considered. The details of the provision for adult education were addressed in the White Paper, and nothing that I have announced will diminish the opportunities for adult education.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) came near to welcoming the proposal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and myself for a comprehensive statement of policy on 16 to 19-year-olds. He is quite wrong in believing that my announcement today is inconsistent with such a statement. As I keep pointing out to him and to the hon. Member for Blackburn, they are obsessed with the structures. It is extraordinary that they are most shocked by the idea that colleges should be taken away from their friends in local government. The people about whom we are all concerned will benefit from our giving colleges the independence that I have announced today.

Local Government Review (Wales)
6.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on local government in Wales.
The Government have already explained to the House our new arrangements for further reductions in community charges. The people of Wales will be delighted to know that, although average charges in Wales were substantially lower than elsewhere in Britain, I have been able to secure exactly the same reductions as those offered to English and Scottish charge payers: Welsh charging authorities will reduce all charges by £140, and Wales will receive £300 million in additional resources.
The remarkable consequence is that, taken with my announcement last January on the community charge reduction scheme, the average charge in Wales before the award of community charge benefit will be £95. As nearly £1,170 per charge payer will be spent by Welsh local authorities in the forthcoming year, it is an astonishing good deal for Wales.
We abolished domestic rates and we intend, from the earliest possible moment, to abolish the community charge and replace it with a new local tax that will be linked to two essential elements of a household—the number of adults, and the value of the property. I propose to consult in Wales on the basis of that proposal. I should make it absolutely clear that I am prepared to consider a system whereby the balance between the two elements—the property element and the element attributed to residents—may be different in Wales from that elsewhere. That balance, and other matters, will be the subject of consultation. I look forward to receiving the views of hon. Members, among others, and I very much hope that the Opposition can be persuaded to make a constructive contribution to the debate.
I have received representations from Opposition Members and from the local authority associations that we should move towards a system of unitary authorities in Wales. I can see some advantages in such a structure, but before I could commend any new system to the House I would need to be satisfied that whatever is proposed represents the best deal possible for the people of Wales.
In reaching conclusions on that matter, I must pay particular regard to the views of the local authority associations. Both associations have pressed on me the case for unitary authorities, but as yet there is no agreement between them on the appropriate size or number of authorities. I have suggested that they should seek to establish common ground on the future structure of Welsh local government. I am therefore pleased to hear that they will meet on 5 April to consider that further, and I have informed the chairman of each association that I shall not reach final decisions until I have had the benefit of further discussions with them following that meeting.
I should, however, like to make two further points. First, community councils play an important role, especially in rural areas, and I shall need to consider the merits of any proposals for change. Secondly, I shall consult on how the decision-making process of local authorities can be improved. I shall try to build on the excellent work that Welsh authorities are undertaking with the efficiency initiative.
450
We must look at the problems of finance, functions and structure together. No institution, even one as important as local government, can remain unchanged for ever. I shall consider whether the present range of local government functions is appropriate and what should be the balance between central and local responsibility.
In that context, I can tell the House that I intend that the further education and sixth form colleges in Wales should become independent from their local authorities from 1 April 1993. The legislation which we will introduce for Parliament's approval will provide for the colleges to become independent corporations, owning their own assets and employing their own staff.
The colleges play a vital role in producing the well-educated and well-trained labour force which Wales needs. They will work closely with the training and enterprise councils. The colleges could, however, increase their contribution still further by recruiting more young people to their courses. The proposals which will be set out in the White Paper to be published shortly will give further details of how that can be achieved.
I intend establishing a Wales funding council through which the colleges will be funded. The council will be appointed by, and be responsible to, me. It is my intention that the land, buildings and plant currently used by the colleges should be vested in them on incorporation. The arrangements which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has said will be included in the legislation requiring local authorities to obtain specific consent for the disposal of assets currently used by the colleges will apply to local authorities in Wales; so too will the measure he referred to preventing local authorities from entering into contracts which bind the colleges beyond 1 April 1993. As in England, these measures will be effective in Wales from midnight tonight, subject to Parliament's approval of the legislation.
Further details of these measures are in the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science placed in the Official Report today. My Department will write to all local education authorities in Wales to explain how those measures will be applied.
It is now in the interests of the whole of Wales that we create a lasting framework for local government to provide high-quality services effectively and efficiently. That is a goal to which we can all aspire.
Mr. Barry Jones: The Prime Minister said on Tuesday that we would get the details today, but the outcome of the Government's four-month review is a statement of dithering, delay and indecision. We still have no details or answers. Today's statement simply leaves Wales with many questions. How will the new system work? Will it be fair? How much will it cost? Will it improve local accountability? Will it improve local democracy? Will it improve the standard of local services? People in Wales do not just want a reduction in their bills; they want the poll tax to end. The statement will not give them that. In effect, the poll tax lives on.
Does the Secretary of State remember criticising the Labour party at the Conservative party's annual conference when, referring to the Labour party, he said:
"The party that loves tax wants two taxes to replace one, a twin tax torture for local people and a double disaster for responsible spending"?

451
Does not the statement in some respects show that the right hon. Gentleman has gone for a triple tax torture—a property tax, a 2·5 per cent. VAT increase and a poll tax? Again, the poll tax remains for the people of Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman boasts of the huge sums of money which he is throwing at the problem of the poll tax, but are not the Government bribing the people of Wales with their own VAT money? Is it not incredible to hear the right hon. Gentleman seeking plaudits for lessening the poll tax pain when he himself approved that hated tax? Did he not gain promotion to Cabinet by his devoted service to the poll tax? Never before in the history of local government in Wales has a Minister presided over such chaos.
Swansea city council has sent out 145,000 poll tax demands; Ceredigion council has filled its vaults with tens of thousands of printed, and now useless, demands; and our capital city of Cardiff has sent out its poll tax demands. This shambles invites nothing but contempt from the dedicated professionals in the Welsh local authorities, and the Secretary of State must carry responsibility for this chaos. I know of no Welsh Office Minister who has presided over such a humiliation. Is not an apology owed to the people and councils of Wales? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give that apology here and now.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned structure and functions. He proposed consultation with local authority associations. That will create bitterness. I issue the right hon. Gentleman a warning: do not tamper carelessly with our education service. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that parents and teachers are weary of the upheavals and constant ideological changes? His proposal to make sixth form colleges independent of their LEAs is lamentable.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Opposition parties and consultation. The Labour party is interested in co-operation, but on the basis of ruling out the poll tax now and ruling in an efficient system of property tax, charged according to the ability to pay. The right hon. Gentleman's statement does not change the position one jot. Does he truly believe in consultation? For example, did he consult with the LEAs on sixth form colleges, or is it a diktat?
The statement represents the final act of a Government gripped by poll tax panic, ready to throw local government into chaos in one last desperate bid to save their political skin. It will not work and it will not wash. To use the Prime Minister's phrase, it is a "bogus sham".
Mr. Hunt: I wish to move swiftly to answer seven points. First, there is a paradox in what the hon. Gentleman said. On the one hand, he accused me of delay and, on the other, he said that I acted too speedily and was arrogant. If he will reflect, he will see that the people guilty of delay are on the Labour Benches—they are still failing to publish details of their proposals.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that we now have two taxes to replace one. He quoted what I said. I was referring to the marvellous document "Local Services, Local Choices, Local Tax: Labour's approach to the Poll Tax". That document states:
"A combination of a reformed property tax and a local income tax would bring equity, flexibility, accountability and stability to local government finance."
The document is dated September 1988. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wrote that, but he is just the sort of person to whom I am referring.
Mr. Barry Jones: Fair rates?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman now refers to the Labour party's fair rates document. That document, entitled "Fair Rates: Labour's Alternative to the Poll Tax", is one of 67 different documents and statements from the Labour party that I have had the privilege of seeing in the past few years. It says:
"The existing rates registers will provide a quick and convenient means of getting rid of the poll tax."
Fine. So what does the Labour party think about rates? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer all the questions, but I want the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to reflect on this. A news release issued by the Labour party's press and publicity department has fallen into my hands. On Saturday 20 September 1980, Neil Kinnock spoke at Pontllanfraith, Gwent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The news release says—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer the points but Opposition Members should not try to drown my remarks. They should listen to the words of their leader.
Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon you intervened when a Scottish National Member used the word "Thatcher", and insisted that the proper nomenclature be used. But you have now ignored a similar instance. I ask you to rule on it.
Mr. Speaker: If I did that, I was in error. I must have been thinking of something else. The Secretary of State must refer to the right hon. Gentleman by constituency.
Mr. Hunt: Despite his delaying tactics, I ask the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) to listen to what was said by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for increases in
"the most unjust of all taxes".
What tax does the right hon. Gentleman describe as the most unjust of all—"Local rates", the very system that the Labour party proposes to use,
"which take most from those who can afford least."
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will eat his words. [Interruption.] Opposition Members ought to listen. The Leader of the Opposition will either have to eat his words or come up with yet another policy.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, describing my proposals, which are one tax, accused me of bribery. I apologise here and now for the record amount of extra money that I have won for Wales in the resources that I am able to announce to the House.
The hon. Gentleman's fourth point was that I had created chaos because of the present billing procedures. After ringing round all the authorities, we have discovered that only 13 of the 37 charging authorities in Wales have started billing. I make it absolutely clear here and now that the Government will provide any additional costs that our announcement has necessitated, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join forces with the Government in pushing through legislation as quickly as possible to bring about a reduction of £140.
The hon. Gentleman then said that independence for further education colleges was a lamentable proposition.
Mr. Barry Jones: Sixth form colleges.
Mr. Hunt: For further education and sixth form colleges.
Mr. Jones rose——
Mr. Hunt: No; I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question. If the hon. Gentleman's question related to sixth form colleges, I am quite happy to assure him——
Mr. Jones: Consultation?
Mr. Hunt: I shall come to consultation in a moment, but I want to answer one question at a time. Sixth form colleges and further education establishments will welcome what I have said.
We have not consulted on the proposals yet because it was right that I should come to the House to announce them first. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside has been in Neath this week—I am not sure why. He will hear rejoicing in Neath that Neath college now has independence. If he looks at the proposals in the round, I am sure that he will realise that there is general acceptance. I only wish that he had not missed the opportunity to consult me.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I never thought that I would live to see the day when the Labour party would complain about the sums of money being made available to ease the plight of the people of Wales. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour party is now totally alone, sulking in the corner? My right hon. Friend will understand if I express a certain quiet satisfaction at today's events. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Wales know that they have a Secretary of State who has fought valiantly to obtain for them—against all expectations—as large a reduction in poll tax as the poll tax payers in England have had, even though they started from a much higher base? They are extremely impressed with the flexibility and sensitivity to Welsh susceptibilities that my right hon. Friend has displayed in his consultation process and in his approach to the problem generally.
Mr. Hunt: I much appreciate my hon. Friend's generous remarks. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside and a Labour Government would have succeeded in ensuring that 92 per cent. of local authority spending was met by aggregate external finance.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I thank the Secretary of State for meeting my hon. Friends and me in consultation some days ago. I warmly welcome the commitment to unitary authorities, which will benefit Wales, and also the decision to consult on how that should be achieved. I also urge the Secretary of State to give community councils in Wales more responsibility. They should be obliged to take those responsibilities and should not be allowed to opt out of doing so, because they have a considerable contribution to make.
Will the Secretary of State explain to a puzzled Welsh population why he—the person who, just over a year ago, described the poll tax as being central to the vision behind which all Conservatives could unite—has now changed his mind? Could it be that he stopped at Ribble Valley for a cup of tea on his way to Damascus? In particular, will he explain why he rejected the notion of a local income tax, which all those Welsh Members who took the trouble to meet him were united in recommending?
Will the Secretary of State join me in praising Powys county council for its considerable success in creating
454
Coleg Powys, which is an excellent college of further education, and will he assure us that that institution will continue—albeit perhaps under other governance?
Finally, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will do his best to preserve the good sixth forms and comprehensive schools that exist in rural Wales?
Mr. Hunt: I appreciate the comments of the hon. and learned Member about consultation. The Labour party ought to reconsider its inflexible stance and stop hurling party political invective and insults. The people of Wales do not understand why the Labour party is the only political party in Wales that refuses to discuss its proposals with me. I believe that that is because those proposals will not stand the test of cross-examination. I promise the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that, if he wants to avoid cross-examination, I am quite prepared to listen to him, without interrupting or asking fundamental questions. I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman anywhere in Wales. I would merely ask him not to continue to impose new preconditions on consultation, but to get round the table with the rest of us to work out a solution that will endure for generations to come.
I confirm that Coleg Powys will be given independence under my announcement, and the move will be widely welcomed among the other 30 further education establishments.
I recognise the importance of the community councils, and find myself in agreement with all but three of the propositions voiced by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Keith Raffan: I join in the congratulations that have been offered to my right hon. Friend on achieving the same reduction in the community charge for Wales as for England. Will he take this a step further and adopt England's community charge reduction scheme, which is much fairer and will remove such absurd anomalies as have occurred as betwen Rhyl and Prestatyn? Is he aware that the only time the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs—with Members of all four political parties—ever broke into unanimous applause was when a witness passionately put forward the case for unitary authorities? Is he aware that there will be wide support for the policy of moving towards unitary local government in Wales? Thank God the word "devolved" was used by a Government Front-Bench Member today. Will he consider the need for a tier of government covering the whole of Wales? In my view, that should be a Welsh assembly or senate.
Mr. Hunt: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments, I realise that he has very strong views about transitional relief and about the community charge reduction scheme. He has made those views very clear to me in private and in this Chamber. The reduction of £140 applies to every community charge payer in Wales. That will mean a drop of 55 per cent. in community charge bills, whereas in England the figure is 35 per cent.
My hon. Friend raised the question of a Welsh assembly. The local authorities association and others have pressed upon me the case for such an assembly to perform executive functions in the Principality. I have not reached a final decision on this question, but I have to say that the suggestions that have been put to me pose very considerable problems, not least because of the uncertainties and ambiguities about the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State and of the

455
assembly and about the powers of the assembly. I am not at present persuaded that the creation of an assembly along these lines would be in the best interests of the people of Wales.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that it was a Conservative Government who reorganised local government in 1972, causing administrative chaos? In financial terms, it just about broke the Bank of England. What the right hon. Gentleman has said today suggests that the Government intend to try to repeat that exercise. Why does not he realise that the Conservative party is unrepresentative of the people of Wales? To realise how unrepresentative, he has only to look behind him. Does not he think that it would be better to leave it to a future Labour Government to make these difficult decisions? The Labour party truly represents the people of Wales, as is shown time after time in general elections.
Mr. Hunt: I am just not prepared to wait that long. The big issue in the next election will be whether Wales wishes to go forward under the progressive policies of our Prime Minister, or to go back to the failed and discredited Labour policies of the 1960s and the 1970s.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) was called on the last two statements, I shall give him a chance to recharge his batteries. He need not rise until towards the end.
Mr. Ray Powell: The Secretary of State referred to remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). I should like to refer to a remark of the Secretary of State. Replying for the Government on a debate on local government finance on 25 July 1989, he referred to the Opposition's amendment to the motion:
"It says that the community charge is unfair, bureaucratic and difficult to collect."—[Official Report, 25 July 1989; Vol. 157, c. 901.]
We all know that the right hon. Gentleman is a "Heseltini". In his statement this afternoon, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that we must alter the system so that it will be possible to collect the tax without difficulty. The Secretary of State would be wise to reread what he said and, perhaps, make a further statement. The poll tax payers in the Garw valley are jubilant because they will not have to pay anything if they get a rebate of £140. The poll tax figure there is £137, so they wonder whether they will get a refund of £3. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Powell: This is a very complex problem, and some hon. Members have sat here for three hours.
Yesterday, as a resident of Westminster, I received a poll tax bill for £350. I pay double poll tax—twice £175. When I phoned the council to find out whether I would get a double rebate, I was told, "I very much doubt it, but, if so, you will owe us only £70. In view of the fact that collection costs £68, it might be better if you didn't pay any poll tax at all."
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman's comments would have been more appropriate following a
456
statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The statement with which we are now dealing relates to Wales.
Mr. Powell: You did not call me, Mr. Speaker, to put a question on the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I understand that to be because a statement on the situation in Wales was to follow almost immediately.
Mr. Speaker: I would have called the hon. Member to ask a question relating to Westminster.
Mr. Powell: As I live in both places, I ought to have been called on both occasions.
Despite all the support that the Secretary of State for Wales has given to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the poll tax is in a mess. He is doing all he can to get Tarzan out of the jungle, but can he get the jungle out of Tarzan? That is what we want to know.
Mr. Hunt: Now we know why the Labour party is in such chaos over these proposals. The comment that I repeated was made not only by the leader of the party. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who is the party's spokesman on local government, said of a local income tax:
"I have been an advocate of this as an addition to—not a replacement for—the rating system for a long time."
Those words are from the 16th of the 66 statements. No wonder we do not know what the Labour party stands for. The hon. Gentleman is fortunate not only to have more than one home but also to be able to expect a double dose of £140 in Westminster. The £140 comes off the community charge headline figure, not only in Wales but also in England.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Garw valley. Let me tell him that a lady from that area contacted my office and said, "Mr. Hunt, we all want you to come to the Garw valley and increase your popularity by distributing the money yourself." Sadly, there will be no refund, but people in the Garw valley will pay no community charge.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the very great welcome that we give to the ending of the poll tax? It is an iniquitous tax, and the people of Wales have wanted to see the end of it. However, we should have much preferred to see it replaced by a local income tax, and we have some doubts about the practicality of a head count in each household.
Will the Secretary of State, in the light of what has been said by the Secretary of State for the Environment, confirm that the local government commission for England that has been announced will have nothing to do with the situation in Wales? We in Wales have a tradition of doing these things ourselves. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to set up a local government commission for Wales? He is considering the establishment of unitary authorities. This is something that appears to unite all four parties in Wales. Comments made by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) a few moments ago suggest that there may be room for consensus also on the creation of an elected upon tier of democracy in Wales. If the Secretary of State were able to get representatives of the four parties together at this level, he would be doing a tremendous service for the people of Wales.
Mr. Hunt: Those who argue for a local income tax have not thought through the implications of what they

457
propose. I am not persuaded that it is administratively feasible. It does not accord with the fundamental principle that almost everyone should pay towards the cost of local services, and it is contrary to the Government's commitment to keep taxes on income to the lowest possible level. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I carefully thought through all the arguments that he put to me.
As for the commission, I agree with him that it is important for us to do these things ourselves in Wales. I was not proposing to set up a commission. But, of course, I am happy to listen to representations from those who think that we should. I adhere to the view that we do these things much better ourselves in Wales.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the inclusion of the poll tax in the 1987 Tory party manifesto was a mistake? Does he further agree that, when Ministers and hon. Members go abroad, they should preach the gospel wherever they go to the effect that any Government who introduce a poll tax do so at their peril?
Mr. Hunt: I believe that it was right to get rid of domestic rates, and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it was the most unjust of taxes. I also believe today that it would be wrong to continue with the community charge, and I have made that clear from the Dispatch Box. I intend to abolish it at the earliest opportunity. I understand that Gorseinon college is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that he will rejoicce with all at that college being independent, and that is a result of my decision today.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: If the Secretary of State had a little more integrity, he would have said, in making his statement, that he had made a modest contribution to the turmoil in which Welsh finance has found itself in the past two years as the result of imposing a totally unpopular and unfair tax. If, according to the right hon. Gentleman, he has an open mind on the major issues with which we are now concerned, will he now state that if it emerges from the consultations that there is a justifiable demand for a Welsh assembly, above the unitary authorities, neither he nor the minority group in the Tory party who represent Wales will stand in the way of that demand?
Mr. Hunt: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to rewrite history. It is within my recollection—I was in the House at the time—that in 1979 there was a referendum on the question of an assembly in Wales. By a four to one majority, the people of Wales voted against it. We must be careful before we ignore that decision.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: When replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), the Secretary of State said he thought that the community charge had been a mistake. Will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise to the people of Wales for the leading part that he played in formulating that piece of legislation? Will he in particular apologise to the many hundreds of thousands of people in Wales who suffered severe hardship as a result of the introduction of the poll tax?
Mr. Hunt: The operation of the community charge has been remarkably successful in Wales compared with the
458
situation in England. Just before coming into the Chamber I was given figures showing that local authorities in Wales have now collected more than 95 per cent. of the money due under the community charge. I readily admit, and said so to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), that just as I believe it was right to abolish the rates, so I believe it is now right to abolish the community charge.
Mr. Win Griffiths: It was apparent from the Secretary of State's announcement that, beyond saying that there would be a property tax with a poll tax element of some sort, he had little idea of precisely what we would end up with. In that connection, several questions must be answered. For example, will all houses in Wales be revalued? If they are revalued for the purpose of the new tax, will all house owners and tenants have the right to appeal against the new valuations?
Problems are likely to arise over the definition of "adult" in a household. The allowance for the number of people in a household may be as little as 1 per cent. Whatever the percentage, will any weighting be allowed for each adult, depending on whether they are or are not earning money? In other words, will there be a zero rating in that situation? Many other questions will have to be answered, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer those at this stage.
Finally—[Interruption.] We also had a statement on further education. Bearing in mind the ballot decision for schools, will there be a ballot in sixth form colleges, and will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the situation in Coleg Powys——
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Griffiths: I do not know whether the Secretary of State realises that Coleg Powys is on the same site as Brecon high school. How will the boundaries be defined for the purpose of this public limited company?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is a walking example of the fact that the Labour party should now rethink its whole approach to local government and come in and engage in the consultation process. Some of the questions that he asks are precisely those on which I shall now be consulting.
From the Labour party document on rates, it is clear that Labour Members have already decided that they will use the existing rates registers and will rely on them
"for as long as is needed to undertake a complete revaluation."
In other words, Opposition Members are committed. I want them to back away from that commitment and to come in and discuss matters on the basis that I have announced this afternoon.
Mr. Donald Anderson: It is astonishing that the Secretary of State has not thought fit to apologise. He is claiming an alibi, though his fingerprints have been all over the poll tax from the start. Will someone in central Government, notably in the Cabinet, be surcharged for the cost to Swansea city council this week of sending out 140,000 poll tax bills? Someone is responsible for that and someone will have to pay. Will it be the taxpayer?
The new two-tier tax will require a head count. Will it involve a register analogous to that of the poll tax? Will that not involve the same sort of administrative costs and burdens as the poll tax? In Landore ward in my constituency, £7·40 will be the total charge for those with

459
full exemption under the poll tax system. It costs Swansea city council £11 to collect that sum. What is the Secretary of State's advice to that city council—to collect or not to collect that £7·40?
Mr. Hunt: Against a background where Wales—I pay tribute to the local authority officials involved—has achieved more or less the same collection rate as was achieved under the old rating system, I see no need to apologise. Indeed, there is need to praise local authorities in Wales for having achieved such a commendable result.
The question of collection is for the local council, and the hon. Member for Ogwr—[Interruption.] The hon. Member who represents Ogwr, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), will know the situation in Westminster, where apparently it is not thought to be worth collecting. The question of collection is for each individual council.
On the totality of what has been said, I wonder what the Labour party is so scared of. What is it so worried about that it will not follow the example of the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Liberal Democrats? Are the Labour Members scared because they have not thought through their proposals and do not know the figures, and are not prepared, therefore, to put them on the table? They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Dr. John Marek: If the Secretary of State accepts my charitable assumption that the education changes that he has announced have more to do with education than with the survival of the Conservative party at the next general election, can he spell out what is wrong in his eyes with the present governance of the north-east Wales institute and its links with Clwyd county council? He must know that the county council was to spend £11 million on tertiary reorganisation. Who will provide that money now?
Mr. Hunt: I made it absolutely clear that approximately £100 million is being spent in Wales on tertiary education. It is my intention to have the same amount of resources available for further education colleges and sixth form colleges. There are no problems on resources. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who talks to me positively and constructively about problems in his area, should say to his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), "Go arid see the Welsh Secretary, just as all the others have done. Sit down and talk through the problem with him." The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside cannot duck the issue of consultation any longer.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I listened carefully to the statement and to the questions. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling a Welsh-born Member who represents the English taxpayer. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend, on the one hand, is saying that he is pleased to get rid of the community charge and, on the other, is making an enormous reduction in the bills. Will he be able to justify to the people of Wales doing away with a taxation system that would charge only £95 to someone in full work who could probably pay a great deal more? What will he put in its place? Because it is fair that
460
people in England should pay a particular percentage, should not exactly the same conditions apply in Wales in regard to the money given from central taxation?
Mr. Hunt: I did make an apology before; the apology was for securing what has been described to me by some local authority leaders as an astonishingly excessive amount of Government support for local authority services in Wales. I plead guilty, but I will never stop fighting for the best possible deal for Wales. If it means that community charges in Wales come down by 55 per cent. whereas in England they come down by 35 per cent., I plead guilty, and I apologise to the House for winning too much money for Wales.
I see no reason why the introduction of a new system should lead to a reduction in resources for Wales. It did not do so when we introduced the community charge, and it should not if we decide to introduce a new system. The real question is, would the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside win as much for Wales in a Labour Cabinet as I have done in a Conservative Cabinet?
Mr. Barry Jones: May I again invite the right hon. Gentleman to apologise to the people of Wales for his role in imposing the poll tax upon them? Does he agree that he was guilty of a monumental error of judgment for which he must apologise to the people of Wales?
Mr. Hunt: I do not accept that. I said before, and I say again, that I believe that it was right to abolish the most unjust of all taxes—the domestic rating system—and I believe that it is right now to abolish the comunity charge. The hon. Gentleman cannot keep ducking the issue——
Mr. Jones rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. No interventions on an answer.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is shouting at me. He should come into my office——
Mr. Jones rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hunt: He should come into my office and sit down, in the same way as Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have sat down. Why is he running scared?
Mr. Jones rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have interventions in the middle of an answer.
Mr. Hunt: I shall speak to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside again when he provides an explanation of why he has come to the Chamber and yet at the same time is running scared.
Mr. Jones rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the Secretary of State finished?
Mr. Hunt indicated assent.

Local Government Review (Scotland)
7.10 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's community charge review as it affects Scotland.
These are our preliminary conclusions on local government finance, functions and structure, on which we will now have further and detailed consultation.
A vitally important part of our conclusions is the step change in central Government funding for local authorities announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on Tuesday. That is a major shift in the balance between central and local funding of local authority expenditure, and it recognises that the burden of local authority services has borne too heavily on the local tax base, not least because of the failure of local authorities to keep their spending at levels which it is reasonable to ask local taxpayers to support. For example, in the first year of the community charge, Scottish local authorities increased their budgets in real terms by 5 per cent. and, for the coming year, they have increased charge levels by an average of 30 per cent., despite a generous grant settlement. The Government have now tackled that aspect of the problem head on, by reducing local tax bills substantially.
We have nevertheless considered how best the reduced tax bill should be met, in a way which is fair, which is easy to administer, which spreads the burden as widely as possible, and which enables councils to remain accountable to their electors. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced, we now propose to replace the community charge with a new local tax which will have elements based both on the value of the house and on the number of persons living there. We will be issuing a consultation paper on the new tax soon.
The details of the new tax and the options for the personal and property elements, and the relationship between them, will be set out in the consultation paper. For Scotland, that will take account of distinctive Scottish circumstances. I can reassure the House, however, that the new tax will not suffer from the defects of the old domestic rating system. Most obviously, it will take account of the number of people in the household. People will also, rightly, expect us to ensure that disproportionate tax burdens are not placed on a small minority of households and that there are no large fluctuations following periodic revaluations. There will also need to be effective transitional arrangements when the new tax is introduced, which we plan to be in 1993–94 if possible, in Scotland as in England.
We will also ensure—if need be through rigorous capping of local authorities' expenditure plans—that the now reduced burden which local taxpayers will face is not increased once again to unacceptable levels by local authorities' spending decisions.
There is no change to the Government's policy on non-domestic rates, where we retain our aim of harmonising rates in Scotland with those in the rest of Great Britain.
It does not, however, make sense to look at the financing of local government in isolation from the functions which it discharges, and the burden thereby
462
placed on the local tax base. I shall be giving further consideration to the allocation of functions as between central and local government, and consulting on possible changes.
I have, however, already reached a view on the position of Scottish further education colleges, which have a vital role in meeting the skill requirement of industry and commerce. We wish to strengthen their ability to perform that role. Many local authorities have run further education colleges with commitment and skill, but we are entering a new era, both in local government and in vocational education and training. Following recent legislation, colleges now have increased management powers exercised by college councils, with a stronger employer representation; but I should like to see them have the appropriate degree of freedom to respond more fully to the demands of students and the labour market. I believe that, alongside the establishment of local enterprise companies in Scotland from 1 April, this would help to promote the development of a modern, skilled work force.
The Government propose, therefore, to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to take all further education colleges in Scotland out of local authority management. I intend to vest the colleges, which I propose should be free-standing corporate bodies, with the land, buildings and equipment which they currently use. From 1 April 1993, the colleges will be funded by the Government. I intend to give staff the right of transfer of employment to the Government-funded colleges. Over £200 million is spent by local authorities on further education in Scotland. These resources will become central spending, with the corresponding reduction in grant to local authorities.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already highlighted the importance, prior to 1 April 1993, of ensuring that the work of the colleges, their staff and students continues undisturbed. Therefore, I also propose to seek Parliament's approval to a number of measures similar to those already announced by my right hon. and learned Friend to have effect from midnight tonight in the forthcoming legislation in order to achieve this. I am placing further details of these measures in the Official Report.
My Department will be writing to all education authorities to explain how these measures will be applied. Details of our proposals will be published in due course.
It naturally flows from the consideration of funding and functions of local authorities, that we need to consider also the best structure for local government in Scotland. The present two-tier system has some advantages, but it also has some clear disadvantages. It blurs lines of accountability and it can lead to duplication, conflict and delay. It is often perceived as unnecessarily bureaucratic and remote from local needs.
The traditional role of local government is changing from provider to enabler. The structure must keep abreast of that change. I believe that we should now prepare to move to single-tier local authorities throughout Scotland. This will strengthen local accountability, and I believe that it will deliver local services more effectively. This is an important step to take and I envisage widespread consultation before proceeding to final decisions. I therefore propose to publish a consultative paper, setting out options for a new single-tier structure and seeking

463
views on possible functional changes and on options for improving the management and efficiency of local government in Scotland.
Since we announced our decision to review local government finance last December it has become clear that there is widespread demand for further change. The proposals that I have put forward today are, in the Government's view, a coherent and inter-related response affecting the funding, functions and structure of local government. They offer a basis for informed consultation and then durable change which, I hope, will command widespread support. I commend them to the House.
Details of the measures are as follows:
The Government propose to introduce legislation this autumn by means of which, from April 1993, all further education colleges in Scotland, under the management of an education authority offering full-time education will be taken out of local authority control and will be funded by the Government. My Department will be writing to all education authorities to explain how these measures will be applied. Details will be published in due course.
Institutions in the new sector will be free-standing corporate bodies, and will be vested with the land, buildings and equipment which are currently used by them. It is important that, prior to April 1993, the work of the colleges, their staff and students continues undisturbed. I intend, therefore, to seek Parliament's approval to legislation which requires the specific consent of the Secretary of State for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of the colleges. This will also apply to disposals or removal of equipment.
The disposals of land or interests in land requiring the consent of the Secretary of State will include outright sale, feuing, granting or otherwise disposing of any leasehold or other interest in land, direct sale and leaseback, and any arrangement designed to raise capital on the security of the land. It will also include any disposal which is made in return for the supply of goods or services. In referring to disposals I include entering into any binding obligation to make a disposal of the kind in question.
I am also concerned that, in the interim period before the establishment of the new sector, local authorities should not enter into contracts which bind the colleges beyond 1 April 1993 when they begin to manage their own affairs. Such contracts should be entered into only with the specific consent of the college councils of the colleges affected. Contracts for a consideration having a value in excess of £50,000 will in addition require the consent of the Secretary of State. The forthcoming legislation will seek Parliament's approval to a measure having this purpose.
I shall also seek Parliament's approval for appropriate sanctions where property or equipment has been disposed of or removed or contracts entered into without obtaining consent in advance. In the case of the disposal of land or interests in land without the consent of the Secretary of State, there will be a power of compulsory purchase with a right of recovery from the local authority of any compensation payable. In the case of contracts, including contracts for disposal, entered into without the consent of the college council concerned or, where applicable, the consent of the Secretary of State, there will be a right of repudiation, and such repudiation will be deemed to be a repudiation by the relevant local authority, so that any liability in damages will remain with the relevant local authority.
I shall seek the approval of Parliament for these measures to have effect from midnight tonight. This statement does not affect enforceable obligations entered into before midnight tonight.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Given the right hon. Gentleman's known and oft-expressed views, this must be the greatest humiliation for a Scottish Secretary since the office was established. The Government are in disordered retreat. The poll tax, in their own words, is admitted as a monumental disaster. It has oppressed the
464
poor, divided the nation and created havoc. I am aware that many have been looking for apologies tonight, but I think that we in Scotland have a special case. The right hon. Gentleman should start with an apology to Scots for introducing the poll tax to Scotland a year before anywhere else, for defending the indefensible and for fighting to retain a poll tax element that Scotland does not want. The belated recognition that a property-based system—a rating system, in fact—makes sense means that the Secretary of State will have to spend the next two years denying everything that he has said in the past two years. Today's announcement is a massive vote of no confidence in his judgment.
We have been told that the poll tax is dead, but it is clear that a Tory vote at the next election means that people will be paying poll tax for at least another two years, and that even after April 1993 the one certain thing about the new measures is that there will still be a poll tax element in them. Does the Secretary of State accept that almost every Scot will see this as a desperate last throw by those in the Government who believe in getting the worst of every world?
The proposed package will mean delay, confusion and expense. It will mean chaos and misery because the system will simply be unable to cope with the Government's dithering and indecision. We know that the cost of shredding and reissuing bills in Scotland as a result of this week's Budget announcement will amount to £8 million. What will be the final price of this ill-thought-out, inconsistent dog's breakfast of a scheme? If so much had not been wasted by the Government, how many more teachers and home helps could be serving the community now?
The statement refers to a single bill for each household with two essential elements. Will the Secretary of State clarify one central point? Does this mean that there is a property tax and, added to it, a distinct charge based on the number of adults in the household? Or is it a case of the number of adults varying the property tax? To put it another way, is it two taxes added together in one bill, or a property tax varied by the number of adults in the house—a form of rebate on the property tax? If it is a distinct, separate tax based on the number of people in the house, will it be a flat rate charge? The Secretary of State must surely be able to answer those fundamental questions. If not, it will be demonstrated that he has no idea what he is proposing in practical terms.
Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the new system will not involve the administrative apparatus of the poll tax in any form? Will the poll tax register go for good? If the householder alone is liable for the single bill, is that not an admission—I hope that the Secretary of State will explain this—that the wrong-headed theory of accountability used to justify the poll tax has been totally abandoned?
Can the Secretary of State give a guarantee that the oppressive 20 per cent. rule will be abolished? Does he accept that it would be intolerable if that were to scar any new system?
The Secretary of State referred in his statement to periodic revaluations. That sounds a bit like a rating system to me. Can he say a little more about when we shall know the basis of that revaluation and what options are in the frame?
On structural reform, can the Secretary of State say when the consultative document will be issued? In his

465
desperation to solve his problems, I warn him against attempting to do so by destroying local democracy. Does he, for instance, believe it right that after the switch in expenditure announced by the Chancellor local government in Scotland will control only about 13 per cent. of its expenditure? Will he perhaps comment on what that is likely to do for the gearing effect which has caused such problems under the poll tax?
Will the Secretary of State note that the Labour party is prepared to look at one-tier, all-purpose authorities but as part of a planned drive to strengthen democratic control by introducing a Scottish Parliament? What we will not support is any reform programme which amounts to sending in the broker's men to dismantle local democracy. The end product must be a system which allows local communities to run their own affairs through accountable local representatives. The Secretary of State will get no support from Labour Members for moves which are designed further to centralise power in the Scottish Office.
On Tuesday the Prime Minister promised all the answers, but what we have is a reflection of the Government's confusion. There is a total lack of detail and of clarity. The Prime Minister told us last November that he had not a clue what to do about the poll tax. Today's announcements suggest that nothing has changed.
Mr. Lang: I think that I can take the questions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) as a qualified welcome for some of the proposals embodied in my statment.
The hon. Gentleman complained about the community charge being introduced a year earlier in Scotland than in England, but he forgets that we also abolished the domestic rates in Scotland a year earlier than in England. We are, of course, determined to allow no opportunity for the Labour party to reintroduce either its rates policy or its roof tax policy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the waste embodied in the change-over. Perhaps he should look at the spending budgets of local authorities this year, those who are planning a 10 per cent. increase when inflation is likely to fall to about 5 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the relationship between property and the personal element. We are consulting about that. I hope that the Labour party will overcome the natural shyness that has surrounded its proposals for funding local government and will offer to consult with us on that.
Further consideration is required on the 20 per cent. rule of the existing community charge. We shall look at that further in our own time.
We shall also be consulting on the basis of valuation and revaluation. Our purpose will be to ensure that under the new local tax local residents will not be open to the high charges that they faced under domestic rates and the community charge. The imposition of excessive burdens on individuals and small parts of the community will not be possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the consultation papers will be issued. The local tax paper will be issued soon after Easter and our consultation paper on the structure will be issued some time after that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect of gearing on the contribution by local residents. Clearly, it is
466
important to take account of the interests of local residents. If local authorities have been unwilling to respond sensibly to their accountability to local residents under the community charge system, we shall have to take account of the need for accountability to the United Kingdom taxpayer who is now funding a substantial proportion of local government spending.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for one-tier local authorities throughout Scotland, but it is absurd to reduce bureaucracy and tiers of government by abolishing one tier, only to reintroduce them in the form of a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers. That does not make sense. The hon. Gentleman should consider the package as a whole. For the first time, we are looking at the funding, function and structure of local government all at once. I believe that our answers will commend themselves to the people of Scotland.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am delighted at the Government's acceptance of some of the proposals contained in my paper? In particular, I commend the transfer to value added tax of a proportion of the community charge. The £140 reduction will be very welcome to the people in my constituency and throughout Scotland. I also welcome the proposals on education as the beginning of moves towards other measures proposed in my paper.
I welcome one-tier local authorities, which was also a proposal in my paper. I believe that it is essential that the authorities are close to the people. That is why I believe that they should be based on the districts. That is important. I welcome the opportunity for consultation because I believe that, thus far, the Government have shown that consultation means just that. If it did not, they would not have accepted so many of the measures contained in my paper.
We should now concentrate our energies and efforts on exposing the fraudulent individuals who have not paid their community charge and who are unfit to sit on local councils or in Parliament because they will not accept the law of the land.
Mr. Lang: I am delighted at my hon. Friend's delight. He is living testimony to the value of consultation. It is a pity that the Labour party does not have sufficient confidence in its proposals to enter into consultation with us.
My hon. Friend welcomed the increase in central Government funding which has enabled community charges to be reduced so substantially for next year. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that in Tayside region the community charge level will be down to £245 in Angus and £253 in Perth and Kinross. In Dundee city, however, under strong Labour control, the charge remains £295.
I note my hon. Friend's preference for districts as the basis for single-tier local authorities. That may be the best solution in some parts of Scotland. It may be individual districts or combinations of districts. However, that may not be appropriate throughout Scotland. In other areas it may be that the regions will form a better basis. The consultation process will give us an opportunity to hear views from all over Scotland on this important matter.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is it not a disgrace that Scotland, having suffered the injustice of this wicked tax being imposed upon it first, had to wait so long for a statement—the last statement today? Will the Secretary of

467
State accept that for the past two years he and his Government have been digging a hole for themselves into which, on Tuesday, the Chancellor threw £4·25 billion of taxpayers' money? Today the Secretary of State and the Government are digging again. They have replaced the most unpopular tax with two unpopular taxes—a combination of the rates and the poll tax. How will it be more efficient and simple to collect if it requires both a valuation of property and a head count? Will it not be more expensive to collect than either the rates or the poll tax?
We welcome the fact that the Government have taken on board almost all the recommendations that the Liberal Democrats put to them on the structure of local government. We believe that there should be single-tier local authorities and that they should be drawn up on the basis of the wishes of the local community and not imposed centrally or uniformly.
Will he acknowledge that the removal of further education colleges from local authorities is not justified in terms of administration? Which local authorities have failed to provide the necessary investment and support to the further education authorities upon which he is justifying this move?
Mr. Lang: I am not suggesting that any local authorities have failed to do that. I said that most local authorities had run their further education colleges with skill and commitment. However, we are making new arrangements and attaching new importance to vocational education and training and, given the changed role of further education colleges and the new college councils that we are setting up with a strong private sector component, it is appropriate to give them independence and fund them directly from the Scottish Office. That allows local authorities to concentrate more fully on providing services or enabling the services to he provided. That is their more important obligation.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for some of the elements of the statement. Again, it is testimony to the value of consultation. I valued the meeting that I had with the Liberal Democrats. I did not agree with them about a local income tax because it would be difficult to administer. Also, a burden of 8p or 9p in the pound on the basic rate of income tax would not be an acceptable burden in Scotland. However, I value the hon. Gentleman's support for the other measures.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we threw £4·25 billion of taxpayers' money at the problem. He forgets that that money is being raised from the taxpayer in the form of extra VAT. It is being raised in a way that is more widely spread and more certain of collection than has been the case with the community charge.
The new local tax will not be two taxes. It will be one tax bill with two components, the details of which have yet to be established. Again, I would welcome continuing consultation with the Liberal Democrats to establish how best that can be achieved.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Never in the course of human history has such abject failure been admitted with so little humility. The Secretary of State has demonstrated that he has learnt nothing from the poll tax disaster. Is he not simply producing the poll tax by another
468
name? The new system will have all the difficulties, penalties and failures that we have had to suffer for the past few years.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he is prepared to consult on relationships in local government. Is he aware that we in Scotland are concerned with only one consultation—a consultation with the electorate at a general election—when the Secretary of State, like the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and the poll tax, will be swept into the dustbin of history?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to defend some of the underlying principles of the poll tax, which achieved a valuable improvement in accountability and in the spread of the burden of local government. Of course there have been disadvantages. The changes to the register were far more substantial than we had expected, even on the basis of the most professional advice. The failure of some local authorities adequately to collect the charge added to our problems, as did the high spending levels of some local authorities.
We must ensure that the gains and the underlying principles of the community charge, which were broadly accepted, are not lost sight of. Those principles are being carried forward in the new arrangements—we are creating a broader tax base and greater accountability, and we have achieved a greater recognition by local residents that local services must be paid for. The cost of local services has risen substantially and we must find the fairest and most durable way of paying for them. In that context, it is sensible to consider function and structure as well as funding. That is what we are doing. We should welcome consultation with the Opposition on the details of our proposals.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether, under his proposals, joint and several liability will be ended? Can he say whether Scottish poll tax payers will get more than the £140 reduction in their bills because we have faced those bills for a year longer? If any of the changes are justified, surely more money must be forthcoming for Scottish poll tax payers.
Is not it a disgrace that further education should be swept up in the general debate? It is an issue of such major importance that it should be dealt with in a debate of its own. What are Scottish further education students who wish to learn crafts and pursue other such studies and their potential or real employers supposed to do if they are dissatisfied with the level of funding for or provision of courses, or with any other aspects? They could take their complaints to the local authority, but they will now have to take them to a Government who, by their actions over the past 12 years, have shown that they never listen and never understand.
Mr. Lang: I entirely agree about the importance of further education. If I were to make a separate statement about that, the House would be sitting all night. I am sure that the House will understand the desirability of making a statement on further education alongside other local government reforms as they are related. The Government attach great importance to further education, which is why we are making changes. In the new funding arrangements for further education colleges, there will be a basic budget

469
and another incentive budget related to the number of students that they attract. That will be of great value to further education.
The hon. Lady asked about joint and several liability. That will remain for the remaining period of the community charge. Any new arrangements will apply in the context of the new local tax.
Retrospection of the increased contribution from central Government relates to the level of community charge payments being asked of local residents in the coming year. It is our purpose that the money should go straight to them and not run the risk of being diverted into local government to end up in higher spending. Does the hon. Lady believe that the increase in VAT should also be retrospective?
Mrs. Irene Adams: Does the Minister agree that it is an affront to democracy that he should come to the House and say that he has half an hour to tell us about changes in local government finance and functions to a measure which spent about 140 hours in Committee and had to be guillotined? Should he not have made separate statements on education and on finance? Will he now make a statement on the 20 per cent. rule? Does he agree fundamentally with the 20 per cent. rule, or does he intend to change it? Does he intend to collect the 20 per cent. on the property element of the new tax or on the individual element of the tax? Will he now make a statement?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady's questions will be answered in the consultation process. We have our views on what might be the best solution, but we believe in consultation. I wish that the Labour party would join in.
The hon. Lady will have heard the answer that I gave a few moments ago about a separate statement.
On the question of the time available to consider such matters, I emphasise that we shall publish a consultative document on the important features of my statement. There will be ample opportunity for further consultation, debate and consideration of all aspects of these important proposals.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Does the Minister realise that, following his humiliating U-turn, he is left without a shred of credibility? Will he try to redeem himself by ensuring that the people of Scotland, who, after all, have paid the evil poll tax for a year longer than people in any other part of the country, are properly compensated? Will he fight in the review and in all the consultations to ensure that the 20 per cent. rule is abolished so that pensioners and the poorest people in our community will be taken out of the poll tax immediately? Will he dither and daily over reform of local government structure as he has over the poll tax, or will he learn that he who Heseltines is lost?
Mr. Lang: We got rid of domestic rates in Scotland a year earlier than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is our purpose that by maintaining a Conservative Government we shall never have to return to domestic rates. The 20 per cent. rule and other matters relating to the continuance of the community charge are still under consideration.
Mr. George Foulkes: On the poll tax element of what we now know as the Bill Walker tax, can the Secretary of State tell us how he intends to deal with student nurses and students in general and with service men? What arrangements will he make for adults who move house during the course of a year and how will he deal with a household that takes in an elderly adult relative to care for? How will adults be registered? Will there continue to be a poll tax type register or will the electoral register or Inland Revenue information be used? Those are all important questions. If he cannot answer them—as he and his colleagues have been unable to answer many previous detailed questions—we can come to only one conclusion: the two-tax system has been introduced in panic in exactly the same way as the poll tax was introduced after the revolt of the Troon ratepayers—the Secretary of State was one of them—following revaluation. This tax would suffer the same fate as the poll tax if it were introduced. Thankfully, it will not be introduced because as soon as the electorate knows the truth it will ensure that the measure has no chance of seeing the light of day.
Mr. Lang: One minute we are accused of dithering, the next we are accused of panic. The truth is that we are proceeding in an orderly way on a range of important and interrelated issues. We have thought through our preliminary findings, narrowed the options and presented our views to the House at this interim stage. We have also invited the Opposition and others to join in the consultation process. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has a number of views on specific aspects, which we must resolve. I hope that he will take part in the consultation—the quality of the outcome would be that much better for it.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Today we have watched a Secretary of State who, as a Whitehall policeman knows, has recently been wandering around aimlessly looking for something to get hold of. He does not even have the support of his Back Benchers—the situation is worse even than for the earlier statement on Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland has only one Back Bencher to support him, and that only because the hon. Gentleman concerned thinks that he wrote the paper. It is a shambles. We have to listen to this aimless Secretary of State telling us how Bill Walker saved the people of Scotland when 10,000 civil servants in the Scottish Office are supposed to be doing that. We might feel like joining in the consultation process if the Secretary of State would answer some of our questions. Unless and until he does, he cannot expect us to do other than put his proposals to the test at a general election.
Mr. Lang: I shall welcome putting them to the test in a general election. I have no doubt that our single new tax will be preferred to Labour's roof tax and rates.
On the question of support, I notice that only about a third of the Scottish Labour party is here today. My hon. Friends are out and about in Scotland proclaiming the virtues of the new arrangements.
Mr. Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked one question that the Secretary of State did not answer. Will the Secretary of State confirm that a vote for the Tory party at the next election will mean a vote for another two

471
years of the poll tax in its present form'? On what basis will the new charge be levied? What services will it cover and which authority will be responsible for administering it? Is it not the case that the poll tax is not dead but alive and well in the new Tory two-tax?
Mr. Lang: No, that is not true. We propose a single tax with a property element and a personal element. The benefit of that is to achieve a tax which is durable and stable, and which keeps a broad base, such as we have achieved under the community charge.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about voting for the Conservative party and thus keeping the community charge that much longer. The Labour party could not wind up the existing community charge arrangements any quicker than we can. The hon. Gentleman asked which authority would be responsible for levying the tax. That will depend on the outcome of our consultations on the structure of local government, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us his views on that.
Mr. Alex Salmond: It might add to the general amusement of the House if the Secretary of State would detail for our benefit the exact moment when he was dragged to the conclusion that the poll tax ought to be abolished. The Secretary of State refuses to give an apology to the people of Scotland. Will not he acknowledge that there will be a tremendous groundswell of opinion that there should be compensation for the additional year in which Scotland had to suffer under the poll tax burden?
Is the remark in the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment that most people should be asked for a contribution an acknowledgement from the Government, at last, that the sick, the poor and the unemployed—those with no capacity to earn—should not be dragooned into making contributions for local services? Does the Secretary of State agree that in those circumstances, with a tax in which no one—not even he—believes, it would be wholly unacceptable for poindings, warrant sales and benefit arrestments for the poll tax to continue for people who have no capacity to earn? Does the Secretary of State accept that if Scotland had followed the advice of the Labour Front Bench, and stumped up and paid up, he would not be suffering such humiliation at the Dispatch Box today?
Mr. Lang: I do not believe that compensation would be appropriate in Scotland because we got rid of domestic rates a year earlier any more than I believe that compensation is due to the English because they had to keep domestic rates a year longer. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of recovery processes. He seems to live in a curious make-believe world which does not recognise that local government has to be paid for. He should contemplate the severe difficulties in which he and his hon. Friends in the Scottish National party have placed many people who followed his advice. It is wholly irresponsible for Members of Parliament who come to this place and make laws to urge people in Scotland to break them, and they have no right to speak with authority in this debate.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that everyone in Scotland, and especially in Lanarkshire, will be glad to see an end to the poll tax? However, it is an especially tragic time in Scotland for the Government to have the whole structure of local
472
government and of local government finance fall to bits in their incompetent hands. Does the Secretary of State realise that we have already lost 3,000 jobs in steel in Scotland this year and that there will probably be another 5,000 consequential job losses? At this time we need a smoothly functioning structure for local government, industrial development and local finance, but all we have is a shambles.
We have a new enterprise company which has had its training allowance cut at a time when it should he providing 8,000 new jobs. We have a steel readaptation benefit scheme so incompetently administered from Sheffield that it is incapable of handling the redundancies that have already occurred. Vital effort is needed from Bell college and Motherwell college in the retraining of thousands of workers, yet the future of those colleges is being thrown into total uncertainty by the crazy collapse of Government policy. May not some priority, some finance and some competent administration be given to the crisis that we face in Lanarkshire?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman does himself no service and underrates the enormous commitment of many bodies and organisations in Lanarkshire, both public and private, to come together and work for the economic regeneration of that county. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the Minister for Industry and Local Government—supervises a working group on which regional and district councils, the East Kilbride development corporation, the local enterprise company and other bodies are represented. All have come together and all have substantial resources, commitment and finance at their disposal to bring to bear on the problem. No one can say that the Government are neglecting Lanarkshire when we are bringing so much attention to bear on its problems. What we propose now will release the further education colleges to expand, to develop and to improve the quality of training for the future.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State recall that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is the Under-Secretary of State, and the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is the Minister of State, vigorously campaigned against any proposal for a property tax'? How do they reconcile their position with supporting the new double tax, which is both a tax on property and a poll tax? Is there not a more serious charge than the humiliation of the Secretary of State to be laid at the Government's door today? It is that there is a lack of integrity in the Government. The two Ministers should resign.
Mr. Lang: I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friends, who, like myself, would not have been happy with any return to domestic rates, recognise the virtues of the new local tax. It should be seen not only in the context of the tax itself, with its two components of personal and property tax, and with the provision that we intend to ensure that local authorities can never again ride roughshod over local residents and raise the burdens on them to unacceptable levels, but against the background of the substantial step change in the funding of local government from local government to central Government, with a far more substantial contribution coming from the United Kingdom taxpayer. That keeps

473
down the overall level. Once that has been achieved, the rest of the debate can be conducted in a far more sensible and balanced context.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: My hon. Friends have made enough points about the poll tax and we have seen the Secretary of State struggle to answer those points. On the structure of local government in Scotland, does the Secretary of State recall that his party, when in government, took away the local council of Cambuslang and Rutherglen in my constituency? The Secretary of State has mentioned that he will take a flexible approach to the proposed restructuring and that he will concentrate on one tier. He has also said that he favours those one-tier authorities reflecting boundaries with which the communities within them can identify. Will he give me an assurance that if I can show that the people of Cambuslang and Rutherglen have an overwhelming demand for the restoration of a council of their own, and bearing in mind his remarks about local community identification, he will consider and introduce proposals for such a council?
Mr. Lang: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his courage. He, at least, is prepared to break ranks with his Front Bench.
Mr. John McAllion rose——
Mr. Lang: I see another candidate coming up. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) is at least prepared to enter into consultation and to advance the case for what he believes to be the right local government solution in his area. I welcome his participation in the consultation and I guarantee to give full weight to his views.
Mr. McAllion: Why has Scotland, having been the first to get the poll tax, been the last to be told in the House about the fate of that tax? Faced with a choice between outraging the right wing of the Tory party by abolishing the poll tax and outraging the Scottish people by not abolishing it, the Secretary of State has managed to incur the anger of both by opting for his own two-tax solution—a roof tax for the house and a poll tax for those who live in it? Is that not the end product of monumental Government panic and does it not underline the fact that when the Government finally find the courage to face the only motion of confidence that matters-a general election—they will face certain, overwhelming and deserved defeat?
Mr. Lang: We are the last to tell the House about the proposals for ending the community charge because I am junior to the other Cabinet Ministers—[Interruption.] If the Labour party helps, as I believe that it will, in the return of a Conservative Government, in a few years I shall be a bit higher up the pecking order and the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait so long.
The hon. Gentleman talks about our new proposals creating anger. My feeling is that they have been broadly welcomed by a broad spectrum of people. The only anger and despondency that I see is in the faces of Opposition Members who know that they have little chance of winning an election for a long time.
Mr. William McKelvey: One would think that, after more than 11 years as a Member of Parliament, nothing would surprise me but I am astonished—nay, flabbergasted—that the Secretary of State for Scotland can come to the Dispatch Box, having done not a U-turn but several acrobatic somersaults, to make, without humility or embarrassment, a statement about the supposed removal of the poll tax in Scotland. It is a disgrace that he has the unmitigated gall to come to the House and not make more than an apology to the people of Scotland. We told him and his colleagues when they introduced the poll tax—and his English colleagues marched through the Lobby without even understanding or caring to understand what the poll tax meant, and then inflicted it on the people of Scotland—that it was obnoxious and unwanted. The Government refused to consult on the matter and entirely ignored the results of what little consultation they carried out.
I hope that I have got this right. The Secretary of State said that he wanted to change from a two-tier system of local authorities to a one-tier system because the two-tier system
"blurs lines of accountability, and it can lead to duplication, conflict and delay. It is often perceived as unnecessarily bureaucratic and remote from local needs."
He then told us that he intended to change from a one-tier tax to a two-tier tax. Do not the same words apply? If the Secretary of State was consistent——
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. McKelvey: I am trying to be brief, Mr. Speaker. You know that brevity is my hallmark.
I must comment on the Secretary of State's performance. Had he been an Olympic acrobat performing for Scotland, he would have picked up the gold, the silver and the bronze for the alacrity that he showed in turning somersaults. Will he not be honest with the people of Scotland and say that he does not believe that the poll tax should go? Should not he and his ministerial colleagues resign and make way for the real author of the document?
Mr. Lang: The only thing that is blurred is the hon. Gentleman's comprehension of what I said about the tax. It will be a single local tax with two components. I welcome what I take to be his support for the abolition of the community charge.
Mr. Calum MacDonald: One of the few commitments that the Government have been willing to make this afternoon is that, under the new two-tax system, the poll tax register will go. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that repeatedly, and I take it that the Secretary of State for Scotland agrees with him. Having made that commitment, the Government must have some idea of an alternative means of tracing the number of adults in a household. Will the Secretary of State give us some idea—I do not expect details—of how the Government will keep track of the number of adults in a household if they do not have a register?
Mr. Lang: Clearly, there will have to be some kind of register, as there is with any kind of local tax. We shall consult on the precise form when we publish our consultative document. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will offer us his views.
Mr. George Galloway: The Dalai Lama obviously got it wrong in thinking that he was the

475
reincarnation of the Buddha as the Dalai Walker from Tayside, North is clearly the fount of all wisdom on this earth. Now that the poll tax law has been seen to be an ass, can the Secretary of State find it within himself to congratulate the people of Scotland, who showed more wisdom than the politicians? Some of them argued that the only way to get rid of the poll tax was to have a general election, and that nothing could be done until there was a general election. Those Scots who marched, petitioned and protested, and some of whom withheld their tax in an act of civil disobedience, are the people who have destroyed the poll tax mark 1, as has been announced this evening.
We have heard about the tax mark 2. It is a tax on heads but not a poll tax, and a tax on roofs but not a property tax. It is a tax that dare not—at least this evening, and until there has been a lot of consultation—speak its name. When shall we know the real truth about what is to replace the poll tax mark 1? Will we know before the local elections in England and Wales in May? Will we know before a general election in June, or is that another trick to be pulled on the Scottish electorate?
Mr. Lang: I have already given the likely timetable for consultation on our consultative document. I will find it in my heart to congratulate the hon. Gentleman when he finds it in his heart to pay his fair contribution to the funding of local government.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: While I have long been an advocate of single-tier local authorities in Scotland, with the retention of the islands councils, and a local tax, I am deeply distrustful of the Secretary of State's words. The one word that he has used more than any other is "consultation". He should tell that to our fishermen, those employed in the national health service, and the representatives of my local authority who have been most badly treated over the implementation of the RENAVAL programme, which is designed to help the unemployed in areas such as mine which are characterised by scandalously high unemployment.
I remind the Minister that consultation is defined in the Oxford and Chambers dictionaries as, inter alia, deliberation, taking counsel together and consulting with others. I do not believe that these Ministers will take counsel in a sensible, humane and fair-minded way with the representatives of local authorities. Is there to be a supervisory body, based in Edinburgh, over the new system of further education? Will that supervisory body be filled, as with many other quangos, by Conservative party supporters and members?
Mr. Lang: I see no need for the kind of body that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. We are giving each further education college, under its college council, the independence to run its own affairs. Labour Members may find that concept hard to accept, but it is the best way to generate the best kind of motivation in the minds and attitudes of those who run colleges, and to get the best results for local industry.
As for consultation with local authorities, I shall be meeting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities tomorrow. That will be, I hope, the first of a number of opportunities to consult. Consultation is an important part of this exercise and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as willing to enter into it as he is for me to do so.
Mr. James Wallace: It is clear from what the Secretary of State has said in reply to a number of questions that the detail of his proposals is still to be fleshed out. He also said in reply to one question that he will confidently put this tax before the electorate as part of the Conservative platform at the next general election. How much detail does he expect to be fleshed out by the time that happens?
As I understand it, the Secretary of State is proposing free-standing colleges, which will have their own buildings, equipment and land. How does he propose to deal with further education in Orkney, where the further education facility is fully integrated with the Kirkwall grammar school?
Mr. Lang: Orkney has a habit of being a special case. Apart from anything else, it managed to collect 105 per cent. of its budgeted revenue under the community charge in the first year of operation—a wonderful example to other local authorities in Scotland.
As to the particular circumstances of the Orkney further education college, which shares its premises with a secondary school, that is a special situation to which we shall have to apply special arrangements. I shall keep the hon. Gentleman posted on developments there as early as I can. As to how much detail we shall be able to spell out in a general election, the hon. Gentleman is tempting me to answer a question that is not within my power to answer, but he must watch this space.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling an English Member of a United Kingdom Parliament, and one who always opposed the poll tax and did not support its introduction in Scotland when the Bill to set up the system was introduced in the last Parliament. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his part in the demise of that unfortunate fiscal enormity. I hope that the consultations, although widespread, will not be too long and drawn out. Can my right hon. Friend give us some idea of when he hopes to complete them?
Mr. Lang: The timetable may differ slightly north and south of the border. We shall consult on the tax itself in tandem with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales. It is clear that south of the border a rather longer timetable is contemplated for consultation on the structure of local government. The problem is rather more complex than that which we face in Scotland. Our consultation process may be somewhat shorter in Scotland, but I do not intend that it should be too short because local government is an important issue on which we are anxious to gain as wide a view as possible.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The severely mentally handicapped do not pay under the current poll tax arrangements. Under the new provisions, will they have to pay the poll tax element, the property element and the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT?
Mr. Lang: The tax is a single tax in which the components of property and the personal element are combined. Whether the severely mentally handicapped will be expected to pay is clearly a matter on which consultation will be necessary. However, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the sympathetic approach that we adopted in our handling of the community charge.
Mr. Tony Worthington: The statement has shown how inappropriate the House is for dealing with such matters. We have attempted to deal with the three important topics—abolition of the poll tax, the structure of local government, and further education in Scotland—in a short period.
I have some specific questions for the Secretary of State, first about further education. The proposed measures have nothing to do with further education. They have arisen out of the poll tax panic and the need to move more services to centralised control. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State cannot see that he is centralising rather than localising control. Will he confirm that all the important decisions on further education will be made by him in the Scottish Office? That is particularly distressing because the Government's recent record on training is entirely one of cuts. Only local government has managed to safeguard training by not making the cuts that the Scottish Office has made with the establishment of the new local enterprise companies.
Exactly what will happen when decisions are made? Will there be no consultative body or funding council for further education in Scotland, as there is in England? Will decisions simply be the diktat of the Secretary of State?
In the English statement it was announced that a joint White Paper would emerge from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment on the 16 to 19 age group. May I have a specific answer on that? What will be the relationship of Scotland to that White Paper? Will we have a link with it? It is disturbing that the statement and the few words that we have had on further education refer only to further education for the 16 to 19 group. But FE colleges are of enormous importance to their local communities, not only for vocational education. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the wider role of colleges in adult and continuing education will be respected?
Throughout his statement, why did the Secretary of State extol the virtues of consultation but fail to mention consultation with FE colleges? Why has he gone headlong into introducing regulations at midnight tonight, with no consultation with FE colleges?
478
Lastly, may I ask the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] These are my final questions. I now come to the poll tax. Will the Secretary of State devote some time—as long as he wishes—to explaining the difference between the rates and his proposed property tax? Will he also confirm that he said that there would be some sort of separate register for levying the poll tax and a valuation roll to assess the property tax?
Mr. Lang: No, that is not what I said. To answer the hon. Gentleman's other points first, far from a poll tax panic on this side, I discern panic on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman asked me several questions about further education and local control. He asked whether I would take all the decisions. I assure him that on this side of the House we believe in devolving decision making wherever possible. That is why we set up the new college councils and brought the private sector into them. That is why we are proceeding to give them the independence that so many of them want—he asked about consultation—so that they can better run their affairs.
I shall consider the precise funding mechanism that I shall use, but the central institutions in Scotland are perfectly adequately funded so it may not be necessary to establish a Scottish funding council. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be a link between me and the other Departments involved in producing the White Paper. I shall certainly be fully associated with that White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman asked what was the difference between the rates and the property tax. Rates are the policy with which Opposition Members are concerned. Property is but one component of the new local tax that we support. That component and the single tax are but one part of the broad package which at long last addresses simultaneously the funding, function and structure of local government in Scotland. I believe that it will deliver a solution which gives us improved local government in Scotland and will be widely welcomed by the Scottish people.

Business of the House
8.16 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, for the record, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY 25 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.

Money resolution relating to the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill.

Third Reading of the War Crimes Bill.

TUESDAY 26 MARCH—Timetable motion, followed by proceedings on the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill.

WEDNESDAY 27 MARCH—Debate On the Opposition motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government.

Motion relating to the British Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations.

THURSDAY 28 MARCH—Debates on the motion for the Adjournment.

The House may be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that the business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:

MONDAY 15 APRIL Remaining stages of the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill.

Motion relating to the Testing in Primary Schools (Scotland) Regulations.

TUESDAY 16 APRIL—Remaining stages of the British Technology Group Bill.

Motions on the Scottish Legal Aid orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

WEDNESDAY 17 APRIL—Opposition Day (10th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.

Motions relating to Personal Community Charge (Reductions) (England) Regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.

THURSDAY 18 APRIL—There will be a debate on agriculture on a motion to take note of EC documents, details of which will be given in the Official Report.

FRIDAY 19 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Speaker, the House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet to consider European Community documents as follows:

TUESDAY 26 MARCH at 4.30 pm—Committee B Document No. 4345/91 relating to relief of ACP debt to the Community.

WEDNESDAY 27 MARCH at 10.30 am—Committee A Document No. 7214/90 relating to protection of animals during transport.

WEDNESDAY 27 MARCH at 10.30 am—Committee B Document No. 9908/90 relating to third EC equal opportunities action programme for women and men.

WEDNESDAY 17 APRIL at 10.30 am—Committee B Document No. 8353/90 relating to customs controls on baggage.

[Tuesday 26 March
European Standing Committee B:
Relevant European Community Document

4345/91

Relief of Debt of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 29-xiii (1990–91)
Wednesday 27 March
European Standing Committee A:
Relevant European Community Document

7214/90

Transport of Animals

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
HC 11-xxxi (1989–90) and
HC 29-iii (1990–91)
Wednesday 27 March
European Standing Committee B:
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 9908/90

Equal Opportunities for Women and Men

(b) Unnumbered

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-vii (1990–91)

(b) HC 29-vii (1990–91) and HC 29-xv (1990–91)

Wednesday 17 April
European Standing Committee B:
Relevant European Community Document

8353/90

Customs Controls on Baggage

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 29-i (1990–91)
Thursday 18 April
Floor of the House:
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 4549/91

Common Agricultural Policy: Development and Future

(b) 5032/91 + ADD 1–3

CAP Price Proposals 1991–92

(c) Unnumbered

Export Refunds (Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 2/90)

(d) 6672/90

Agricultural Fraud Counter-Measures

6649/90

Community Rules (Checks and Penalties)

(f) 7320/90

Rural Development Initiatives

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-xii (1990–91)

(b) HC 29-xv (1990–91)

(c) HC 11-xxvii (1989–90)

(d) HC 11-xxv (1989–90)

(e) HC 11-xxvi (1989–90)

(f) HC 11-xxx (1989–90)

Tuesday 16 April
SCOTTISH LEGAL AID ORDERS

1. Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Costs) Regulations

2. Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations

3. Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations

Wednesday 17 April

1. The Personal Community Charge ( Reductions) ( England) Regulations (1991 No. 230)

2. The Personal Community Charge ( Reductions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations (1991 No. 352).]

Dr. John Cunningham: Why has the Leader of the House created yet another precedent by asking the House to agree on Monday night the money resolution for the poll tax Bill on Tuesday? The House does not approve money resolutions before the Bills to which they relate have had a Second Reading. Before the Leader of the House cites the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 as a precedent, may I tell him that I hope he will not equate the crisis in the Conservative party over the poll tax with a national security crisis that arose because of IRA bombing in 1974? On that Act the money resolution was the subject of general agreement through the usual channels. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was not guillotined, and in those exceptional circumstances the money resolution was taken first. It would be shameful for the Leader of the House to use that precedent of a national emergency as justification for taking the money resolution for the poll tax Bill before Second Reading.
The right hon. Gentleman has the ignominious reputation of having created two unsavoury parliamentary precedents, one on the money resolution itself and one on the guillotining in advance of a Finance Bill to replace most of an Act of Parliament which took months to put on the statute book and created hundreds of anomalies because of the capricious nature of the poll tax. That Bill is to be steamrollered through all its stages in just seven hours.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that he intends to keep the House waiting through the night of Wednesday/ Thursday next week to consider any Lords amendments to this invidious procedure? The Government will look even more stupid if they keep the House sitting for potential amendments to a Bill that seeks to introduce the Government's new twin tax—a property tax and a poll tax with a VAT surcharge riding on its back. That is no way to conduct serious matters of government. It would be far better for the Leader of the House to announce a proclamation for a general election so that people might decide on these matters rather than ramrod them through the House.
When the House resumes after the Easter recess—which seems inordinately lengthy when viewed alongside the panic-stricken activities of the Government and the poll tax Bill to be debated next week—will the right hon. Gentleman find an early opportunity for a debate on criminal justice? People in all political parties were shocked by the revelations about the deep and fundamental failures of our criminal justice system following the release of the Birmingham Six.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence rose——
Dr. Cunningham: I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who practises at the Bar, would have been one of the first to recognise the need for such a debate.
Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. and learned Gentleman need not be grateful to me because I am not paying him any compliments.
There is widespread dismay and concern about these matters, and it would be appropriate for the House to have an opportunity to debate them, although not in a party-political way because we know that such events have a long history. The Leader of the House would go some way towards restoring his tarnished reputation if he found time for such a debate.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about a general election were rather stale and somewhat irrelevant. He asked about the money resolution. The way in which we propose to deal with that is for the general convenience of the House and is procedurally in order. I explained on Tuesday that we needed to get the Bill next week because that is to the advantage of local authorities and community charge payers. We shall be interested to hear in next week's debates and in the debate on the no confidence motion the view that the Opposition now take of the Bill, because their view is far from clear.
The Opposition are entitled to table no confidence motions and, as always, I have arranged time for a debate. We welcome the opportunity for a debate, but I wonder what can have possessed the Labour party to engage in a debate which will cruelly expose its lack of coherent policies. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we propose to reduce the charge to local residents by £140 per person in the coming year, and to get that done quickly is our reason for proposing speed on the Bill next week. Does Labour oppose that? We propose to pay for that reduction by increasing taxes on spending. Would Labour reverse that? There is no rush because next week there will be ample opportunity to expose the deficiencies in Labour's policies.
It is a short Bill of five clauses. We have had a full day on the purposes of the Bill and on other matters today and we shall have a full day on Monday during which the matter can be further discussed. We shall also debate it on Tuesday and Wednesday because the no confidence motion seems to be related to it. That means that there is plenty of time to debate these matters.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about criminal justice. It was entirely fair of him to say that this is not a party matter but one that concerns the whole House. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced the setting up of a royal commission. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate. I rapidly had to find time for a debate on the no confidence motion. My problem is that there is a great deal of business for the House to conduct when we return after the recess. I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. In consideration of hon. Members who wish to participate in the Budget debate, let me say that questions to the Leader of the House should be directed strictly to next week's business. Most hon. Members who wish to do so have asked questions on the other statements.
Mr. Michael Jopling: I was about to apply myself to today's problems because I suppose it is many years since we had statements which lasted until about 9 o'clock. Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find some way to facilitate those of us

483
who wish to speak on the Budget? Could he find a way to extend beyond 10 o'clock the business on the third day of the Budget debate? I cannot think of a way to do that, but my confidence in his ingenuity is so great that perhaps he can think of one.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my right hon. Friend's frustration. As he knows, there is no procedural way to do what he suggests. The best contribution that I can make is to keep my answers extremely short.
Mr. James Wallace: No doubt the Leader of the House will recall that in November, when we last had a no confidence motion, Conservative Members were somewhat divided on the question of leadership. The result of the debate was a nauseating display of unity among Tory Members. Exchanges today have shown that divisions are again occurring. What does the right hon. Gentleman divine to be the tactics of the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion?
Mr. MacGregor: I recall that occasion, and there was complete unity on this side of the House, as there will be on Wednesday. For the second time in a short period, Opposition Members will fall flat on their faces.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Government had not come forward with £140 for each community charge payer, there would not be a no confidence motion? Perhaps next week the Labour party will explain why the extra help to those that they claim to represent causes it to say that the Government have got it wrong rather than that the Government have got it right.
Mr. MacGregor: The Opposition will have a great deal of time next week to explain that and to answer questions about their proposals which have not yet been answered.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House next week to make a statement about a serious situation that has developed in the west Yorkshire police? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great worry in west Yorkshire about the fact that the criminal fraternity is well in advance of the police on new technology? Is he also aware that criminals in that area were buoyant last week when they saw an announcement from the police authority that, as well as having lost 500 policemen on the beat, it is now unable to fill the vacant post of assistant chief constable? The Home Secretary is obliged to come to the House and tell us why he is not forcing the Department of the Environment to allow that authority to fill the post in accordance with the Home Secretary's criteria.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but it is impossible to fit in a statement of that sort next week.
Mr. James Lamond: Remembering that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), when Secretary of State, used to delight in coming to the Dispatch Box to announce new jobs that had been established—for instance, 400 jobs in a motor manufacturing plant—is there any chance that next week the appropriate Secretary of State will come to the Dispatch Box, perhaps on Tuesday when there is a lobby on the matter, to explain what help the Government think
484
that they can give to the more than 3,000 workers who have been laid off by British Aerospace, including 675 at the Chadderton plant in Oldham? Can they look to the Government for any help in their difficulty?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the company has said that it took the measures that it announced this morning to protect the long-term future of the business. It said that it is imperative that it achieves further improvements in operating efficiency if it is to maintain its competitive position in the world market.
On the commercial side, the company has quoted the effects of world recession, the weakness of the United States dollar and the continued price pressure on air fares as grounds for the need to reduce costs. I am afraid that I see no cause for a statement next week on this matter.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be not only unanimity among Conservative Members next week but relief, gratitude and enthusiasm in equal measure?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since his last business statement the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has published its report calling for an early debate in the House on the closure of Ravenscraig, and that since the report was completed the situation has further deteriorated, with the closure of another blast furnace? Do the Government intend to find time for an early debate, given that the right hon. Gentleman has already announced today that the Government are bringing forward the remaining stages of the British Technology Group Bill after Easter? Is he aware that in Committee Ministers undertook to carry out certain consultations and that it is unlikely that they will be completed by then? Could the business perhaps be delayed?
Mr. MacGregor: I certainly do not want to delay the business, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point about the remaining stages of the Bill to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
The Government are carefully considering the Select Committee's report, including its recommendation of an early debate, and we will respond to it in the usual way.
Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Leader of the House aware that earlier this evening television interviews were held with the leaders of Conservative authorities who expressed deep disgust with the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment? If there is to be confidence in local government on the part of those who serve in it and of the public who look to it to provide services, is it not time that we had a much fuller statement on what is to replace the poll tax instead of the airy-fairy statements that we have heard today?
Mr. MacGregor: I did not see the interviews because I have been sitting in the Chamber for some hours waiting to make this statement—so I have heard some pretty full statements from my right hon. Friends on the subject.
Mr. Max Madden: On the "Poll Tax (Panic and Bribery) Bill" next Monday and Tuesday, I assume that the money resolution will be open-ended. Presumably the Secretary of State will deal with it, because

485
we shall want a great deal of detailed information, especially about whether people in receipt of rebates and transitional relief will receive some or all of the £140.
I assume that the guillotine motion on Tuesday's business can be debated for a long time and may therefore eat into the debate. Therefore, can the debate be extended to midnight to give us a minimal opportunity of debating this attack on parliamentary democracy, and so that the Secretary of State can answer many of the questions that he was clearly unable to answer this afternoon?
Mr. MacGregor: It is ridiculous to describe this as an attack on parliamentary democracy. We are trying to get the measures through the House—allowing a reasonable amount of time for them, given that it is a small Bill—to help community charge payers and local authorities.
The money resolution will be proceeded with in the same way as such resolutions always are. The timetable motion on Tuesday will proceed similarly. It will be published and on the Order Paper tomorrow.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the debate in European Standing Committee A next Wednesday may be the last opportunity that the House has to discuss the controversial order to do with the export of live horses, a subject about which many Members have received a great deal of correspondence? Does he recall that the Prime Minister gave an undertaking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that there would be reports relating to the intergovernmental conferences on monetary and political union in the Community? Can he assure us that after Easter the House will be given a verbal statement after those Council meetings, and that the Government will not rely on scrutiny by Select Committees such as the one that is to meet next Monday?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's second point. As for his first, I agree about the importance of the document relating to the protection of horses during transport. Like many colleagues, I have received voluminous mail on the subject and I am sympathetic to those who have written to me. The Government's position has been made clear: we are endeavouring to achieve all the safeguards that we require. It would be possible to raise this matter on the Floor of the House during the agriculture debate in the week we come back.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I believe that the Leader of the House said that European Standing Committee B is to meet twice next week. As someone who was appointed to that Committee with no consultation—I do not know what parliamentary crime I committed that I should have been put on it—I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on 22 January he said, among other things:
"It seems likely that each Standing Committee will have about two sittings per month."—[Official Report, 22 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 271.]
Yet we are meeting weekly, and now there are to be two meetings a week. May we have an early statement on the frequency of these meetings or perhaps on an increase in the number of Committees? I am asking for a break.
Mr. MacGregor: Someone else will have to explain what crime the hon. Gentleman committed to cause him to serve on the Committee. As I have often said, I am keen to review the workings of these Committees as we get more experience of them. They have not met at all in some weeks. One of the issues, as it was when EC documents were scrutinised in the previous system, is that the timetable is not entirely in our hands because it depends on what business is coming up in the Community. One step that we have taken to assist members of the Committee is to give them as much notice as possible of when it will meet—usually longer notice than in the statement that I made to the House. I am certainly prepared to look into whether there should be more members and into other issues that may arise once we have more experience of the working of the Committees.
Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know whether the Leader of the House missed me during questions on the last couple of business statements, but he may be interested to know that I was in Canada studying baby harp seals which used to be clubbed to death, rather in the same way as the Government are clubbing democracy to death in Parliament. He will be aware that the killing of these baby seals ended as the culmination of a political campaign in the House and in the European Parliament, which forced the Canadian Government to impose a ban. It now looks as though that Government may be considering allowing an extension of seal culling, so I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we can have a debate, if not next week, as soon as possible thereafter, on animal conservation. It is a matter of great concern to many Members in the House and to many more people outside it. In such a debate we could discuss the Canadian seal cull along with many other matters relating to animal welfare.
Mr. MacGregor: I had not realised that one of the qualities of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was arrogance. I shall puncture his arrogance and say that I did not miss him during the past two business statements.
Mr. Banks: Cutting.
Mr. MacGregor: I apologise for cutting the hon. Gentleman.
On the serious business that he raises, I was not aware of such a development. There may be other ways in which the issue can be raised in the House, but I shall bear in mind what he said.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill that affects all of our constituents will not be published until after this question has been answered. That means that many hon. Members who have already left for various reasons will be unable to gain ready access to it. What avenues are available to introduce amendments to such a significant Bill, which will be dealt with in the House in very inadequate circumstances on Tuesday?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that hon. Members who are sufficiently interested in tabling amendments will have arranged to obtain copies of the Bill. The normal arrangements for dealing with amendments will apply in this case.

Easter Adjournment
Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 28 March, up to nine Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.
Easter Adjournment
  BILL PRESENTED
    COMMUNITY CHARGES (GENERAL REDUCTION) BILL
    Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Newton, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Michael Portillo and Mr. Robert Key, presented (under Standing Order No. 48 (Procedure upon Bills)) a Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, a reduction in the amounts of community charges for the financial year beginning on 1st April 1991 and the payment of grants to charging authorities in England and Wales and local authorities in Scotland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 120.]
Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [19 March].

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax, otherwise than by virtue of goods or services supplied to one person being treated for the purposes of section 14(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 as supplied to another person;

  (c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

  (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.—[Mr. Norman Lamont]

  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  Mr. Speaker: In view of the delayed start of the debate, I am grateful to the Front-Bench spokesman for saying that they will limit their speeches to 15 minutes each. I understand that the wind-up speeches will be five minutes each to enable hon. Members who have been waiting patiently to speak to do so. I ask them, too, to tailor their speeches to about 10 minutes.
  8.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): At last we come to the event for which I know the whole House has been waiting throughout this long day.
  In his Budget speech my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the three essential foundations for the renewed growth in jobs that we all want to see. First, the prospect is for sharply falling inflation—down to 4 per cent. in the last quarter of the year, and even lower in 1992. Secondly, interest rates are coming down—a reduction of two full percentage points since last October. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend predicted that output would stabilise in the next few months and then grow again—by 2 per cent. between the first half of this year and the first half of 1992.
  In short, while the immediate prospect is for rising unemployment, the basis is already laid for a resumption in the jobs growth that has been such a remarkable feature of the second half of the 1980s; and for falling unemployment. How quickly unemployment comes down will depend partly on the speed with which pay settlements come down. The latest figures show a small fall in year-on-year average earnings, but that is not enough and it is not happening quickly enough.
  Within the exchange rate mechanism, wage negotiators ultimately have no option, if they want to remain competitive, but to bring unit wage costs into line with those of our European competitors. If that lesson is not

  489
  learnt, more jobs will be lost. In that context, I particularly welcome the measures announced in the Budget to encourage more profit-related pay schemes and to stimulate employee share ownership.
  The Government have always attached considerable importance to the financial participation of employees in the companies for which they work. One of the most effective ways of increasing commitment at work is to give employees a direct stake in the ownership and prosperity of the business for which they work. Tax reliefs to stimulate financial participation have been introduced or extended in almost all Budgets since 1979. A number of proposals in the latest Budget continue this process and take financial participation still further.
  Those proposals are further evidence of the Government's commitment to financial participation as an important element in employee involvement. They will provide an important strengthening of the links between the rewards people receive and the performance of the company for which they work. They are important further steps on the road to making our pay and rewards systems more responsive to profitability.
  However, although the medium-term prospect for jobs is optimistic, I do not underestimate the anxiety and uncertainty of those who are unemployed at the present time about how long they will be unemployed and how quickly they can get back to work. While unemployment remains high, I am determined to ensure that those unemployed people have the best possible advice and support and, where necessary, special help to put them on the road back to a job.
  As a result of the measures that I announced a year ago, we already have in place throughout the country a comprehensive package of counselling and job-search advice geared to the specific needs of individuals. The central feature of those measures is an initial interview for all newly unemployed people and an individual back-to-work plan showing how that person can best help himself and how he can be most effectively helped by the employment service.
  I announced yesterday that I propose to build on that new counselling framework extra advice and help with job search. I am providing the employment service with £55 million in extra resources for 1991–92 on top of the resources already announced. Of that, some £38 million will ensure that its standards of service to its clients are maintained and, where possible, enhanced. Some £17 million will provide more help for those who do not find work in the first few weeks of unemployment.
  As a result, for the first time, every unemployed person who reaches 13 weeks of unemployment and has no job to start will have a guaranteed offer of an interview—an opportunity to review the back-to-work plan and to assess further options for getting back to work.
  New jobs teams will be set up to search out jobs that are suitable for those who have marketable skills and to match individuals to jobs.
  Jobs seminars will be run to provide extra advice on job search for those who are not seeking work in the most effective way. For those with more intensive problems and needs, who are already eligible to enter job clubs after 13 weeks of unemployment, more job club places will be provided.
  490
  We are also increasing help to those who have been unemployed for a longer period. In the course of the next financial year, there will be an extra 100,000 opportunities in job clubs and in the new job introduction guarantee scheme. Job clubs work: 66 per cent. of unemployed people leaving job clubs go into work or into training or further education.
  Finally, as a result of the further £120 million that I am making available to employment training, up to 245,000 unemployed people will be able to learn skills to improve their chances of getting back to work. That represents the most comprehensive range of help and advice ever made available to unemployed people. It offers some 650,000 opportunities on Employment Department programmes. It provides a wide range of options, so that the available help matches individual needs. It guarantees help to unemployed people at the point at which they need it most. Above all, it focuses on jobs and getting back to work.
  Even at a time of rising unemployment, some 450,000 job vacancies are available in the economy now. Almost 300,000 unemployed people leave unemployment every month. Over 50 per cent. of unemployed people find work within three months of becoming unemployed. The help that we are providing and the new help that I have announced today is designed to ensure that everyone has the best possible chance of getting back to work in the shortest possible time.
  May I now turn to one of the most significant parts of the Budget speech: that concerned with initiatives to encourage individuals to invest in their own training. It is of particular importance at a time of economic downturn that we do everything possible to sustain both employer and individual investment in training, so that, as jobs are created, there is a ready supply of skilled people.
  The foundations have already been laid for a significant improvement in the skills of the work force. There are many positive signs that skill levels are increasing, and that employers and individuals are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of education and training to our future economic well-being. I draw the attention of the House to the clear signs of that improvement.
  First, more and more young people, encouraged by the Government's reforms to schools and the further education system, are staying on in full-time education to gain the qualifications that will enable them to progress to higher levels of skill and attainment. Last year, 350,000 16-year-olds chose to continue in full-time education; the percentage staying on has risen by a third over the past decade. The number of young people taking part in full-time vocational courses in further education is also increasing: in England it has doubled in the past 10 years.
  The second clear sign is the success of youth training. The Labour party has a consistent record of opposition to youth training and to the YTS which preceded it. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made a speech in January which set out Labour's supposedly superior alternative to youth training. But, as ever, he had failed to notice what was happening around him. He said that training for young people should lead to jobs or further education and training. Youth training already does that: 88 per cent. of young people who complete their YT course go into jobs, further education or training. He said that training should be based on national vocational qualifications attained, not on time served. Youth training already provides that too: there are no time limits on the training involved, and there is a minimum target level of a

  491
  national vocational qualification level 2. Already, two thirds of those who complete YT gain a vocational qualification—something which was inconceivable 10 years ago. That number will increase in future as training and enterprise councils ensure that all the training they provide for young people leads to a national vocational qualification.
  The hon. Gentleman called for closer integration of education and training. That is also already happening—through the technical and vocational education initiative, through education business partnerships and through the assumption from next month of responsibility for work-related further education by TECs.
  The third clear sign of the improvement in Britain's training performance is that the number of employees receiving job-related training has increased by 85 per cent. since 1984—a remarkable testament to the new commitment of employers to upgrading the skills of their employees. The depth of that commitment is underlined by the results of an Industrial Society survey published only this week. Despite the difficult economic conditions, 87 per cent. of companies say that they will either maintain or increase their expenditure on training this year—more than six times as many as those that say that they will reduce it.
  Those positive trends are due in no small part to the wide range of steps that the Government have taken over the past 10 years to create an education and training system that is relevant and responsive to the needs of employers and individuals. But of course we are far from complacent; we still have much to achieve. We have set in train the reforms that will ensure that the momentum which has been built up does not diminish.
  In the training and enterprise councils and the local enterprise companies in Scotland we now have the means of developing and building on this commitment to training. All 82 TECs and 22 LECs are now in being. More than 1,200 of the country's senior business men and women have committed themselves to providing the leadership needed to develop the skills that industry will need in the 1990s. That leadership has been built not by the regulation and compulsion so much favoured by the Opposition, but through voluntary commitment and willing participation.
  Alongside employer commitment we must also stimulate individuals to take responsibility for their own training and development. Again, the way to do that is not by compulsion, but by providing new incentives and widening choice. We have already taken a number of steps in that direction. For 45,000 young people, in 11 pilot areas across the country training credits are only two weeks away. Training credits are a very important development. They offer real purchasing power to the individual and encourage young people to assume, at the very outset of their careers, proper control over their own training and development. If the pilots are successful, training credits will play a major part in transforming attitudes towards training in this country.
  Career development loans, which were introduced in 1988, are giving valuable help to individuals who are financing their own training. They have led to a combined investment of £50 million in the training of about 17,000 individuals. Through the TECs, we are ensuring that individuals have access to comprehensive information and advice about training provision in every local area.
  492
  Finally, we have just announced an important new addition to our well-established national training awards, which give recognition for excellence in training. For the first time, the 1991 awards, for which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is patron, will include a new award for individual achievement.
  The announcement in Tuesday's Budget of tax relief for individuals' expenditure on training provisions provides another important incentive for individuals to acquire new skills or upgrade existing ones. That sends a clear signal of the Government's support for individual effort and will provide a powerful incentive to those who wish to train, but are deterred by the cost. Tax relief will be given at source for training leading to national vocational qualifications—or SVQs in Scotland—up to and including level 4. The link to national vocational qualifications is essential. The achievement of recognised qualifications, based on standards of competence set by employers, is the best way of ensuring that people have the skills our economy needs.
  These developments are all designed to give individuals the information, support and encouragement they need to improve their skill levels and widen the choices available to them. I am confident that they will have a significant impact on individuals' willingness to seek out training opportunities and take responsibility for their own training and development.
  The Chancellor rightly referred to his Budget as a "Budget for business". With my special responsibilities for small firms, I take particular pleasure in the substantial additional help for small businesses. Every year my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for small firms invites those who represent small firms to put forward their views on what they would like to see in the Budget to assist small firms. We listen to their views and consider with the Chancellor what might be provided.
  I am glad to say that this year the process has borne particular fruit with measures that further reduce the tax burden on small enterprises, lift further the bureaucracy and red tape which is the bane of a small firm's life and assist firms having cash flow and liquidity problems in the present recession. I do not propose to list again all the measures that will be of particular benefit to small firms, but I draw the attention of the House to the wide spread of measures.
  There are measures which will benefit very small firms. One example is the increase in the VAT registration threshold to £35,000, an increase of 38 per cent. to its highest-ever level in real terms, which will take an estimated 150,000 traders out of the VAT net. A second example is the move from monthly to quarterly payments of PAYE and national insurance contributions for small employers, thereby improving the cash flow for about half all employers.
  Dr. John Marek: I shall make a short intervention because I would like to be helpful. Would not it have been useful if postponed accounting had been introduced this year? It will have to come in next year's Budget, and it would have helped small industry if it had been brought forward to this year.
  Mr. Howard: It is always possible to identify other measures, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the combined effect of the package that my right hon. Friend introduced on Tuesday, which has been

  493
  widely welcomed by small firms' organisations, will go a long way to improving their position and relieving the burdens presently placed on them.
  The increase in the threshold for the small company rate of corporation tax and the carrying back of trading losses from one year to three will be of particular benefit to the small incorporated company.
  In addition to these, the Chancellor made two important announcements of concern to small firms. As the Chancellor said, there is a case for a more radical simplification of the taxation of the self-employed. The Inland Revenue will therefore shortly be publishing a consultative document outlining its proposals for change.
  The Chancellor also announced a review of the serious misdeclaration of VAT penalty, because of complaints that the penalty it imposed was unfair; while the review takes place, the penalty has been reduced from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent.
  The Budget will help training and businesses, especially small businesses, and will help to foster and create jobs. The Government will continue to create jobs to fuel growth and to raise the prosperity of our people. That is why we shall win the next election and many after it.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: This is probably the first time that an opening speech has been made at a time normally reserved for the replies. That is a telling sign of the Government's incompetence. In the midst of the worst recession for a decade, with unemployment rising and output falling, the Budget will be remembered not for what it did for the economy but for the poll tax.
  The poll tax, like some virulent contagious disease, is contaminating everything with which it comes into contact; no aspect of local or central government appears immune. On Tuesday, it infected the Budget with deadly results.
  Mr. Howard rose——
  Mr. Blair: In a moment, please.
  From now, every time that we make a purchase—a new video, television, car, suite of furniture or clothes, buy a meal, take a holiday, go to the cinema and in every aspect of pleasure or business—we shall have a reminder in perpetuity of the most foolish measure introduced in modern times.
  Mr. Howard: All the Budget did for local government finance was to shift the proportion financed locally to central Government. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party opposes that shift, or is he saying that it would have financed it in some other way? If so, perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us how.
  Mr. Blair: We would not have introduced the poll tax and be in this mess. I remind the Secretary of State that he was the Minister responsible for introducing the poll tax, but now he is going to stand on his head and tell us that he regretted it.
  The Budget should have included, as we demanded, not a partial but the full restoration of the training cuts and made proper provision for a temporary work programme to assist unemployed people. Instead, the training concession, which is the only measure in the Budget on
  494
  training or unemployment, is costed at £20 million—barely one third of the extra cost of resubmitting poll tax bills after Tuesday's announcement. Can there be any clearer sign of the Government's priorities or any better proof of their failure?
  The real casualties of the Budget are all too clear. Unemployment is rising faster than at any time since the early 1980s—the worst recession on record—and 370,000 people were made redundant or have lost their jobs in the past few months. Twelve thousand jobs have gone since Tuesday's Budget. Almost 100 constituencies, three quarters of which are represented by Conservative Members, have suffered a rise of more than 1,000 in unemployed people. In the south-east, unemployment has risen by 50 per cent.; in the south-west by 47 per cent.; in East Anglia by 45 per cent.; and in the midlands by more than 20 per cent. Areas such as north Wales and Scotland, where the rise has been slower, are starting to rise inexorably from a much higher base.
  The recovery for which the Government have striven so hard has been put at risk. In every constituency, there are closures, redundancy and short-time working. In every affected family, there is worry about paying the mortgage, meeting household bills and, above all, about how to get back to work in a labour market that is shrinking daily.
  In every part of Britain, every sector of industry and every occupation in the workplace, the recession has taken its toll and is the direct responsibility of Ministers. They say that the recession is biting worldwide, but that is palpably untrue. No main European country is set for any fall in growth in 1991, let alone to register negative growth of 2 per cent. In Japan, growth will be 3·5 per cent., in Germany 2·5 per cent., in France 2 per cent. and in Italy 1·5 per cent. In the third and fourth quarters of 1991, we will be the only main economy in the world that will suffer falls in growth.
  Moreover, it is not that we are first in and first out; we are first in and last out. Growth predictions for 1992 show that we shall grow more slowly than any other OECD country. We are worse off in another respect: in 1991, business investment will grow in Japan, Germany, France and Italy but plummet by almost 10 per cent. in Britain. Billions of pounds of investment are going to German, French, and Japanese firms from United Kingdom industry. Although, as the Secretary of State said, we do not have the highest absolute rates of unemployment in Europe, we have the fastest-rising unemployment anywhere in the OECD.
  Against that background, we look at the Budget and the Department of Employment. In 1989, when unemployment stood at 1·8 million, the budget for employment training was about £1·5 billion. In 1990, when unemployment stood at 1·6 million, it was well over £1 billion. In 1991, when unemployment is topping 2 million, how can the figure of £850 million—a cut of almost half what it was two years ago—possibly be justified? If the money in 1989 was barely adequate for unemployment, then how can it be adequate now when unemployment is higher? The omission from the Budget of any proper measures for the unemployed is the most telling expression of the Budget and the Government's priorities. A clear and cynical calculation has been made that 2 million or more unemployed is electorally tolerable. I do not believe that the Government are right in thinking that, but even if they

  495
  are and it is electorally tolerable, it should not be tolerated by any Government who have proper respect for the society in which we live.
  Our criticism, however, is not just of the Budget's failure to announce new measures to assist the unemployed but of its failure to correct past mistakes. Even now, because of the cuts in the budget of the Department of Employment, chaos and confusion are being caused across training provision in Britain, as hon. Members must know from representations that they have received. If we have received those representations, the Department of Employment must have done so, too. Our office has been inundated with scores of complaints that in every part of Britain training schemes are closing, trainers are being made redundant and training places are being lost. Many of those places are for the most disadvantaged people in our community. For some, employment training, with all its faults, offered their only lifeline to self-improvement. Many have written to us—some from high technology schemes for the long-term unemployed, some who are handicapped and some young people whose only opportunity that was to get back into the job market.
  We come to the one measure in this year's Budget that is remotely concerned with employment or training—the tax relief on training fees. Anything that assists training is welcome. The great problem with tax relief is dead weight—in other words, those gaining the tax relief may have undertaken a course anyway and many of the poorer and unskilled will be unlikely to gain by the proposals. Having said that, it is clearly right that anything that assists training deserves our support. When we put that against the scale of Britain's training deficit and realise how far behind we are, can it be said that this sole measure in the Budget that assists employment and training really faces up to the scale of the problem?
  The Secretary of State said that more companies were training, and we welcome that. There are signs that they are. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should read the Industrial Society's report much more carefully before drawing his conclusion in quite such a black-and-white way. More companies are training in Germany, Japan and France, and to higher levels and more qualifications. The idea that they are standing still while we are catching up is nonsense. They are moving ahead, too. When we agree that Britain needs a training revolution, when we must accept that we have more unskilled employees than any other main European competitor, when we languish far behind Germany and France in skills for technicians, textile workers, shop assistants, engineers and computer programmers—almost every sector of the economy, whether services or manufacturing—and then we compensate for five years of cuts totalling £1 billion in Government funding with one tax concession worth £20 million, the notion that we are preparing ourselves adequately for the future is an affront to our common sense.
  The tax concession is not unwelcome, but it is a sop—a political nod in the direction of a serious issue, made without any credible intention of addressing it. It would have been far better to adopt the proposals that the Labour party advanced in our Budget submission, not only for the restoration of money lost through training cuts and the establishment of a good temporary work programme for the unemployed, but for a new special skills fund of £300 million-adequately financed, in other
  496
  words—to allow us to provide access to those who want to obtain skills for the first time and to those who want to improve their skills.
  This tax concession—this sop—reveals the nature of the present Government. They are a Government with no purpose except to be in government. They are a Government with no coherence, no commitment, no passion and no understanding of the needs of the country. A Government who were concerned for Britain in the middle of a recession would have produced a Budget for Britain—a Budget for employment and training. If the Government can find £4·5 billion to salvage the wreckage of the Tory party over the poll tax, why cannot they find £200 million to help training for the unemployed? The reason is simple: they are more concerned about the jobs of 370 Tory MPs, at risk from the electorate, than about the 370,000 people made unemployed since the recession began.
  On Tuesday we had a Budget that ignored the problems of the real economy. Today we had a poll tax announcement whose shambolic incompetence defied belief. It has been a fitting end to a farcical week. Contrary to what we were told by the Secretary of State, when the next election comes, this will be remembered as the week that saw the beginning of the end not just of the poll tax and the mismanagement of our economy but of the party responsible for both.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail. He spoke about the next election. I can only say that his speech did not impress me. On the contrary, it increased my conviction that, after the next election, I shall be greeting my eldest son and not the hon. Gentleman as the Member for Sedgefield.
  I suppose that, following the Chancellor's statement on Tuesday, there can have been no prizes for guessing that all the headlines on Wednesday would be devoted to the increase in VAT and the £140 reduction for every community charge payer. In my view, that was not the most important lesson to be learnt from the Budget. The Budget was living proof that the Chancellor had refused to succumb to the many temptations that must have surrounded him in recent weeks to relax the stern and strict measures taken with the economy and to return as soon as possible to expansion and a period of lower inflation and interest rates. I was enormously relieved that the prospect of an election some time in the next year did not lead my right hon. Friend into irresponsibility. I am sure that siren voices must have tried to tempt him into taking steps that would not have been wise, and I congratulate him on having resisted that temptation, which must have been great.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the prospects for the next year. With regard to economic growth, he said that we should return to an annual rate of 2 per cent. in the year to the end of the first half of 1992; that we can now see the prospect of the end of the current recession; and that, as we have already got two percentage points off the level of inflation, there are prospects of inflation falling to below 4 per cent.
  Many people would have said that it was understandable had he succumbed and let off the brakes to the extent

  497
  of producing a Budget that was not prudent. I was especially struck by the Chancellor's repeated statements that a tight economic policy will continue. It is true that, nowadays, the room for manoeuvre by any Chancellor of the Exchequer is considerably reduced by Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. I believe that that is a good discipline for all Chancellors. If, by any chance, we were at any future time to find ourselves with a Labour Government, the discipline of the exchange rate mechanism on that Government's Chancellor—history has shown that Labour Chancellors have always been much more tempted, and have always reacted by moving into the realms of imprudence—would be much greater than is necessary on a Conservative Chancellor.
  I was very pleased to hear that it remains the firm intention of the Government to move to the narrow exchange mechanism band as soon as that is prudent and possible. That is good news. Before the Budget, I worried that elements of imprudence might creep in. My worries are considerably abated. I believe that the battle to conquer inflation has not been diminished in any way and that the struggle to preserve honest money is being continued. I welcome the Chancellor's statement that the intention is to achieve a balanced budget over the period of the 1990s. That is certainly good news.
  I have always measured Budgets by the reactions of my constituents. I am sure that the people in my constituency will be hugely pleased by the changes in the community charge and by the evolution from the Chancellor's speech about which we heard this afternoon—the creation of a system which, I am sure, will seem fairer to the huge majority of people in this country. I was glad—and I am sure that my constituents will be glad—that the new proposals for the raising of money for local government will continue the concept that everybody should pay something. If we are to switch the raising of funds from local to central revenues, it is far better that that should be done through value added tax than through income tax. Many constituents have written to me saying that there should be such a switch. The great advantage of raising extra revenue centrally through VAT is that it achieves what many of my constituents want—a system that reflects ability to pay. Because of the zero rating of food, rent and fuel, which represent such a high proportion of the expenditure of people on lower incomes, the VAT system gives a good deal of protection to those who are worst off.
  My constituents will welcome the community charge changes. Because the proposed system is fairer, the taxes will be easier to collect, and there should not be repetitions of the absolutely outrageous behaviour of various Labour Members of Parliament, as well as Labour party supporters and others throughout the country, who have demonstrated that they have scant respect for the rule of law.
  I am pleased that the new arrangements for the community charge will maintain the capping system to control extravagant local authorities that have been holding their charge payers to ransom. In Cumbria we have a grossly extravagant county council, run by a Labour-Liberal consortium, which escaped capping last year by the skin of its teeth but which is still holding the people to ransom by its various extravagances.
  498
  Not enough of my constituents have yet understood the pleasant surprises that are in store for them. When they receive their community charge bills for the coming year, they will see the considerable reductions in the charge as a result of the announcements of two months ago. Those reductions will especially help people living in houses which were previously on low rates. They will be even more surprised when they realise that a further £140 will be knocked off their bills.
  The Budget's accent on industry will please those people even more. Most of my constituents never forget the role of industry in creating the wealth of the nation, on which everything else depends. The Secretary of State referred to the measures applying to small businesses. I shall not repeat them, except to point out that my constituents have been looking for such action for a long time. I refer to the reduction in tax rates, the help with VAT, the threshold exemption, the relaxation on capital gains tax and the new pay-as-you-earn arrangements. They are all welcome.
  I congratulate the Chancellor on having achieved low taxation rates for industry which make this country the most attractive for overseas investors. We now have the lowest taxed industry in the European Community and the United States. As a result of the Budget, the powerhouse of the economy—British industry—will have tremendous opportunities in the coming years to expand and prosper and, as that happens, the nation will expand and prosper.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: This truncated debate has been overshadowed in more ways than one by the poll tax debacle—the biggest fiasco in modern political history and a U-turn of staggering proportions. A proud flagship has gone for ever, yet we still have to hear a word of apology or contrition from the Treasury Bench. Any Government with an ounce of shame or decency would have resigned. There is much that I could say about the poll tax, but because of the shortage of time I will leave the matter there and deal with the Budget and the state of the economy.
  The Tories have had 12 years in which to implement their policies. After all that time, we are plunged into the depths of an appalling recession with an explosion of mass unemployment. They have had 12 years to get things right—all those years of North sea oil, of £100 billion revenue and selling off state assets—but it has all been squandered. Where is the economic miracle they used to talk about? Where are the apologies to the unemployed? There were 86,500 more out of work last month—86,500 more tragedies.
  We were told that inflation was to be the Government's judge and jury and that their aim was to achieve zero inflation. When inflation began to rise, we were told that it was just a blip. It has been blipping ever since. The Government have strangled the economy and brought it to a standstill in an effort to deal with inflation.
  We have a record trade gap. When the trade gap went to £1 billion in one month the Government said that it was a freak. It has been a freak ever since. We have record bankruptcies, the highest interest and mortgage rates, the highest house repossession rates, unemployment surging, output down 2 per cent. this year on the Chancellor's own admission, manufacturing output down 5 per cent. this

  499
  year, and investment—the seed corn—down 10 per cent. It is an abysmal catalogue of failure. In no other country in Europe is the same thing happening.
  The Tories used to talk about the Labour party being a party which might borrow. We have not heard much about that today. This year the Government are borrowing £8 billion and next year they propose to borrow £12 billion. If the Labour party had suggested borrowing that amount, we would have heard more about it. That money is not for investment, but to pay for unemployment and to balance the books. If the Government had restored child benefit to its proper level, they would have had to increase it by £2·30 instead of just 25p for the second and subsequent children.
  The Government are a complete failure, not just at the margins but in all important essentials. We have a Government of incompetence and bungling. They should not be allowed to stay in office a moment longer. We need an immediate election to cleanse the country of so abysmal a regime.
  I want to refer to some of the evidence taken by the Select Committee on Employment in the past three weeks. There was much else that I wanted to say, but there is not time. Last week the Confederation of British Industry told the Select Committee that unemployment would continue to rise all through next year, reaching at least 2·25 million. The CBI also told us that unemployment would go up for the whole of the following year. So unemployment will be rising for two more years, as far ahead as can be foreseen and certainly up to the next election.
  Yesterday the Institute of Directors appeared before the Select Committee and told us that last year it had tried to be optimistic but that it no longer could. I will quote the exact words:
  "Since 1984 the IOD has done its own bi-monthly survey of member opinion including asking members what their expectations are about economic developments. The February 1991 results are the worst in the life of the survey."
  The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) mentioned Europe. In the IOD paper there is a passage on the impact of European Community membership going back to 1970. Hon. Members will recall that in 1970 a White Paper said that the effect of entry on the balance of payments would be positive and substantial. I quote the words of the IOD:
  "Over the period of 1970 to 1988, UK manufactured exports to the EC rose by 210 per cent. in volume, but imports from the EC grew by 640 per cent. The impact on Britain's trade balance was adverse and severe. Membership of the EC was accompanied by a turnaround in UK manufacturing trade from a surplus in 1970 of £16·2 billion at 1988 prices to a deficit in 1988 of £15·7 billion."
  So during that period there was a turn around of £32 billion. The IOD said that the position is worse because in 1970 there was no North sea oil. The IOD also said:
  "Although many jobs are created by trade within Europe, it is clear from the figures above that more jobs have been lost. This effect has had an impact on most industries in the UK. There is no reason to believe that 1992 will not accelerate this process."
  In other words, the Institute of Directors thinks that it will all get worse. In the next paragraph the IOD says:
  "There is a strong likelihood of a painful period of adjustment to the UK's entry into the ERM".
  It also said that European monetary union could exacerbate what it called the marginalisation of the United Kingdom economy.
  That is what we were told yesterday by the Institute of Directors, and it came out in the discussions and evidence
  500
  that to the extent that our inflation, our productivity and our containment of unit labour costs do not converge with those of Germany—in other words, are not so good as Germany's—we lose competitiveness from day 1 of exchange rate mechanism entry. The IOD fears that our trade deficit unemployment will grow and drew our attention to the experience of East Germany, which changed its currency to the deutschmark but without the same level of productivity and cost as West Germany, leading to the collapse of industry and mass unemployment.
  The Select Committee has been interested in the effect on employment of joining the exchange rate mechanism. When we asked the Secretary of State what research had been done on this in the Department, he replied with a letter in which he quoted a memorandum from the director general of the National Economic Development Council and the November 1990 issue of the National Institute Economic Review. That was very worrying because it told us that ERM membership cost France 700,000 jobs and Italy 1 million jobs. Those facts ought to be brought to the attention of the British public rather more widely.
  The current issue of CBI News has an article by Professor Douglas McWilliams, the CBI's chief economic adviser. Speaking of the effect on the French economy, he says:
  "How has the French economy performed since the start of serious EMF membership of 1983? The initial effect was slow growth. French GNP rose by below trend for five consecutive years from 1983–87 with a cumulative shortfall of 4·5 per cent. of growth compared with productive potential. The main feature of this recession was that output was depressed for an unusually long period …"
  The article went on to say that wages were reduced. It continued:
  "Nevertheless, reducing inflation still required rather slow growth associated with rising unemployment"
  —a rise in the number of jobs lost of approximately half a million.
  His last paragraph is very revealing and worrying, and all hon. Members should be concerned about it. He says that
  "the French experience suggests that if British membership of the ERM is successful in reducing inflation it is likely that unemployment will rise to about 500,000 above its 1990 level at some time before 1994. And if Britain is unsuccessful the rise in unemployment could be substantially more than this—perhaps as much as a million or more."
  The Institute of Directors told the Committee that the most important thing was training and that the responsibility for training the unemployed and paying for it was with the Government. A fortnight ago our witness was Mr. David Dickinson, the chairman of the group of 10 of the TECs who negotiates with the Government. He said that
  "the TEC movement appealed very, very strongly to the Secretary of State in the run-up to the last Autumn Review, in that the level of funding should be maintained at last year's level in real terms, and that this should be maintained at least three years to allow the TEC movement to get up and running. In fact, we saw a reduction overall … in the region of 20 per cent. and notably 36 per cent. in money terms in ET, which has given the TECs a major problem. So we think that it is sending the wrong message to the world, to have major cuts in budget."
  Mr. Dickinson referred to
  "a most Draconian average cut of 45 per cent. in real terms … in their adult training budgets."
  He then said:
  "There is a Budget coming up very shortly, and it would be one of the most powerful things for this country if the

  501
  Chancellor were to reinstate the training and enterprise budgets at last year's level throughout, which would be three steps similar to the one that has just recently been taken."
  The Secretary of State will remember that he recently announced a budget increase of £120 million. Mr. Dickinson told us that the Secretary of State had previously made a cut of £365 million and that the increase announced was only one third of that previous cut. Mr. Dickinson wanted the remaining two thirds. He said:
  "I think that would be one of the most powerful things to ensure the success of the TEC movement."
  That is what the TECs were waiting for and expecting from the Budget, but they did not get it.
  What is the result of the TECs being underfunded? Mr. Dickinson said:
  "Many ET providers will be virtually idle in the second half of 1991 due to the cuts in their funding."
  I asked him:
  "What are we to make of that? What is the significance of that? Do you think that is right? Should we be worried about that?"
  Speaking on behalf of the TECs, Mr. Dickinson said:
  "I certainly think the TECs and the Employment Committee and the Government should all be worried about it."
  Therefore, not only are workers becoming unemployed, but the trainers are being put on the dole. That is the criticism that the TECs are making of the Government.
  We heard evidence yesterday from Judith Donovan—the only female chairperson. She is the chairperson of the Bradford TEC. She said:
  "In the early days of getting TECs on the road—less than a year ago—the dream was that TECs would negotiate a budget based on what they proposed to deliver in response to local needs. How the mood has changed! We now see a reduced national budget allocated to TECs and scope for negotiation almost nil.
  The 30 per cent. cut on employment training budgets announced in January 1991 appears cynical when one looks at the way unemployment has increased within the previous two or three months."
  That is the evidence that the TECs and the TECs' chairmen are giving to the Select Committee on Employment. [Interruption.] I have just quoted Judith Donovan, the chairperson of the Bradford TEC. The previous evidence was from David Dickinson, the chairman of the group of 10.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Mr. Dickinson is the chairman of one TEC, which is not yet operational. He is not chairman of the group of 10.
  Mr. Leighton: I suspect that the Secretary of State is probably misleading and confusing himself. Is Mr. Dickinson a member of the group of 10?
  Mr. Howard: I am always happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Dickinson is a member of the group of 10, but he is not its chairman. He made it perfectly plain when giving evidence to the Select Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), that he was giving evidence in a personal capacity. He holds no representative position.
  Mr. Leighton: We have to be a little cautious before we denigrate or speak ill of a chairman of a TEC.
  Mr. Howard rose——
  Mr. Leighton: I shall give way in a moment.
  502
  The Select Committee on Employment is interested in TECs. We want to be of assistance and we are taking evidence from the TECs. We heard evidence from Mr. Dickinson, the chairman of the east London TECs and a member of the group of 10. He negotiates on behalf of the TECs with the Secretary of State. He is a bona fide witness.
  The second person I quoted was the chairman of the Bradford TEC. I hope that the Secretary of State will take notice of those people. Even if he does not listen to me or my hon. Friends, he should listen to the chairmen of the TECs who are complaining about their budgets.
  Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his wholly unfounded suggestion that I was either denigrating or speaking ill of Mr. Dickinson for whom I have the greatest respect? I merely sought to point out that the hon. Gentleman had described him inaccurately and was attributing to him a representative capacity that he does not possess. Will the hon. Gentleman now withdraw his remark?
  Mr. Leighton: From the evidence given to the Select Committee, I understand that there is a group of 10 and that that group liaises—even negotiates—with the Secretary of State. It told me that it was to have a meeting with the Secretary of State on 18 March. I do not know whether the meeting took place. I have seen reports in the Financial Times, which is usually accurate, stating that the group could not agree with the Minister about the agenda because a new programme was being suggested—a sort of "make work" programme, a resuscitated community programme, a blotting paper exercise to soak up all the extra unemployed. The Secretary of State did not want that on the agenda. I read in the press that, as a result, the group of 10 might not be having a meeting with him. I do not know whether it did.
  The Secretary of State must agree that the group of 10 is a bona fide body. Mr. Dickinson described himself as the chairman of that group and it is for the group to decide who is its chairman. However much the Secretary of State shakes his head, Mr. Dickinson is a chairman of a TEC. I have quoted two chairpersons of TECs. It may interest the Secretary of State to know that another panel of three TEC chairmen will appear before the Select Committee. It is right that the House and the country should hear what the TECs are saying. They are criticising the Secretary of State and he knows that. Before the autumn statement they asked him not to cut the budget. It was cut and they asked him to make good the cuts in the Budget, but that has not been done. It is no good the Secretary of State sitting there shaking his head and squirming—he knows that he is on a bad footing.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). I am always glad to follow him because, whatever I say, I am bound to appear more optimistic. His gloom—especially over the European Community—shows how essential it is to reduce inflation and to boost savings. The Budget has set out to do exactly that.
  I am also glad to follow the hon. Gentleman because he is the only member of the Labour party present who has any chance of remembering what it was like when Labour was last in office. In its last year in office, it spent two and a half times less on training in real terms than the

  503
  Government are spending now. It is also worth remembering that the Labour party has difficulty with the whole business of training.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) complained that the Budget did not contain initiatives to help the young or to help older workers who are unemployed, especially those with a lower level of skill. Yet it is interesting that when the youth training programme was introduced, Labour Members opposed it root and branch. Whenever they speak about it in the House, they give examples of how it is not working. The employment training programme was designed specially to help to bring those people back into the employment market. Perhaps it is not surprising that the present Labour party opposes the introduction of the employment training programme at every possible opportunity. I am not sure what the Labour party wants, although I know what some Labour-controlled local authorities want. No fewer than 13 Labour authorities have withdrawn altogether from the employment training programme.
  We know that the Labour party wants a comprehensive system of vocational qualifications. One of the most encouraging features of training now is the move towards national vocational qualifications. An enormous amount of work has already been done and there is a huge amount still to do. I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that the National Council for Vocational Qualifications needs to be a little careful about the elaboration with which it defines some of its competencies. It is putting a huge burden on many hard-working people and we may not need to be quite so refined.
  The main point about the NCVQ and its work is that, for the first time, we have a way in which to find equivalence in the vast jungle of qualifications, which go from the bottom to the top of the training ladder. By the end of 1992, such qualifications will cover 80 per cent. of the work force. The national vocational qualification is the best instrument that this country has ever had for destroying the peculiarly British disease which rates academic learning higher than vocational learning. The universities already accept people on the basis of their national vocational qualifications. I want that to be carried through so that it covers everyone. We should then achieve the parity of esteem between academic learning and technological and vocational learning which is long overdue.
  The Labour party also wants local training consortia. I am not quite sure what they are, but they sound quite like the training and enterprise councils. I am delighted that we are ahead of the Labour party and I am sure that it is pleased, too.
  The Labour party also wants a 59 per cent. top rate of income tax—undoubtedly a tremendous stimulus to the economy. It also wants a minimum wage. The issue that has put this country further behind in the training stakes than almost any other is the fact that the money that young people with no qualifications get is far too high a percentage of the money that those who have qualifications can achieve. The Labour party wants to enshrine that for ever by insisting on a minimum wage.
  We should talk a little more about the good news. Yesterday, in the Palace of Westminster, I had the honour to give certificates to a number of key trainees who had been successful on employment training and on youth training courses. Their delight at having got their
  504
  qualifications and their tribute to the course that had taken them through were a welcome corrective to the rubbish on employment training and on youth training which is spoken in the House day after day by Opposition Members. If I am not mistaken, the Labour party's contribution to youth training would be to abolish it.
  We also need to praise the provision in the Budget that has given tax relief to people who buy their own training. That change is long overdue. For far too long, individuals have regarded training as something that should be provided for them by the employer or by the state. Everything that we can do to encourage people to take individual responsibility for that is essential.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend would expect, I must tell him that I am disturbed by the threat hanging over some high quality provision from voluntary organisations. I hope that even at this late stage more can be done to help.
  The young homeless need to be helped back to work. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether there is any scope for using the employment offices to which such people go as their accommodation address. It is nonsense for young people to find themselves caught because they have no address and can get no benefit. If they can get no benefit, they find it difficult to get a job because they do not have an address. That is bureaucratic nonsense and we must be able to overcome it.
  Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Rowe: If I have misunderstood, as my right hon. and learned Friend suggests, I am delighted.
  9.49 pm
  Dr. John Marek: We have had a short and truncated debate, but one that was worth having. The statements made before the debate arise out of the Budget and the country will be able to judge the Government's inadequacies as a result of those statements and this debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) who, while not being as succinct as he usually is, this evening spelt out what the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors told the Select Committee. What they said is completely different from what the Government would have us believe that these bodies think about the economy.
  I listened to the Secretary of State for Employment in amazement because what he said was "Through the Looking Glass" stuff. Everything in the garden is lovely, there is more training than ever before and more jobs, we are facing the problems of success—where have we heard that phrase before?
  Mr. Blair: The Secretary of State has been biting the wrong mushroom.
  Dr. Marek: Yes, he may have been biting the wrong mushroom.
  We should look at last year's Red Book to see the forecast. These figures have been given before, and I make no apology for repeating them. Last year growth was estimated at 1·5 per cent. in the first half of 1991, but now the forecast is for a fall of 2 per cent. Last year, the Red Book forecast an increase in manufacturing output of 0·75 per cent.; the latest forecast is that it will fall by 5 per cent. Last year, fixed investment was forecast to decline, but not

  505
  by much—0·75 per cent.—and now the expectation is of a decline of 9·75 per cent. This is the second worst recession since the war.
  No amount of gloss from Ministers will convince one of my constituents that the Government have got it right. Every day, the evening newspaper sets out job losses, losses in training places, general gloom and despondency. Until interest rates fall and the Government do something for employment, as opposed to saying that they will do something while in practice doing little, my constituents will remain unconvinced.
  The training programme has been cut by £240 million. At some time in the future, £20 million will be returned, as a result of the Budget, but everyone in my constituency knows that there have been cuts. Great publicity has been given to the difficulties of students who have been on courses. To be fair, the training and enterprise councils are saying that the courses are finished, and that is a good thing, but many trainees do not know if they will get qualifications or whether they will be able to continue their courses.
  I have a serious point about this Budget that is exemplified by an article on the front page of The Times today, which is headed:
  "No tax cuts for four years, Lamont hints."
  The Conservative party is keen to tell us that it has been cutting taxes ever since it came into office, but what it means is that income taxes have been cut. Ten or 11 years ago, income tax rates were higher, with a basic rate of 33p.
  Mr. Howard: What is the Labour party's policy?
  Dr. Marek: The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that Labour party policy is to have a range of income tax rates based on the amount of money that people earn. That is a fair principle that has somehow escaped the Conservative party in relation to the poll tax until, miraculously, this afternoon.
  Taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product has been consistently higher under this Administration, since 1979, and it will continue to be so.
  Under the previous Labour Government it was only about 33 or 34 per cent.—quite a low figure. As soon as the Conservative Administration came into office, the figure shot up to 38 or 39 per cent. The people of Britain will now realise what we mean by the phase, "taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product", because VAT will increase from 15 to 17·5 per cent. Traders will put prices up and the excuse will be that VAT has risen.
  If the article in The Times reported the Chancellor of the Exchequer correctly, there is no prospect of taxation being brought down. The Conservative party is a party of high taxation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. The forecasts are that taxation as a percentage of GDP will remain at 37 per cent. in the next year. Of course, the poll tax will not have helped in any way. That is why at the next general election the Conservative party will be seen by the electorate for what it is. It is empty of promises, incompetent—as the poll tax farrago has shown—and it will be turfed out justifiably.
  9.55 pm
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): This has been an interesting, if somewhat abbreviated, and intimate debate. I should have liked to comment on the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but clearly there is no time. I reiterate that the Budget, which is designed to help business, has been warmly welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors. They all made the point that the Chancellor had listened to what business had to say.
  The Budget also helped families by increasing child benefit and it helped the community charge payer. For the information of Opposition Members, a couple receiving the full relief—a total of £280—on community charge would need to spend £13,000 on standard VAT-rated goods to be worse off.
  In debates on the Budget attention has rightly been concentrated on major matters and there is no time to speak about the many imaginative measures in the Budget, including the training measures which add to the £2·7 billion already being spent by the Government on training, the £20 billion being spent by employers and the new measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, on which I congratulate him. There is no time to go into all those measures.
  I wish to make one brief announcement which will be welcomed by the House about help for the disabled with their transport needs. It affects coach operators who have responded positively to the needs of disabled persons by fitting up their coaches to carry wheelchairs. Such operators sometimes laid themselves open to a tax penalty because their vehicles no longer had sufficient seats to avoid paying VAT and car tax. I am delighted to be able to say that not only will such operators no longer have to pay car tax and VAT where only the provision of wheelchair space made them liable but that Customs will consider claims for refunds from operators who have been caught and still have the vehicle.
  Opposition Members have convenient memories. In their doom-laden comments they forget that while there is, indeed, a recession it comes after a period of unprecedented growth and that in the three years to 1989 business investment rose by 43 per cent. They forget that from 1981 to 1990 the United Kingdom economy grew by almost 30 per cent. and that in the same period unemployment fell by 1·5 million and jobs increased by 3·25 million. They forget that more people of working age are at work in the United Kingdom than in any other European Community member state. Moreover, they forget that unemployment increased under each and every Labour Government since the war.
  Last night we were treated to an impressive and enjoyable display of the operatic knowledge of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). We were all greatly impressed by the extent of his knowledge. But tonight the utterances of Opposition Members reminded me of quite another song—Noel Coward's "There are bad times just around the corner".
  The Budget has helped business, families, the community charge payer, the disabled and the environment, and it means that good times are just around the corner for Britain and for the Government. The bad times

  507
  round the corner will be for the Opposition. They long for an election, but so do we, because when it comes we know that the electorate will see the Opposition's outworn and unconvincing policies for what they are.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Auxiliary Coastguard Service
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  10 pm
  Mr. David Harris: It is almost eight years since I made my maiden spech on the controversial subject of coastguard reorganisation—and at that time the Chamber was as full as it is now, that also being an Adjournment debate.
  The debate that I am now initiating is about the review which the Government plan to put in hand into the whole question of the sectoral organisation of Her Majesty's coastguard, and particularly the auxiliary coastguard service. I made my maiden speech against the background of the Penlee disaster and, of course, the Penlee lifeboat was based in my constituency. After that disaster there was considerable concern about the reorganisation of the coastguard service in the south-west and especially in Cornwall.
  In my maiden speech I asked for certain assurances, particularly about the retention of regular manning of the three remaining look-outs manned by auxiliaries in my constituency. The manning arrangements for those look-outs are unique because they are the only ones in the country that are regularly manned. The three look-outs are at Gwenap head, which is near Land's End and is manned for 24 hours a day every day of the year, the Lizard, which is manned for 12 hours a day, and St. Ives, which is manned for six to eight hours a day.
  In reply to that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who was then the Minister for Shipping and Public Transport, assured me that I would be given prior warning of any change that was contemplated in the manning arrangements of those look-outs. In accordance with that pledge, my hon. Friend the present Minister for Shipping, who I am glad to say will reply to this debate, wrote to me on 23 January saying that there was now a possibility that regular manning would be stopped at those three look-out stations. He told me that a few days later he would announce in a written answer that there had been an internal review into the auxiliary coastguard station and that there was a question mark over the future of the three look-out stations.
  I informed my hon. Friend right away of my total opposition to the possible abolition of regular manning at those stations. I base my argument for their retention on the simple fact that by any yardstick my constituency is remarkably exposed and has a very dangerous coastline. That fact is emphasised by another fact, that there are five major deep sea lifeboats—not rubber duck lifeboats—in my constituency. That is far more than in any other constituency in Britain. This all stems from the geographical position of the constituency, which juts out into the Atlantic and takes in the Isles of Scilly, Iand's End, the Lizard and quite a large slice of the north coast of Cornwall.
  As a result of the warning that the Minister kindly gave me, in accordance with the pledge, I was able to alert local people and others to the threat hanging over these three look-outs, and to the fact that a review was in progress. A few days later that review was announced in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) in what can only be described as a rather bland

  509
  reply, in which the Minister said that he had deposited in the Library an eight-page summary of the internal review document.
  I would not quarrel with parts of the document. I am not arguing that it was not necessary to hold such a review. From time to time in any organisation it makes sense to see how it is working. I am, however, certainly arguing against one of its recommendations—about the three look-outs I have mentioned—and I certainly want to ask questions about the way in which the review has been and is being conducted.
  Because I drew local attention to the situation, I received many letters, as did my hon. Friend the Minister, and as did the regional controller of the coastguard, Commander David Eliot. I pay tribute to him; he has a job to do and I do not mean in any way to criticise him.
  I have had letters from honorary secretaries of lifeboats in my constituency. I have received many letters from the sea fish industry committee of the county council, from fishermen, from the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation and from the South West Hand Liners Association. Fishermen are extremely worried about the proposals for the look-outs and about the review in general.
  I have also had letters from all the councils involved—from, for instance, St. Ives town council, which was aghast at suggestions that the busy holiday town of St. Ives might lose its look-out, which keeps a weather eye on what is happening at sea and on what is happening to the holiday beaches of the town. There have been four fatalities in St. Ives this year alone. The holiday industry there is dismayed by the prospect of anything happening to the look-out or of its hours being reduced.
  Others are also worried about the operation. As the weeks have gone by other hon. Members have become aware of it, I suspect partly because of representations from the auxiliary coastguards to the effect that such a move was afoot. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in his place. I hope that he wil be able to catch the Chair's eye later to voice the concerns of his constituency.
  I am convinced that if I had not been granted my previous Adjournment debate or been given my pledge some years ago, much of this would have happened without people knowing it. I am sorry to say that even now we do not know the full details of what is being contemplated. In a series of written questions I asked the Minister if he would place in the Library a copy of the full document of the internal review. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will change his mind tonight and will make that document available to hon. Members in the Library.
  I hope that, once the regional controllers put forward their detailed proposals on how to implement the review—that is the task that they have been given—hon. Members and others will be told exactly what is being proposed. I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend the Minister felt that he could not agree to that. He said, perfectly reasonably, that it is not usual for the advice of civil servants or officials to be made public and I understand that. However, my plea tonight is that he will change the Government's attitude toward the conduct of the review that he hopes to implement within a couple of months.
  510
  People must be told exactly what the Government have in mind. I do not mean simply the proposals in the intial document but what will be proposed by the regional controllers, what my hon. Friend the Minister decides as a result of those proposals, and what will happen to the structure of the auxiliary coastguard service. Some 4,400 auxiliaries, who are dedicated volunteers, are now stationed around the coastline of the United Kingdom. I do not know—my hon. Friend the Minister says that he does not know either—how many will be in place once the review has been implemented. I am sure that their number will be reduced, and I suspect that the reduction could be considerable.
  According to the summary document, the review recommends that the deployment of auxiliaries should be changed. It rightly says that the present disposition is largely based on historical factors. In many areas, the position has probably changed but it is being suggested that, instead of companies of auxiliaries placed with some frequency around the coastline, a fast response team of two or four men would go out and assess emergencies. There would also be a back-up team that could be called out for serious emergencies. I suspect that there may be a very long coastline between one back-up team and the next, and that it may take some time to summon sufficient response to serious emergencies.
  It is the job of regional controllers to make detailed proposals, and it is imperative that all interested and concerned organisations should know exactly what is being proposed before my hon. Friend the Minister makes his final decision. In statements earlier today, other Ministers said that they had consulted widely on matters of great importance to the country's future. I hope that there will be wide consultation on this matter so that people can give their expert judgment on the suggestions.
  People should be consulted not just because it makes good sense but because my hon. Friend the Minister knows perfectly well that past reorganisation of the coastguard service has been highly emotive and controversial. I do not need to remind him, for example, of the recent controversy over the closure of the Hartland coastguard station. I am desperately afraid that, unless he adopts an open approach on this issue, people will be, and may have good grounds for being, suspicious about it. Therefore, it is in everyone's best interests for my hon. Friend the Minister to adopt the open approach that I am advocating tonight.
  The auxiliaries are dedicated volunteers who are paid little money but care desperately and passionately about the service that they provide. They are in a difficult position because they rightly feel that they cannot speak out. It is to their credit that they have not gone rushing off to the papers to spread scare stories; they are highly responsible men and women. I have contacts with them and I know how responsible they are and how some of them feel about what might be in the air.
  I do not think it is fair on the auxiliaries or their officers, particularly the regional controllers, to be the subject of unfair criticism over the review. Therefore, I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to hide nothing and, once he has received the advice and recommendations of the regional controllers and made up his mind on how the review should be implemented, will tell not just Members of Parliament, but the public, certainly those who feel strongly about this issue, who should know exactly what is being proposed. My hon. Friend the Minister has been

  511
  kind enough to offer me, and no doubt other hon. Members, meetings to discuss the matter. I do not want us to be presented with a fait accompli through a written answer.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has listened carefully, and I hope, with confidence, that he will heed what I have said tonight. I believe that I am speaking for many people, many hon. Members and, more importantly, for all those people around the coastline who regard the coastguard service as an absolute necessity and believe that any changes made to its organisation and structure should be approached with the greatest care and completed in a totally open manner.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I thank the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) for giving me the opportunity to speak now and for raising the issue in the House, having won the opportunity to debate it. It is an important issue that, ultimately, boils down to life saving. I heartily endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman has said tonight and about which he has been campaigning for some time.
  I have some direct experience of the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency because I was present and summoned the rescue services to a drowning on the other side of St. Ives bay some years ago when I was 16. The person was taken out of the water alive but, sadly, died later in hospital. That incident gave me a direct appreciation of exactly what goes on in such circumstances.
  The essential point being put tonight relates to the three look-out posts. They are not in my constituency and I can simply support what the hon. Gentleman said. More generally, the debate deals with the nature of the review that is taking place. My concern relates partly to my constituency but also to national issues. It is not so long since the awful situation in north Devon raised considerable concern. People are worried whenever there is perceived to be a threat to the local service and the local knowledge that it provides in emergencies.
  The case in the Mevagissey district which hit the headlines was precisely the same as that just described, but nothing was made public officially. Information began to come out in dribs and drabs about what was to be proposed. First, we were told that the look-out post would go. I now understand that it will remain at Mevagissey, but with a 50 per cent. cut in manning levels on that section of coast and a 50 per cent. extension of the area of coast to be covered. That naturally makes the coastguards concerned about the question of rapid response, particularly given their current aim for a 20-minute response time. They are now told that the target will be 30 minutes. I understand that Ministers hope to even up as well as down, so that the 30-minute response time will apply everywhere. Currently, it does not exist in every area, but naturally in a district where the response time is estimated to be 20 minutes an increase in that time is a matter of considerable concern.
  I hope that the Minister will respond to the point that the hon. Member for St. Ives made that any proposals should be made openly so that people know what is going on and can express their concerns locally before finding out that an announcement has been made.
  10.19 pm
  The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): First and foremost, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on securing this Adjournment debate. I am aware of the deep feelings in his constituency about the coastguard service and of his great interest in the service.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the Penlee lifeboat disaster, which had a tremendous effect on the nation and lives in its mind. In the few minutes remaining, I should like to answer as many points as possible that my hon. Friend made.
  I was surprised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) saying that information leaked out in dribs and drabs. The review was carried out, and when I released it to the trade unions I felt it right to answer a question in the House and place a summary of the recommendations in the Library. I thought that the summary went some way to answering some of the points, but I will deal with the specific point that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives made.
  Before discussing the review's findings, it may be helpful to explain what the sector organisation is and how it relates to the rest of the coastguard service.
  The primary function of the coastguard is to provide a maritime search and rescue co-ordination service by maintaining 24-hour radio distress and 999 emergency telephone watch at 21 centres around the United Kingdom. From those stations, the majority of emergency incidents are co-ordinated, using whatever rescue resources are available to the coastguard from a variety of sources. That is an important point. That aspect of the coastguard's role is not covered in the review.
  The sector and auxiliary organisation represents another arm of the service that provides on-the-spot coastal support to operational centres, with about 100 full-time sector officers supported, as my hon. Friend said, by 4,500 auxiliary coastguard volunteers. That aspect of the service was under review.
  The auxiliary coastguards are volunteers, but normally they are called out for only a few hours each month for exercises or training. They provide an ever-ready band of enthusiastic men and women who unstintingly give their time to assist the regular coastguard service. Although they are only one component of the United Kingdom's search and rescue organisation, they remain a valuable asset in providing an essential coastal response and local knowledge. I join my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives in paying tribute to their unstinting and important work for our coastguard service.
  The sector and auxiliary organisation was set up following the reorganisation of the coastguard, as recommended by the Lavers report of 1974. The number of sectors and the size and location of auxiliary companies, which were established mainly to man breeches buoy rescue equipment, undoubtedly met the requirements of the day, but the situation on the coastline has changed in the intervening years. There has been a marked decrease in the number of vessels that, formerly, were wrecked around our coasts, but an increase in the number of leisure-related incidents involving holidaymakers and pleasure craft. The requirement to rescue stranded mariners by breeches buoy has been replaced by the greater availability of all-weather helicopters and fast lifeboats. In some cases, it must be

  513
  accepted that the disposition, size and coverage provided by the coastguard coastal sector organisation is based on historical rather than current requirements.
  I therefore consider that the review is timely and will give an opportunity to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the coastguard's response in meeting current requirements. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said, there were several aspects of the review with which no one would argue, such as setting out the role of the coastguard and trying to achieve more regular response times.
  The review is wide ranging in its scope. It considers the coastguard's coastal commitments, responsiveness, the sector organisation, the sector officer's tasks, the coastguard auxiliary service, transport, both ashore and afloat, equipment including communications equipment, training requirements, and associated administrative functions and methodology.
  The coastal commitments of the coastguard have evolved over the years. Currently, they consist of an amalgam of statutory duties, non-statutory duties, habitual and traditional tasks. The role and objectives of the service need to be clarified and widely promulgated. Accordingly, the review addresses those issues.
  Future requirements for manpower and equipment cannot be determined without target performance standards. The time from call-out to achieving a presence on scene depends on a variety of factors, including local geography, population density, potential for incidents and their frequency and the availability of other emergency resources. It will be appreciated that some of those factors are not necessarily quantifiable. I shall therefore be looking for a result that is realistic and practical. The review recommends certain response criteria which will provide a base line for assessing whether coverage is satisfactory in each area around the coastline.
  Our coastline varies and different responses are needed. At some times of the year, a tremendous number of holidaymakers visit St. Ives and at other times of the year it is not so busy. We must get the balance right. I accept the importance of this issue to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and of the hon. Member for Truro.
  The local knowledge of sector officers, coupled with their operational availability and expertise, is an essential part of the coastal response and will continue to be so. The review examines their job description and draws attention to the fact that, although some officers are fully stretched, others could accept a greater range of tasks with no detriment to the service. This is therefore one of the matters that regional controllers will assess.
  Auxiliary coastguards form a vital part of the coastguard service. Auxiliary coastguards, both men and women, undertake a wide variety of tasks on a voluntary basis to serve the local community and the mariner at large. Some auxiliaries are trained to work as radio operators in operation centres, but with the demise of the breeches buoy, the majority are now organised into teams trained in cliff and mud rescue techniques and shoreline searches and trained to provide vital intelligence as well as providing on-the-spot co-ordination when necessary. In some cases, the size and location of these teams is still based on historical, rather than current, requirements, so
  514
  regional controllers are now examining where coverage needs to be improved to meet the response criteria and, conversely, where savings could be made.
  The important issue of look-outs worries my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. The Lavers report concluded that a visual distress watch was not cost-effective, with only a very small percentage of incidents observed directly by coastguards from fixed look-outs. Since the end of the 1970s most of those look-outs have been phased out and the coastguard has maintained radio distress watch at its operations centres, the remainder of reports being received from the 999 emergency telephone system.
  However, in casualty risk situations and in special circumstances, some form of visual watch may still be necessary. Rather than rely upon fixed look-outs with restricted areas of visibility, this need can perhaps best be satisfied by the use of fast response vehicles with appropriate radio communications and rescue equipment able to travel quickly to those parts of the coastline which a fixed look-out is unable to cover. The review therefore recommends reconsideration of the case for retaining the three fixed look-outs.
  The review also considers whether the payment of out-of-pocket expenses to auxiliaries can be improved and simplified. It is also appreciated that there is need for auxiliary coastguards to be recognised by the public at large while performing their essential duties. An examination of the uniform requirements is therefore to be undertaken.
  The review is a consultation document. No decision has been taken. I have insisted on full consultation at local level with interested parties before recommendations to implement the review are made. This process is under way nationwide. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives feels that there has been some secrecy. There should not have been any secrecy and I would deeply regret it if that had occurred. I intended to make the review as widely available as possible, which is why I published the summary.
  Since the review was published in January, my officials have received a large number of contributions, most of which have been constructive. Understandably, many people wish to be assured that there will be no reduction in the coastguard's ability to provide an adequate response to emergencies along our coastline. It is also pleasing to note that, in general, the review has been welcomed by the coastguard service as a whole, which sees it as providing a sensible framework on which to build for the future.
  I look forward to receiving the advice of coastguard regional controllers—through the Chief Coastguard—on how the review findings may be applied to their particular region. I have already agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and other hon. Members before I make a decision, which will probably be in June.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives asked me to put a full copy of the review in the Library. I did not do so in the first place because it went into a lot of technical detail. Following my hon. Friend's strenuous representations, I shall certainly place a full copy in the Library.
  I know that the House reaffirms its support for our coastguard system. We must all ask ourselves how to provide the best service and the best coastal rescue system for our entire coastline. There is a lot of it. It varies and different responses are needed in different areas. I hope that, with the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member

  515
  for St. Ives and other hon. Members, we will get it right so that we have the best possible coastguard service, meeting the needs of all the constituencies along our coastline and of all those constituents who use our coast and may need to use our coastguard service.
  516
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide for each local authority the level of rates payable in 1989–90 below which a ratepaying couple who have not subsequently moved house might expect in 1991–92 to benefit from the community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for a table of the information requested, based on the community charges for 1991–92 so far reported to the Department, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91, for each local authority in England and Wales, the proportion of revenue raised by the rating system or community charge as a percentage of total local authority expenditure.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for a table of the estimates for local authorities in England for 1988–89 and 1989–90 to be placed in the Library of the House. For 1990–91, community charge income is paid into the collection fund of the charging authority and, together with revenue support grant and receipts from the non-domestic rates pool, finances the spending of both charging and precepting authorities. It is not therefore possible to relate the community charge income of the collection fund to the expenditure of any particular authority.

  Figures for authorities in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the year on year increase in percentage terms, in standard spending assessment for 1991–92 for each metropolitan district and London borough.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 20 March 1991]: The figures requested are given in the following table:

  Percentage increase in SSA between 1990–91 and 1991–92

  per cent.

  Greater London

  City of London

  2·5

  Camden

  22·4

  Greenwich

  22·2

  Hackney

  22·9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  20·8

  Islington

  25·4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  26·8

  Lambeth

  23·3

  Lewisham

  24·1

  Southwark

  24·7

  Tower Hamlets

  25·1

  Wandsworth

  23·2

  Westminster

  22·1

  168

  per cent.

  Barking and Dagenham

  20·6

  Barnet

  22·9

  Bexley

  21·3

  Brent

  19·9

  Bromley

  21·9

  Croydon

  20·7

  Ealing

  21·7

  Enfield

  22·1

  Haringey

  21·7

  Harrow

  18·9

  Havering

  20·3

  Hillingdon

  23·5

  Hounslow

  23·9

  Kingston upon Thames

  21·6

  Merton

  17·2

  Newham

  23·7

  Redbridge

  22·6

  Richmond upon Thames

  22·1

  Sutton

  21·9

  Waltham Forest

  20·8

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  17·9

  Bury

  17·9

  Manchester

  19·5

  Oldham

  21·6

  Rochdale

  19·5

  Salford

  16·3

  Stockport

  19·2

  Tameside

  18·5

  Trafford

  16·6

  Wigan

  18·6

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  16·0

  Liverpool

  18·1

  St. Helens

  20·2

  Sefton

  20·5

  Wirral

  19·2

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  19·9

  Doncaster

  20·5

  Rotherham

  18·8

  Sheffield

  20·2

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  20·4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  18·8

  North Tyneside

  19·5

  South Tyneside

  18·2

  Sunderland

  19·5

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  18·4

  Coventry

  17·0

  Dudley

  19·5

  Sandwell

  17·1

  Solihull

  17·9

  Walsall

  15·9

  Wolverhampton

  18·4

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  19·7

  Calderdale

  18·0

  Kirklees

  18·8

  Leeds

  20·5

  Wakefield

  19·4

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what would be the level of community charge in Kent for 1990–91 if the amount of revenue support grant, or its equivalent, paid to local authorities had been maintained at its 1978–79 level in real terms;
  169
  (2) what would be the level of community charge in Calderdale for 1990–91 if the amount of revenue support grant, or its equivalent, paid to local authorities had been maintained at its 1978–79 level in real terms.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on Thursday 14 March,Official Report, column 675.

  Council Housing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish, in the Official Report (a) the total, for each authority, of homes owned by the council at 1 January 1980, (b) the total sold to tenants under the right-to-buy legislation and other voluntary processes since 1 January 1980 to the latest date for which figures are available and (c) the percentage (b) represents of (a) for the London boroughs of Camden, Islington, Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth, the metropolitan boroughs of Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham and the districts of Nottingham and Bristol, and each of the districts of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset.

  Mr. Yeo
  A table giving the available information on sales for each English local authority was placed in the Library on Wednesday 30 January 1991—Official Report, column 542.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of people made homeless due to mortgage repossessions since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities report the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1985 where the main immediate reason for homelessness is mortgage arrears, but do not distinguish those who were actually subject to repossession. Estimates are as follows:

  Year

  England

  1979

  2,000

  1980

  2,500

  1981

  3,500

  1982

  4,200

  1983

  4,700

  1984

  6,100

  1985

  8,300

  1986

  10,070

  1987

  10,460

  1988

  8,340

  1989

  8,360

  1990

  13,470

  Urban Renewal Grant
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the range of projects funded by urban renewal grant in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Key
  In addition to the resources made available through local authorities' housing investment programme allocations and capital receipts, my Department provides specific resources under the group of urban and housing programmes as follows:170

  1990–91

  £ million

  Urban programme

  232·6

  City grant approved

  49·5

  Derelict land grant

  73·5

  Urban development corporations

  553·9

  City action teams

  7·8

  Estate action

  190·0

  In addition, resources totalling £165 million are available in 1990–91 to help the homeless through local authority and housing association schemes, the rough sleepers initiative and grants to voluntary organisations offering advice and support.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what projects in Wandsworth have received funding from the urban renewal grant; and what is the total value of the grants.

  Mr. Key
  My Department has provided specific resources in Wandsworth as follows:

  1990–91

  £ million

  Urban programme

  2·5

  City grant approved

  0·4

  Homelessness

  3·1

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what payments will be made or have been made to Mr. D. A. Turnbull arising out of the sale of TCS to the management buy-out with which the person to whom the Government are considering selling the transport section of the Crown Suppliers is connected.

  Mr. Yeo
  Payments totalling £36,000 have been made by my Department to members of Mr. Pinkney's team in support of fees they incurred up to December 1990 for advice from D. A. Turnbull and Co. Mr. Turnbull is corresponding with the Department about support for subsequent fees for the team's advisers.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether all TCS contracts let by his Department connected in any way with Mr. D. A. Turnbull complied with civil service procurement rules.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on funding lesbian and gay housing associations.

  Mr. Yeo
  To be eligible for public funding for housing activities, a housing association must be registered with the Housing Corporation. Responsibility for registration rests in statute with the corporation. I am, however, not aware that there are any registered associations which meet the hon. Member's description.

  Derelict Land, Leicestershire
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent in Government grants on derelict land, following the closure of coal mines, in north-west Leicestershire since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  Since 1979, payments of derelict land grant totalling £2,496,884 have been authorised for schemes for the reclamation of former collieries in Leicestershire, North-West.

  Gulf Oil Fires
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the evidence on which he has based his statement,Official Report, 15 March, column 1389, on the impact of oil fires.

  Mr. Baldry
  The long-term environmental damage arising from acid rain in parts of Europe results from cumulative deposition over very many years, combined with sensitive geology. Neither of these factors applies in the Gulf region, and it is therefore to be hoped that long-term damage will be slight.

  Water Supply
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many relaxations have been authorised under the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 12 March,Official Report, column 476.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are(a) the average cost per person of Government provision towards local government services and (b) individual community charges in each district in Devon in 1991–92;

  (2) what is the support per person given by central Government to (a) Lambeth and (b) North Devon; and what is the community charge of each for the year 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is given in the table. If Parliament enacts the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill, new average community charges will be £140 lower, with a consequent increase in central Government support.

  Total external support1

  Average community charge

  1991–92

  1991–92

  £/head

  £/head

  East Devon

  456

  383

  Exeter

  491

  377

  Mid Devon

  472

  394

  North Devon

  479

  2—

  Plymouth

  510

  380

  South Hams

  465

  380

  Teignbridge

  466

  405

  Torbay

  475

  380

  Torridge

  514

  346

  West Devon

  468

  370

  Lambeth

  1,557

  590

  1 Total external support includes revenue support grant, receipts from the non-domestic rates pool, area protection grant and Inner

  172
  London education grant. Information on other central Government support (specific grants, community charge reduction scheme, and community charge benefits) will not be available until authorities send in their detailed budget returns to the Department.

  2 Not available.

  Research
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of research projects(a) currently being undertaken or (b) commissioned by his Department; and if he will list the subjects of research and dates for publication in each case.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department is currently managing just over 1,000 research contracts on environmental protection, planning, local government, housing and construction. These contracts are expected to produce a corresponding number of reports over the next two years. It would not be practicable to list the expected publication date of each.

  Transport Museum, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the negotiations regarding the city grant application to assist the development of the transport museum site at Low Moor, Bradford.

  Mr. Key
  There is as yet no city grant application for the Low Moor site. However, a proposal for a mixed leisure and commercial development on this site has been submitted to the Department for a preliminary view on its suitability for city grant. The proposal is currently under discussion between the Department's city grant team and the scheme's promoters.

  Milton Keynes Development Corporation
  Mr. Benyon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the wind-up of the Milton Keynes development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Following careful consideraiton of the representations received in the course of our consultation under section 41 of the New Towns Act 1981, I have decided that Milton Keynes development corporation should be wound up on the target date of 31 March 1992. The necessary order will be made in due course.

  It is important that Milton Keynes be brought to completion to the high standards established by the development corporation and that inward investment and promotion of the city continue. The Commission for the New Towns has much experience in handling the completion of development, and I am confident that it has the flexibility to meet the particular and acknowledged needs of Milton Keynes. I am asking the commission to pay special attention to balanced development to continuing high standards at Milton Keynes and to inward investment there. I am also asking the commission to move towards the establishment there of a new promotion agency, in conjunction with the local authorities and the private sector. This agency will have a dedicated budget.

  Urban Renewal Grants
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the range of projects funded by urban renewal grants in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 18 March 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox).

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what projects in Salford have received funding from the urban renewal grant; and what is the total value of the grants.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 18 March 1991] : My Department has provided specific resources in Salford as follows:

  1990–91

  £ million

  Urban programme

  6·9

  City grant approved

  5·3

  Derelict land grant

  1·8

  Manchester/Salford city action team

  0·9

  Estate action

  3·7

  In addition, the designated areas of Trafford Park development corporation covers a small area of Salford borough; the development corporation's total provision in 1990–91 is £24·2 million.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the capital debt for each local authority(a) at the latest available date and (b) five years previously and the amount of interest paid in the intervening period; and if he will total the figures regionally and nationally.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 19 March 1991]: The available information has today been placed in the Library of the House.

  Standard Community Charges
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, columns 478–79, relating to standard poll tax payers; if he will now give the comparable figures for Bolton; and how many standard charges are attributed to second homes in (a) Wigan, (b) Salford, (c) Westminster and (d) Bolton.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 20 March 1991]: Bolton's return to my Department gives the number of properties subject to a standard community charge at 1 June 1990 to be "not available". In any case, no information can be provided in the terms sought. The fact that a property may give rise to the standard charge does not indicate whether it is kept as a second home or is empty for some other reason.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the additional costs grant arising from the abolition of ILEA to each of the London local authorities(a) in 1990–91 and (b) for 1991–92.
  174
  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 20 March 1991]: The amounts payable by way of inner London education grants are as follows:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  £

  £

  City of London

  210,000

  147,000

  Camden

  6,781,169

  4,792,075

  Greenwich

  11,344,514

  7,852,451

  Hackney

  6,523,011

  4,872,854

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6,812,046

  4,951,567

  Islington

  7,840,576

  5,342,227

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,693,725

  2,416,962

  Lambeth

  9,475,207

  6,691,718

  Lewisham

  10,565,150

  7,375,779

  Southwark

  9,479,967

  6,469,667

  Tower Hamlets

  9,102,152

  5,910,136

  Wandsworth

  10,974,086

  7,970,026

  Westminster

  7,198,397

  5,207,538

  Dumplington
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he gives to local authorities as regards an acceptable time scale for the determination of a planning application; what target time scale he sets for determination of planning issues within his Department; what is the average length of time taken by his Department to arrive at a decision on such applications following the completion of a public inquiry; and why it has now taken more than three years in the case of the application for a regional shopping centre at Dumplington, Trafford Park, Manchester.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government have set local authorities the target of deciding 80 per cent. of planning applications within eight weeks.

  The Department has a target of determining 80 per cent. of those planning applications which are called in for the Secretary of State's decision within 13 weeks from the date on which the inspector's report is received. The target for planning appeals which are recovered for the Secretary of State's decision, rather than being transferred to a planning inspector for decision, is to determine 80 per cent. within eight weeks of receiving the inspector's report. Of cases decided in 1990, 64 per cent. of called-in applications were decided within 13 weeks; 59 per cent. of recovered appeals were decided within eight weeks.

  Occasionally, decisions take substantially longer because the scale or nature of the proposed development raises complex issues. I understand the frustration caused by the long delay in issuing the decision on two called-in applications and an appeal relating to the Dumplington scheme. This has been caused by the need to consider carefully the comments made by the parties about the access proposals. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend on 11 February, I cannot yet forecast when it will be possible to decide these cases. I will write to interested parties as soon as I can.

  Litter, Motorways
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment further to his answer of 13 March, if he will list the starting and completion dates of litter collection from each section of motorway for the last year for which figures are available; if he will take steps to ensure that
  175
  embankments and verges are cleared; and whether any prosecutions for littering of motorways have been successful.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  Litter collection from motorways is undertaken by the Department's agents in conjunction with other highway maintenance functions. Separate information about starting and finishing dates for litter collection is not available.

  The provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which will come into force on 1 April this year, will require litter clearance to specified standards from highways including embankments and verges.

  Records of successful prosecutions for littering do not distinguish motorways from other areas. In 1988" there were 1,607 convictions for littering under the Litter Act 1983, and in 1989 there were 2,174.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Safety
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to review the legislation relating to corporate responsibility, liability and accountability for public safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department keeps under review any issues which may affect the safety of consumers and the responsibility of suppliers of consumer products to ensure that their products are reasonably safe. The relevant legislation is the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and I have no immediate plans to undertake a review of the Act.

  Profit Sharing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new incentives for profit sharing his Department plans to offer to British companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  A number of tax incentives are operated by the Inland Revenue. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of improvements to them in his Budget statement, including profit-related pay, save-as-you-earn, employee share ownership trusts and personal equity plans.

WALES

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the total job losses in the steel industry in Wales in each financial year since 1978–79.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Comprehensive information detailing separately the number of jobs lost or created in the steel industry is not available. The following table shows the number of persons employed in the steel industry in Wales at the end of December each year.

  Number of employees

  1978

  56,900

  1979

  55,300

  1980

  34,700

  1981

  27,100

  176

  Number of employees

  1982

  24,600

  1983

  22,300

  1984

  21,800

  1985

  21,500

  1986

  21,100

  1987

  20,900

  1988

  20,200

  1989

  19,400

  1990

  118,000

  1 Provisional.

  Source: Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, following the recent determination on appeal that speech therapy should be regarded as an educational provision for certain children, he has given any guidance to local education authorities in Wales on the implementation of the Education Act 1981 and the provision of statements of special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Welsh Office circular 54/89 on "Assessments and Statements of Special Educational Needs" gives guidance to local education authorities on the implementation of the Education Act 1981 and the provision of statements. It also advises on the need for local education authorities to work closely with district health authorities and social services departments on the provision of non-educational services.

  Fallen Animals
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes concerning fallen animals: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As I indicated to the hon. Gentleman when I wrote to him on 18 February 1991, the difficulties being experienced in respect of the disposal of fallen animals arise primarily from changes in the market for rendered products. In the Government's view, this is largely a problem for the market to resolve. Nevertheless, the state veterinary service continues to monitor the situation. It, with the National Rivers Authority and local authorities, can provide advice to farmers about the disposal of fallen animals. Research which could lead to an improvement in the market for rendered products continues, and the recycling of animal waste has been identified as a priority area for EC assistance under regulation 866/90.

  Open-heart Surgery
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the number of open-heart surgery operations carried out at the University hospital of Wales to reach(a) 650, (b) 700, (c) 750 and (d)

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  An increase in the number of open-heart operations for adults at the University hospital of Wales to the target of 800 yearly is presently under consideration with South Glamorgan health authority, reflecting the substantial central investment to upgrade coronary and intensive care facilities and cardiac catheter laboratories at the hospital and projected achievements in 1990–91.
  177
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of open-heart surgery operations carried out in Wales in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information for 1970 and 1975 is not readily available or directly comparable. From information provided by health authorities I understand that, in addition to 129 open-heart operations secured for patients from Wales under contractual arrangements with hospitals in England during 1990 and funded centrally by the Welsh Office, the number of open-heart operations reported to have been carried out in Wales is:

  Number

  1980

  244

  1985

  576

  1990

  637

  Farm Aid Conservation Grants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many grant applications under the farm aid conservation grant scheme have been refused in the last two years; and if he will list the numbers refused under each main ground for refusal.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In Wales, since the farm and conservation grant scheme was introduced in February 1989, a total of 134 claims have been rejected and 2,099 claims authorised for payment up to the end of February 1991. Claims will have been rejected for a breach of either the statutory requirements or the administrative rules of the scheme. I understand that the vast majority have been rejected for breaching statutory requirements.

  Minister's Flat, Cathays Park
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 18 March, column 34, whether he took account of the country of origin, when purchasing the bed linen, microwave oven, television set and video recorder for the Secretary of State's flat at the Crown buildings, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

  Mr. David Hunt
  These were purchases made locally seeking value for money. Most of the items were manufactured in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, pursuant to his answers of 18 March, column 34, standard community charge is payable to Cardiff city council in the respect of the Secretary of State's flat at the Crown buildings, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Community charge payments are not appropriate as the flat forms part of the non-domestic value of the Cathays Park building. However, contributions are made through non-domestic rate support.

  Artificial Joints
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current cost of a replacement(a) knee and (b) hip operation carried out under specific earmarked Welsh Office contract funds at the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Current costs at the treatment centre, including all fixed and variable costs, are £2,463 for a hip replacement and £3,163 for a knee replacement.
  178
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the numbers of adults in Wales waiting for replacement (i) hips and (ii) knees for periods of more than four months(a) in the last full year before the setting-up of the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar and (b) the present year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information is not collected in the form requested, although it was estimated, at July 1989, that some 935 patients were waiting four months or more for hip and knee replacement operations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the length of the four months plus waiting list for artificial(a) knees and (b) hips for the year 1991–92.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not collected in the form requested.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that in the case of pollution control projects, grant aid approval will not be refused to farmers who have set about urgent remedial works, eligible for grant, in response to requests from the National Rivers Authority or any other regulatory body.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It has always been our policy to pay grant on claims which comply with the terms of the relevant grant scheme.

  Aston Day Centre
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure the continued running of the Deeside day centre at Aston.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is for the local statutory agencies concerned to decide whether or not they wish to provide funds for the centre.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to announce the future arrangements for allocating revenue funds to district health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Health authorities were consulted in January on options for a weighted capitation formula to be used to determine each authority's share of revenue resources. Copies of the consultation paper "Implementing the White Paper: Options for a Weighted Capitation Revenue Resource Allocation Formula" are in the Library of the House.

  After considering the responses from authorities, I have decided that the most appropriate basis for the formula is as set out in option 4 of the consultation paper. This option takes account of the review of the relationships between morbidity, social deprivation and health needs carried out for the Department by Dr. Carr-Hill of York university. Copies of his review were circulated with the consultation document and are in the Library of the House. I shall also be arranging for it to be published. The formula retains the weighting for sparsity included in the existing revenue assessment formula. This is in recognition of the additional costs of providing services to scattered populations in rural areas.
  179
  Each DHA's share of resources, according to the formula, compared with its share of gross discretionary recurrent revenue resources for 1991–92, is shown in the table:

  Percentage share of revenue funding

  1991–92

  Formula share

  Clwyd

  13·52

  14·24

  East Dyfed

  9·02

  8·77

  Gwent

  14·87

  15·20

  Gwynedd

  8·18

  8·78

  Mid Glamorgan

  19·14

  19·05

  Pembrokeshire

  3·68

  3·87

  Powys

  4·76

  4·15

  South Glamorgan

  14·00

  13·09

  West Glamorgan

  12·83

  12·86

  Health authorities will need time to adjust to their new formula shares and there is also some uncertainty about the effect of revised population estimates following the 1991 census on formula shares. For these reasons the

  Annual change in revenue resources as a percentage of previous year's allocation at constant prices

  Year

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Clwyd

  1·28

  1·25

  1·17

  1·17

  1·17

  1·17

  1·16

  0·45

  0·45

  East Dyfed

  0·00

  0·00

  0·05

  0·05

  0·05

  0·05

  0·05

  0·45

  0·45

  Gwent

  0·53

  0·59

  0·84

  0·84

  0·84

  0·84

  0·84

  0·45

  0·45

  Gwynedd

  1·76

  1·67

  1·39

  1·38

  1·38

  1·37

  1·36

  0·45

  0·45

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·00

  0·00

  0·52

  0·52

  0·53

  0·53

  0·53

  0·45

  0·45

  Pembroke

  1·20

  1·18

  1·14

  1·14

  1·14

  1·13

  1·13

  0·45

  0·45

  Powys

  0·00

  0·00

  -1·97

  -2·02

  -2·08

  -2·14

  -2·21

  0·45

  0·45

  South Glamorgan

  0·00

  0·00

  -0·70

  -0·71

  -0·72

  -0·73

  -0·75

  0·45

  0·45

  West Glamorgan

  0·00

  0·00

  0·66

  0·66

  0·66

  0·67

  0·67

  0·45

  0·45

  This assumes 0·5 per cent. per annum real terms growth in overall discretionary revenue provision, exclusive of capital charges element, in line with resource planning assumptions previously issued to DHAs. However, resultant figures above are expressed as a percentage of total revenue allocations—with capital charges element added back in.

  The table shows that there will be a redistribution of resources with the allocations of two authorities, Powys and South Glamorgan, being reduced to their capitation shares after 1993–94, subject to the review in 1993. The changes affect the purchasing positions of health authorities, but the provision of services will depend on where purchasers choose to place their contracts. The future of individual hospitals will therefore not always depend on the relative funding position of the authorities in which they are located.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the social fund allocations for 1991–92 to each of his offices in Glasgow.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 19 March,Official Report, column 68.
  180
  allocations of most authorities will, subject to any centrally funded service developments, be maintained at their current level, after allowing for inflation, until 1993–94; and only those shown to be more than 2 per cent. below their formula target level of funding will benefit from discretionary growth funding. From 1994–95 to 1998–99, I presently intend that district health authorities' allocations will be adjusted in equal steps, so that each authority will receive its formula share of funds by 1998–99. The need for a faster or slower pace of change than this will be reconsidered in 1993 when the 1993–94 allocations are announced. Factors that I will take into account will be the effects of revised population estimates and the extent to which equalisation will have been achieved as a result of the differential distribution of growth funding in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  On this basis and, I must stress, for planning purposes only, the percentage changes in discretionary funding that authorities might anticipate over the next 10 years are as follows:

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to his reply of 6 March,Official Report, columns 170–71, he will provide a breakdown of the figures for the cost of incentives in the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 between people opting into (a) personal pensions or (b) schemes, giving the numbers involved in each case.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government Actuary's estimates are as follows:

  Great Britain

  Year

  Incentives to personal pensions

  Schemes

  Number eligible for incentive in personal pensions

  Schemes

  £ billion

  million

  1987–88

  0·3

  —

  3·1

  —

  1988–89

  0·35

  0·06

  3·1

  0·5

  1989–90

  0·5

  0·1

  4·0

  0·75

  The amounts paid are shown against the year to which they relate rather than the year in which payment was made.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what it would cost to raise the state pension of(a) a single person to £60 per week and (b) a married couple to £96 per week; and by how much the basic rate of income tax would have to rise to produce the sums required.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It would cost an extra £3·6 billion to increase the basic state retirement pension from the
  181
  1991–92 levels to those suggested. State retirement pensions are paid from the national insurance fund and not by general taxation, so a rise in these pensions of this amount would imply an increase in national insurance contributions of £2·50 per week for an employee on average male earnings and the same amount for his employer.

  Claimants (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of(a) supplementary benefit, (b) supplementary pension and (c) income support there were in each constituency of the county of Tyne and Wear in May 1979 and at present.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, it is possible to identify the number of claimants in the categories above in the three local offices serving the Tyne and Wear area:

  11979

  21991

  (a) Supplementary Benefit3

  27,910

  4—

  (b) Supplementary Pension

  14,910

  4—

  (c) Income Support

  4—

  39,620

  1 Data derived from Quarterly Statistical Enquiry of 15 May 1979.

  2 Data derived from 28 February 1991 count of cases in action, which include a number where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data is provisional and subject to amendment.

  3 Includes Supplementary Pension cases quoted at line (b).

  4 Not applicable.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will consider proposing to power companies the joint publicising of the cold weather payment scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 14 March,Official Report, columns 669–70.

  Crisis Loans, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions have been issued to local offices in Bradford regarding the consideration of applications for crisis loans from young single people; if he will ensure that such applications are dealt with immediately; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The guidance issued by the Secretary of State about considering applications for crisis loans is published in the social fund manual, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Region and Project Title

  Approved Cost1

  Number of Places

  Capital

  Current

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Strathclyde

  Pre-School and Parent Provision, Fullarton, Irvine

  8,800

  18,480

  —

  20

  Pre-Fives Braehead Primary School, Irvine

  3,200

  10,550

  —

  30

  Pre-Five and Parent Provision, Irvine

  3,328

  10,340

  —

  40

  Pre-Five and Parent Provision, Stanley Primary School, Ardrossan

  8,490

  22,340

  —

  30

  Haycocks Primary School Nursery Class, Stevenson, Ayr

  4,700

  19,067

  —

  60

  Three Towns Pre-Five Project (Saltcoats)

  189,892

  288,782

  55

  10

  182
  Local guidance concerning priorities to be met from the local loans budgets makes no differentiation between ages of applicants. In making decisions, social fund officers take into account the law, the Secretary of State's directions and guidance, and local managers' guidance on priorities, in the light of the individual applicant's needs and circumstances.

  Applications satisfying the criteria for crisis loans are cleared on the day of receipt.

SCOTLAND

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of his Ministers has been given responsibility for energy use by his Department; and what is his brief regarding energy efficiency.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Under-Secretary of State responsible for industry and local government in the Scottish Office, is also responsible for matters concerning energy. As regards energy efficiency, his brief is the same as that of the other members of the ministerial group on energy efficiency which was announced in the White Paper on the Environment on 25 September. The group is chaired by the Secretary of State for Energy. Its aim is to raise the profile of energy efficiency by working with Government Departments, local authorities and organisations representing energy users in all sectors of the economy to stimulate improvements. The group will also monitor the Government's energy efficiency programmes and the new initiatives announced in the White Paper on the environment and assess the need for further action.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which regions the urban programme has funded nursery schools; and if he will list each approved project with the cost and number of places.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The urban programme funds a wide variety of projects aimed at pre-school children and their families in the most deprived urban areas in Scotland. The table lists projects which have been funded since 1979 where the urban programme has specifically provided nursery school places.
  183

  Region and Project Title

  Approved Cost1

  Number of Places

  Capital

  Current

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Drumry Pre-Five Project/St. Eunans

  15,000

  36,914

  80

  —

  Fasque Place Centre for Pre-Fives and Families, Drumchapel

  112,950

  93,730

  10

  70

  Sighthill Nursery School

  0

  28,300

  40

  80

  Day Nursery, Easterhouse

  42,000

  68,180

  30

  —

  Enterprise Childcare, Govan

  279,200

  247,369

  75

  —

  Employment Opportunities Nursery

  169,652

  0

  40

  10

  Respite Day Care for Children, North Airdrie

  400

  14,785

  30

  —

  Provision for Pre-School SMH/PMH Children, Monklands

  0

  53,070

  17

  —

  Kirkshaws Pre-Fives Project, Lanarkshire

  52,500

  23,006

  20

  —

  Pre-Five Project, Plains, Airdrie

  13,710

  19,848

  40

  —

  Pre-School Group for Mentally Handicapped, Motherwell

  2,229

  45,160

  —

  25

  Thrashbush Community Under-Fives Project, North Airdrie

  20,000

  35,750

  20

  —

  Laighstonehall Parents/Childrens Centre, Hamilton

  68,910

  63,018

  —

  —

  Kirkwood/Kirkshaws Pre-5 Facilities

  11,200

  14,520

  20

  —

  Townhead/Gartsherrie Pre-Fives Scheme

  15,574

  36,690

  20

  —

  Kirkshaws/Kirkwood Pre-Five Facilities

  4,447

  6,180

  20

  —

  Viewpark/Tannochside Pre-Five's Scheme, Motherwell

  35,259

  25,520

  20

  —

  Larkhall Pre-Five Project, Hamilton

  13,885

  13,730

  —

  40

  Bowfarm/Grieve Road Childrens Centre, Renfrew

  65,700

  80,760

  24

  —

  Children and Family Centres, Moorpark, Renfrew

  47,200

  51,118

  —

  50

  Integrated Family Nursery (Rainbow Centre, Port Glasgow)

  112,513

  66,720

  35

  —

  West Johnstone Family Centre, Renfrew

  326,550

  172,441

  60

  —

  Tayside

  Whitfield Children and Parents Centre (Aberlour)

  55,000

  118,273

  24

  12

  1 Some of the projects listed make provision for other services in addition to nursery school places eg support to parents' groups, toy libraries and home visiting.

  Mr. Marc Ellington
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the sums paid to Mr. Marc Ellington for professional services by the Historic Buildings Council and Historic Buildings and Monuments in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Members of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland receive no salary or fee for their services. Mr. Marc Ellington has received no payments for professional services from Historic Buildings and Monuments during the past 10 years. In 1985, Historic Buildings and Monuments commissioned, at a cost of £6,900, a public information video from Soundcraft, a company of which Mr. Marc Ellington is a partner.

  Police (Scotland) Act
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will lay before Parliament a consolidated and classified abstract of statistics collected under section 47 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 for the years since 1982.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  "Scottish Criminal Statistics 1983–1988" (Cm 1475) was laid before Parliament yesterday and will be published today. The information for these years contained therein has already been issued in Scottish Office Home and Health Department statistical bulletins, copies of which were sent to all Scottish Members, and placed in the Library at the time of issue.

  When there is a suitable legislative opportunity, we intend to bring forward an amendment of the present

  185
  statutory requirement to publish a consolidated and classified abstract of criminal statistics to reflect the current practice of providing earlier statistical bulletins on particular topics.

  Housing
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress was made in the year to 31 March 1990 in bringing houses in Scotland up to the tolerable standard; what number of houses he estimates to fall below that standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities estimate that, in the year to 31 March 1990, 10,507 houses were brought up to the statutory tolerable standard and a small number were closed for occupation or demolished. This is a very substantial increase over the numbers reported as being improved in previous years, although figures may not be comparable for the reasons given below.

  Until results become available from the national house condition survey, on which field work begins this year, it is not possible to offer a reliable estimate of the number of houses in Scotland below the tolerable standard (BTS). The information available to me on BTS houses is drawn from returns made by local housing authorities, giving their estimates of the number of houses in their district which fail to meet the standard as at 31 March each year. Local authorities have a statutory duty to assess the condition of the stock in their districts. The Government encourage local authorities to carry out local house condition surveys to improve their information base and in June 1988 issued detailed guidance on the conduct of surveys.

  By 31 March 1990, 14 local surveys had been carried out. It appears that the results have led several authorities to revise upwards their previous figures of BTS houses. The number of houses reported as BTS on 31 March 1990 is 81,049, of which we estimate some 20 per cent. to be unoccupied. The returns for each local authority are set out in the table. The reported total represents an apparent increase of 25,151 on the published estimate for 31 March 1989. Most authorities reporting high percentage increases between these dates had completed local surveys by the end of March 1990. This, with the reported substantial increase in the number of BTS houses improved over the 12-month period, suggests that the reported increase in the Scottish total in the year to 31 March 1990 results from changes in the basis of measurement and does not indicate any sudden worsening in the condition of the housing stock.

  A further 15 local authorities have now carried out, or are in the process of carrying out, local surveys and 10 more are understood to be planning surveys. As more authorities take account of survey results, there may be further revisions of the basis of their BTS returns, possibly leading to further reported increases in the BTS total. Direct comparisons of estimates compiled on the basis of survey results with those submitted previously by the same authorities, or with those compiled by other authorities without the benefit of local house condition surveys, are unlikely to be valid. A new statistical framework or series may be necessary and Scottish Office officials will consider the technical issues arising with representatives of local authorities.
  186
  Our policies and the level of financial provision for housing already recognise the need for substantial investment in houses in need of improvement and repair, including houses not previously classified as being below the tolerable standard. In the five years to 1989–90, a total of 330,200 houses have been improved in the public sector, and 156,200 in the private sector with the aid of grant. At the local level it is for individual local authorities to set their own priorities for housing, but section 85 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 places a duty on them to take action on BTS houses and we expect them to have full regard to that duty in administering the improvement and repair grant system, in determining investment priorities for their own stock, and in the use of the other appropriate statutory powers at their disposal. Scottish Homes will also play an important part in improving BTS houses in certain rural areas, and has identified this as one of the main priorities of its rural strategy.

  Dwellings below the tolerable standard, 31 March 1990

  District

  Number

  Scotland

  81,049

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  723

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  459

  Roxburgh

  939

  Tweeddale1

  500

  Central

  Clackmannan

  955

  Falkirk

  382

  Stirling

  458

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  187

  Nithsdale

  1,032

  Stewartry

  144

  Wigtown

  70

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  327

  Kirkcaldy

  475

  North East Fife

  1,034

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  1,130

  Banff and Buchan

  1,434

  Gordon

  907

  Kincardine and Deeside

  350

  Moray

  1,147

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  242

  Caithness

  354

  Inverness

  1,200

  Lochaber

  400

  Nairn

  29

  Ross and Cromarty1

  2,500

  Skye and Lochalsh1

  600

  Sutherland

  427

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  1,682

  Edinburgh

  4,785

  Midlothian

  399

  West Lothian

  426

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  7,440

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  29

  Clydebank1

  11

  Clydesdale

  297

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  53

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  187

  Cunninghame1

  1,950

  187

  District

  Number

  Dumbarton

  91

  East Kilbride

  92

  Eastwood

  12

  Glasgow

  31,819

  Hamilton

  740

  Inverclyde

  3,318

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  168

  Kyle and Carrick

  350

  Monklands

  184

  Motherwell

  647

  Renfrew

  1,110

  Strathkelvin

  20

  Tayside

  Angus1

  882

  Dundee

  2,052

  Perth and Kinross

  670

  Islands Councils

  Orkney Islands

  1,117

  Shetland Islands

  881

  Western Isles

  1,232

  1 1990 return is outstanding. Figures are for 31 March 1989.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the case study of leukaemia in the Dounreay area, recommended by the second report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report will be published tomorrow in the British Medical Journal and copies will be available in the House. The report, commissioned by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department, prepared by the information and statistics division of the Common Services Agency, concludes that the observed excess incidence of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma—NHL—in the area within 25 km of Dounreay cannot be explained by paternal exposure to ionising radiation prior to conception. The authors point out that an apparent association between the use of beaches by the children in the vicinity of Dounreay and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and NHL should be treated with caution.

  COMARE has stated in its advice that these results taken alone do not suggest paternal employment at Dounreay nuclear establishment as a factor in the causation of childhood leukaemia/NHL in the neighbourhood and indeed make it clear that such employment cannot be a full explanation of the excess incidence observed in the vicinity of Dounreay. However, the statistical power of the study is inevitably very low and the study cannot refute the suggestion from the study of Gardner et al. that fathers' recorded external radiation dose may be related to the incidence of leukaemia/NHL in their offspring.

  The Dounreay study has been referred to the independent expert Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). The text of its advice, which the Government have accepted, is as follows:

  COMARE Statement of Advice

  Results of a case control study of leukaemia and non Hodgkins Lymphoma in children in Caithness near the Dounreay nuclear installation—Urquhart J. D., Black R. J., Muirhead M. J., Sharp L., Maxwell M., Eden O. B., Adams Jones D.
  188
  Background

  1. In 1988 COMARE published its second report "Investigation of the possible increased incidence of leukaemia in young people near the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment, Caithness, Scotland" (1). The report made eight recommendations to Government. The first of these concerned a case control study of young people registered as cases of leukaemia or lymphoma in the Dounreay area. The study was commissioned by the Scottish Home and Health Department in 1988 and was undertaken by the Information and Statistics Division of the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service in conjunction with the Department of Paediatric Haematology, Royal Hospital for Sick Children Edinburgh. DN The findings have now been published in the British Medical Journal (2).

  2. The authors' stated objective was "To examine whether the observed excess of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the area around the Dounreay Nuclear Installation is associated with established risk factors or with factors related to the plant or with parental occupation in the nuclear industry".

  3. The Minister of State at the Scottish Home and Health Department referred the results of the studies to COMARE for consideration and advice.

  The Study

  4. The authors ascertained 14 cases of leukaemia or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in under 15 year olds, resident in Caithness, registered between 1968 and 1986. Controls were matched for date of birth and mother's place of residence at child's birth (either within 25km of Dounreay or within the remainder of Caithness). Data from birth certificates and parental employment records from the nuclear industry were analysed for 13 cases and 47 controls. Questionnaire data were analysed for 11 cases and 36 controls.

  5. In an attempt to explain the excess incidence of leukaemia and NHL in the Dounreay area, particularly between 1979 and 1986, the authors examined possible associations with a variety of factors relating to the child and/or the child's parents. These included parental occupation, age and social class, maternal birth place, family medical history, pregnancy history, possible exposure to non-ionising radiation and various aspects of lifestyle.

  6. The study found that none of the cases of leukaemia or NHL had been exposed ante natally to diagnostic x-rays. In the analysis of parental occupation, children with leukaemia or NHL in either the immediate vicinity of Dounreay or in the rest of Caithness were found to be no more likely to have fathers who were, or had been employed in the nuclear industry, than were control children without malignant disease.

  7. In the analysis of many other factors, the only associations to achieve statistical significance were the use of local beaches by case children in the years prior to diagnosis and the receipt of prescription medication by case mothers when pregnant. However, no two case mothers received the same medication.

  COMA RE's advice to Government

  8. COMARE has considered this study and our advice is set out below.

  General Considerations

  9. In our second report [1] we noted the considerable problems in interpretation of findings based on very small numbers of cases. As there were only 11 cases for the questionnaire based study, and 13 for the birth certificate/ employment record study any conclusion drawn from these results remains open to some uncertainty. It is not possible to assess whether interpretation of parts of the data may have been biased by the unavoidable exclusion of three cases from the questionnaire study or by the use of retrospective questionnaire data based on parental recall or by some of the difficulties in recruiting controls.

  10. Nevertheless, the study was justified by the need to elucidate factors of possible relevance to the excess incidence of childhood leukaemia/NHL in the vicinity of the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment (DNE). In addition there is a need to accumulate information from areas around several nuclear sites as part of our overall strategy for evaluting possible causes of childhood malignancy in those areas.
  189
  11. Therefore, we have considered the results of this study in terms of whether it can provide a statistical explanation for the excess of childhood leukaemia in the Dounreay locality specifically, and in the wider context of other published studies. We have given particular consideration to how the results relate to those of the similar study undertaken by Gardner et al in West Cumbria [3].

  Methodology

  12. The Committee consider that the methods of investigation were appropriate to the aims of the study.

  Results

  13. The authors observe that for children resident within 25 km of Dounreay, only 2 of 8 cases (25 per cent.) of leukaemia/NHL had fathers employed at DNE at any time compared with 12 of 25 controls (48 per cent.). These results, taken alone, do not suggest paternal employment at DNE as a factor in the causation of childhood leukaemia/NHL in the neighbourhood and indeed make it clear that such employment cannot be a full explanation of the excess incidence observed in the vicinity of Dounreay. However, the statistical power of the study is inevitably very low and the study cannot refute the suggestion from the study of Gardner et al [3], that fathers' recorded external radiation dose may be related to the incidence of leukaemia/NHL in their offspring.

  14. We note the finding of an apparent association between the use of the beaches in the proximity of Dounreay by children and the development of leukaemia/NHL. We advise that this finding should be interpreted with considerable caution since:

  14.1

  it relates to five cases only;

  14.2

  it is based on parental recall some years after the event which may be subject to human error;

  14.3

  the only comparable study [3] did not produce a similar result;

  14.4

  information, currently available, on the levels of radioactivity on the beaches, suggests that these are far too low to cause leukaemia on the basis of accepted models of leukaemogenesis.

  Nevertheless, we will incorporate a review of the Dounreay beach monitoring data into our future work programme.

  15. Data on proximity of home address to the microwave communications installation outside Thurso were analysed for those 8 cases living within 25 km of Dounreay and 25 controls. We agree broadly with the authors' conclusion that the results of this analysis do not support the hypothesis that the microwave transmitter could be a source of risk. However, we will subject the matter to more detailed investigation with respect to the possible spread and power of the beam and its relation to places of residence of cases and controls.

  General conclusions

  16. We consider that this study does not identify an explanation for the excess of childhood leukaemia/NHL around Dounreay. The disparity beteween these findings and those of Gardner et al in Cumbria tends to weaken but does not exclude the suggestion that these two excesses have a similar causation. At the same time, the findings in this small study fail to support but do not negate the suggestion of an

  Table 4

  Children in care at 31 March 1989

  By accommodation

  Community

  Residential

  Responsible social work authority

  At home

  Relatives/ friends

  Foster parents

  Other1

  Total

  Local authority home

  Voluntary home

  Residential school

  Special school

  Assessment centre

  Other2

  Total

  Grand total

  Borders

  60

  12

  23

  14

  109

  8

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  12

  121

  Central

  353

  24

  104

  54

  535

  38

  2

  10

  3

  19

  22

  94

  629

  Dumfries/Galloway

  70

  7

  86

  9

  172

  32

  7

  0

  0

  5

  5

  49

  221

  Fife

  105

  27

  75

  19

  226

  4

  1

  3

  9

  11

  21

  49

  275

  Grampian

  345

  31

  241

  31

  648

  103

  5

  52

  4

  0

  10

  174

  822

  Highland

  202

  30

  191

  4

  427

  27

  1

  2

  5

  11

  5

  51

  478

  Lothian

  687

  14

  346

  48

  1,095

  102

  17

  63

  20

  22

  23

  247

  1,342

  Strathclyde

  4,049

  374

  1,261

  52

  5,736

  724

  79

  405

  81

  69

  90

  1,448

  7,184

  Tayside

  349

  69

  211

  26

  655

  80

  58

  23

  9

  20

  26

  216

  871

  Orkney

  21

  0

  3

  0

  24

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  28

  Shetland

  5

  3

  11

  0

  19

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  5

  24

  Western Isles

  16

  3

  8

  0

  27

  14

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  15

  42

  190
  association between paternal employment in the nuclear industry and leukaemia/NHL in children. We would reiterate the views expressed in the final conclusion of our 2nd report [1]. These were that the evidence of a raised incidence of leukaemia near Dounreay, taken in conjunction with that relating to the area round Sellafield is sufficient to warrant an intensified programme of investigation.

  17. We undertake to update our advice on these issues as further relevant research data become available.

  1. Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) second report London HMSO 1988 ISBN 0 11 32111422.

  2. Urquhart J. D., Black R. J., et al. Results of a Case Control Study of Leukaemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma in children in Caithness near the Dounreay nuclear installation, [BMJ 1991, 302, 687–692].

  3. Gardner M. J., Snee M. P. et al. Results of Case Control Study of leukaemia and lumphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria BMJ 1990, 300, 423–429.

  Health Service
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Greater Glasgow health board about the effect on service provision of further reductions of income due to SHARE—Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation—parity adjustments.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 March 1991]: The Government's policy is to move gradually towards SHARE parity in a way which avoids turbulence. The implications of this for Greater Glasgow health board is kept under regular review in discussion between the board and the management executive.

  Children
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the number of children(a) on the child protection register, (b) in care in local authority accommodation and (c) in foster placements in respect of each regional and islands authority at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 March 1991]: Information from child protection registers maintained by social work departments is not held centrally. The most recent available information about the accommodation of children in care or under supervision is published in table 4 of statistical bulletin No. CC13/1990 "Children in Care or Under Supervision as at 31 March 1989". This publication is available in the House Library.
  191

  Community

  Residential

  Responsible social work authority

  At home

  Relatives/ friends

  Foster parents

  Other1

  Total

  Local authority home

  Voluntary home

  Residential school

  Special school

  Assessment centre

  Other2

  Total

  Grand total

  SCOTLAND Total

  6,262

  594

  2,560

  257

  9,673

  1,139

  170

  559

  136

  158

  202

  2,364

  12,037

  Per cent.

  52

  5

  21

  2

  80

  9

  1

  5

  1

  1

  2

  20

  100

  1 Includes private lodgings and prospective adopters.

  2 Includes hospitals, hostels and other forms of residential accommodation not elsewhere specified.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Administrative Tribunals
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Council on Tribunals will publish draft model rules of procedure for administrative tribunals in the United Kingdom.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate yesterday received copies of a special report to Parliament by the Council on Tribunals on draft model rules of procedure for administrative tribunals. It offers much helpful and practical advice to policy-makers and those responsible for drafting tribunal procedural rules which will be of great value in future in preparing procedural rules for new tribunals or amending the rules of existing tribunals. The Government welcome the report and are grateful to the Council on Tribunals for reporting on this matter. The report is available from HMSO (Cm. 1434).

NATIONAL FINANCE

  London Weighting
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) why London weighting for civil servants has been frozen since April 1988; and when he proposes to increase it to meet the increased cost of living in London;

  (2) why his Department has refused to go to arbitration over the question of London weighting for civil servants;

  (3) whether he has any plans to abolish London weighting for civil servants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government have no plans to abolish the London weighting paid to civil servants.

  The Government's policy is that pay in London, as elsewhere, should be based on what is required to recruit, retain, and motivate within what is affordable and to target pay to get the best value for taxpayers' money. Since 1988, an additional £87 million has been put into London pay, equivalent to more than a 50 per cent. increase in London weighting, through targeted increases. Recruitment and retention rates have improved significantly since 1988. Against this background, there was no justification for any across-the-board increases in London weighting.

  London weighting was last increased on 1 July 1988. Successive Governments have reserved the right not to go to arbitration on issues which raise policy considerations. The 1989 and 1990 claims by the Council of Civil Service Unions raised such considerations in respect of the Government's policies on the targeting of pay and the control of public expenditure. I could not therefore agree to a joint approach to the civil service arbitration tribunal.

THE ARTS

  Liverpool Playhouse
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received concerning the future of the Liverpool Playhouse theatre at the latest date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members, and from others, on behalf of the Liverpool Playhouse. Although I have no direct involvement in this matter, I am being kept abreast of developments by the playhouse and the Arts Council. I understand that the appointed administrator is continuing his efforts, in consultation with a range of local interests and the Arts Council, to resolve the company's financial difficulties. I very much hope there will be a successful outcome.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rights of the Child
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the United Kingdom's ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are making good progress. The Whitehall review of the convention has now taken place and we have identified the few areas where we envisage the need to enter reservations upon ratification in respect of the United Kingdom mainland. They are immigration and nationality, juvenile custody, employment, termination of pregnancy and children's hearings in Scotland. We are consulting the dependent territories and United Kingdom islands about their inclusion and will ratify the convention as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Smoking
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to establish co-ordination between the Department of Health's policies on the discouragement of smoking and support through the common agricultural policy for tobacco growing.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom has long been critical of the EC tobacco support regime and has consistently pressed for measures to reduce the level of subsidy.

  Ministers at the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have raised the mat ter with their European colleagues on many occasions and will continue to do so.
  193
  The Commission has agreed to bring forward proposals shortly for a revision of the tobacco regime and, although details are not yet available, we are hopeful of progress.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Public Utilities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will institute a study into the advantages and disadvantages of inter-sectoral mergers, takeovers and share stakes in the public utilities.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to instigate such a study. Current legislation provides a sufficient safeguard for the public interest in relation to mergers, including those involving privatised utilities.

  President Bush
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed in his meeting in Bermuda with President Bush.

  The Prime Minister
  We discussed a wide range of subjects, including the aftermath of the Gulf crisis, middle east security issues, the Soviet Union, the Uruguay round, South Africa and arms control.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how, under the present remuneration system, general practitioners as a whole may be rewarded for new work and responsibilities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The doctors and dentists review body takes account of evidence on any changes in general practitioners' work load and responsibilities when making its recommendations each year on the level of GPs' average net remuneration.

  Exhibitions
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Pre-School Playgroups Association to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, I understand that arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 20 to 24 May.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Children's Society to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.
  194
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, I understand that arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 7 to 10 May.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning organo-phosphorous toxicity arising from the dipping of sheep; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received four inquiries regarding possible adverse effects from the organophosphorus sheep dips during the past 10 months. Organophosphorus sheep dip, if properly used, are unlikely to cause harm, although a few people may be unusually sensitive. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is currently reviewing sheep dips.

  Anybody who considers that they may have been adversely affected by exposure to sheep dips should report the matter to the veterinary medicines directorate at Weybridge.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many properties owned and administered by his Department have been empty for(a) more than six months or (b) more than one year; and what is the regional distribution of these properties.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The National Health Service has some 4,000 hectares of land which is surplus to requirements and in process of disposal. The distribution between regional health authorities is as follows:

  Region

  Surplus land area (hectares)

  Northern

  355

  Yorkshire

  509

  Trent

  535

  East Anglia

  94

  North West Thames

  86

  North East Thames

  335

  South East Thames

  394

  South West Thames

  287

  Wessex

  25

  Oxford

  91

  South Western

  182

  West Midlands

  573

  Mersey

  278

  North Western

  339

  Detailed information about the length of time National Health Service property has been empty is not held centrally.

  Adoption
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government have any plans to establish an agency for inter-country adoption.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to establish such an agency. There are 108 local authorities in England which are adoption agencies and a further 37 approved adoption societies. Guidance was issued in
  195
  September to each of these agencies in relation to the provision of services for inter-country adoption. A copy of CI(90)17 is available in the Library. We expect to issue further guidance shortly.

  Leicestershire Health Authority
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many of the new administrative posts created by Leicestershire health authorities in 1989–90 and 1990–91 have been filled; what are the job descriptions for the posts; and what is the salary for each post;

  (2) how many new administrative posts were created by Leicestershire health authority in each of the years (i) 1988–89, (ii) 1989–90 and (iii) 1990–91; and how much was spent on advertising those posts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Townsend, the chairman of Leicestershire health authority, for details.

  Ambulance Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each ambulance authority the number of journeys cancelled due to no vehicle being available in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for 1989–90 for each ambulance authority the percentage of emergency calls where response time was within(a) 14 minutes and (b) seven minutes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures for response times are collected centrally only at seven and 14 minutes for metropolitan authorities. These are given in table 1.

  Data for response times for non-metropolitan authorities are collected at eight and 20 minutes. These are shown in table 2.

  Patient Transport Services 1989–90: Table 1

  Quality of Service

  Emergency calls: Response times: Metropolitan authorities England

  Ambulance authority

  Percentage of calls where response within 7 minutes

  Percentage of calls where response within 14 minutes

  Northumbria Met.

  52·6

  95·4

  West Yorkshire Met.

  36·7

  90·5

  South Yorkshire Met.

  28·5

  70·7

  London Ambulance Service

  14·3

  78·8

  West Midlands Met.

  49·0

  34·0

  Mersey Met.

  63·2

  98·2

  Greater Manchester Met.

  46·6

  93·1

  Source: KA34. DH Statistics and Management information (SM12B) 1990.

  Changes to the number of registered dentists on FHSA lists between 1st October 1989 and 1st October 1990 (England only)

  FHSA

  Withdrawals

  Additions

  Net change

  Cleveland

  42

  52

  10

  Cumbria

  26

  31

  5

  Durham

  31

  42

  11

  Northumberland

  22

  29

  7

  Gateshead

  14

  17

  3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  20

  35

  15

  North Tyneside

  16

  25

  9

  South Tyneside

  17

  15

  -2

  Sunderland

  34

  29

  -5

  Humberside

  48

  52

  4

  North Yorkshire

  59

  64

  5

  Bradford

  30

  48

  18

  196

  Table 2

  Patient transport services 1989·90

  Quality of service

  Emergency calls: response times: non·Metropolitan authorities England

  Ambulance authority

  Percentage of calls where response within 8 minutes

  Percentage of calls where response within 20 minutes

  Cleveland

  53·0

  85·6

  Cumbria

  58·0

  94·1

  Durham

  82·7

  96·2

  Humberside

  71·6

  99·6

  North Yorkshire

  61·4

  94·3

  Derbyshire

  48·3

  96·5

  Leicestershire

  53·0

  96·4

  Lincolnshire

  64·0

  95·7

  Nottinghamshire

  42·8

  68·7

  Cambridgeshire

  43·9

  88·7

  Norfolk

  62·5

  97·7

  Suffolk

  49·7

  87·8

  Bedfordshire

  60·3

  97·7

  Hertfordshire

  57·2

  96·0

  Essex

  41·6

  79·1

  East Sussex

  52·2

  70·5

  Kent

  60·8

  96·5

  Surrey

  57·8

  92·9

  West Sussex

  63·8

  94·3

  Dorset

  62·2

  94·9

  Hampshire

  50·3

  97·5

  Wiltshire

  58·9

  93·9

  Isle of Wight

  45·8

  82·9

  Berkshire

  41·1

  84·2

  Buckinghamshire

  59·0

  95·3

  Northamptonshire

  60·0

  98·0

  Oxfordshire

  46·2

  81·2

  Avon

  57·9

  95·7

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  40·9

  89·6

  Devon

  59·5

  98·8

  Gloucestershire

  n/a

  97·6

  Somerset

  53·8

  86·5

  Hereford and Worcester

  59·5

  95·4

  Shropshire

  49·6

  92·2

  Staffordshire

  50·3

  98·0

  Warwickshire

  74·0

  93·9

  Cheshire

  54·1

  94·0

  Lancashire

  70·9

  99·1

  Source: DH Statistics and Management Information 1990.

  Dentists
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists on each family health services authority list withdrew and how many joined between 1 October 1989 and 1 October 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Between 1 October 1989 and 1 October 1990, 3,666 dentists withdrew from FHSA dental lists in England, and 4,047 dentists were added to those lists. This represents a net increase of 381. The details for each FHSA in England are set out in the table.
  197

  FHSA

  Withdrawals

  Additions

  Net change

  Calderdale

  19

  24

  5

  Kirklees

  27

  25

  -2

  Leeds

  87

  76

  -11

  Wakefield

  17

  22

  5

  Derbyshire

  35

  47

  12

  Leicestershire

  54

  46

  -8

  Lincolnshire

  21

  23

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  48

  66

  18

  Barnsley

  25

  25

  0

  Doncaster

  19

  20

  1

  Rotherham

  13

  23

  10

  Sheffield

  40

  42

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  29

  37

  8

  Norfolk

  40

  60

  20

  Suffolk

  36

  44

  8

  Bedfordshire

  37

  30

  -7

  Hertfordshire

  104

  111

  7

  Barnet

  40

  42

  2

  Brent and Harrow

  33

  43

  10

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  80

  90

  10

  Hillingdon

  19

  24

  5

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  109

  82

  -27

  Essex

  103

  106

  3

  Barking and Havering

  29

  26

  -3

  Camden and Islington

  57

  57

  0

  City and East London

  58

  54

  -4

  Enfield and Haringey

  36

  56

  20

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  62

  55

  -7

  East Sussex

  52

  54

  2

  Kent

  132

  153

  21

  Greenwich and Bexley

  34

  35

  1

  Bromley

  31

  23

  -8

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  120

  115

  -5

  Surrey

  120

  117

  -3

  West Sussex

  50

  56

  6

  Croydon

  41

  39

  -2

  Kingston and Richmond

  29

  29

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandworth

  71

  71

  0

  Dorset

  36

  52

  16

  Hampshire

  100

  111

  11

  Wiltshire

  25

  31

  6

  Isle of Wight

  8

  9

  1

  Berkshire

  50

  64

  14

  Buckinghamshire

  59

  62

  3

  Northamptonshire

  20

  27

  7

  Oxfordshire

  41

  48

  7

  Avon

  90

  94

  4

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  19

  23

  4

  Devon

  61

  60

  -1

  Gloucestershire

  45

  48

  3

  Somerset

  23

  22

  -1

  Hereford and Worcester

  40

  44

  4

  Salop

  14

  18

  4

  Staffordshire

  31

  54

  23

  Warwickshire

  29

  30

  1

  Birmingham

  64

  50

  -14

  Coventry

  16

  18

  2

  Dudley

  22

  24

  2

  Sandwell

  16

  22

  6

  Solihull

  15

  21

  6

  Walsall

  10

  12

  2

  Wolverhampton

  10

  11

  1

  Cheshire

  89

  103

  14

  Liverpool

  36

  41

  5

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  20

  29

  9

  Sefton

  19

  22

  3

  Wirral

  30

  44

  14

  Lancashire

  100

  105

  5

  Bolton

  17

  17

  0

  Bury

  12

  17

  5

  Manchester

  65

  82

  17

  Oldham

  16

  25

  9

  Rochdale

  11

  15

  4

  Salford

  27

  25

  -2

  Stockport

  15

  22

  7

  Tameside

  12

  16

  4

  Trafford

  25

  22

  -3

  Wigan

  12

  20

  8

  198 199

  FHSA

  Withdrawals

  Additions

  Net change

  TOTAL

  3,666

  4,047

  381

  Note: These figures arc derived from information on the number of registered dentists on an FHSA list as notified by FHSAs to the Dental Practice Board. Since some dentists practise in more than one FHSA, the total number of different dentists for England is less than the sum of the dentists for individual FHSAs.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will publish its code of practice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has today published a consultation document containing its proposals for the code of practice. Comments and suggestions have been invited from an extensive range of interested organisations and from treatment and research centres which are to be regulated.

  Once the consultation exercise is complete, the authority will prepare a further draft of the code. In accordance with section 26 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, this will then be subject to approval by the Secretary of State before it is laid before Parliament.

  Continence Services
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the proposed review of continence services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Officials have started work on a review of policy and practice across the range of continence services, including the supply of continence aids. We are already aware of the variety of provision and the aim of the review will be to identify good practice in the organisation and delivery of such services and to make recommendations for action designed to promote that good practice throughout the country. Officials have been asked to deliver their report by the end of June 1991. I will make the report available in the Library and to interested bodies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hunting, New Forest
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 March, if he will seek a report from the chief constable of Hampshire as to what the costs were of police overtime for presence at hunts in the New Forest on boxing day 1990 and new year's day 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable that the estimated costs for police overtime arising from policing the hunts on boxing day 1990 and new year's day 1991 were £2,771 and £1,373 respectively.

  Crime Prevention Week
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much the advertising agency Collett, Dickinson, Pearce and Partners will receive for developing plans for advertising for Crime Prevention Week;
  200
  (2) what is the cost of the national advertising campaign for Crime Prevention Week;

  (3) what is the cost of the promotion work by Clerk Hooper Consulting for Crime Prevention Week;

  (4) what is the cost of television commercials for national Crime Prevention Week.

  Mr. John Patten
  The cost of the Crime Prevention Week advertising campaign will he £3,600,000, including VAT, of which nearly £1,450,000 is for television commercials. The cost of non-advertising promotional activity for the week will be £900,000, including VAT. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, the Government do not disclose the rate of commission or the fees negotiated with individual agencies.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what resources are to be given to local planning groups for Crime Prevention Week;

  (2) what resources are being given to local authorities to develop crime prevention initiatives for Crime Prevention Week;

  (3) what extra resources are to be given to local authorities to build on the work of Crime Prevention Week.

  Mr. John Patten
  The resources made available by the Government consist of a large volume of publicity material, including a campaign planning guide and extensive advertising, which it is expected will provide valuable support for activity organised at local level by the police, local authorities and other bodies and individuals with an interest in crime prevention.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to prevent the publicity surrounding Crime Prevention Week from enhancing the fear of crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  The need to avoid increasing the fear of crime was taken fully into account in preparing advertising and publicity for Crime Prevention Week. One of the most important messages of the week will be that. many crimes can be prevented by members of the public taking sensible precautions against them.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many properties, owned and administered by his Department, have stood empty(a) for over six months or (b) for over one year; and what is the regional distribution of these properties.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  It is assumed that the question relates to housing. The best estimate of the numbers of empty prison service properties, as at 1 March 1991, was 458, as set out in the table by region.
  201

  North

  Midland

  South East

  South West

  Total

  Vacant for security reasons or redevelopment

  29

  45

  17

  3

  94

  Vacant for re-allocation to designated staff

  21

  16

  12

  7

  56

  Awaiting demolition

  63

  —

  —

  —

  63

  On market for sale

  165

  36

  8

  6

  215

  Awaiting disposal

  13

  12

  1

  4

  30

  TOTALS

  291

  109

  38

  20

  458

  Information on the length of time for which these properties have been vacant is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In addition, the Home Office directorate of telecommunications owns some properties which have been vacant for more than 12 months. Three of these are in the midlands, one in the south-west and one in the south-east.

  Women Prisoners
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the maximum number of hours spent by a woman in seclusion at a women's prison or young offenders' institution over the last 12 months; and what is the average number of hours spent by women in seclusion.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not available in the form requested. Inmates may be removed from normal prison location at their own request or as a result of their behaviour. Inevitably the regime available to them is limited, but wherever circumstances allow they are able to associate with others in a similar position. Whatever the reason for their segregation, inmates will receive regular visits from the governor, medical officer and chaplain, and the staff on the unit on which they are held will be available to them as necessary.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have sought asylum in Britain during the past 12 months; how many have been granted, how many refused and how many are pending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A fully reliable estimate of the number of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom in 1990 cannot yet be made, but provisional indications are that it was of the order of 30,000, including associated dependants. This figure does not include applications for upgrading to refugee status by those previously granted exceptional leave.

  Comprehensive information on decisions in 1990 on asylum applications is not yet available. Decisions recorded to date are shown in the following table, but these understate because of delays in recording.

  Decisions1 on applications2 for asylum in the United Kingdom made in 1990

  Numbers

  Granted asylum

  1,600

  Granted exceptional leave

  3,700

  Refused asylum or exceptional leave

  650

  1 Including associated dependants.

  2 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in 1990.

  Provisional indications are that about 38,000 asylum applications, including associated dependants, were
  202
  awaiting a decision in the United Kingdom at 31 December 1990. However, this estimate overstates the position because of under-recording of decisions made earlier.

  Fuller and more reliable estimates of applications, decisions and applications outstanding in 1990 will be published as usual in the annual Home Office statistical bulletin "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom" later this year.

  Voluntary Sector Funding
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken following publication of the efficiency scrutiny of Government funding of the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  On 4 April last year, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell),Official Report, column 639, my predecessor announced the publication of the efficiency scrutiny of Government funding of the voluntary sector. He said that this would provide the basis for improving arrangements to ensure that the money was used both efficiently and for good purposes. Generally, the report has had a favourable response both within the voluntary sector and elsewhere.

  Departments have now considered the scrutiny recommendations as they affect individual grant schemes and have drawn up action plans for taking forward and implementing these recommendations. The aim will be to implement all the agreed changes by September 1993, but some Departments will be able to put new arrangements in place earlier.

  I am placing in the Library a statement, "Profiting From Partnership—The Implementation Process", explaining the action which Departments will be taking. This will also be available to voluntary organisations and other interested parties on request from the voluntary services unit in the Home Office.

  The majority of the recommendations of the scrutiny report fall to be considered in relation to each grant scheme or programme individually. In general, these are accepted where they are applicable and, where they are not already departmental practice, will be implemented in the light of the principles set out in the statement of 4 April 1990. However, not all the recommendations are applicable to all individual grant schemes and programmes.

  There are also a number of recommendations which relate to the role of the voluntary services unit—VSU—of the Home Office. The VSU intends to issue a revised statement of its role later in 1991. The VSU will also be taking the lead in co-ordinating the work to affect the implementation of those recommendations which are cross-departmental.

  Preliminary discussions have been held with the voluntary sector about the scrutiny report in general.

  203
  Departments will take account of the views of the organisations that they fund and of representative bodies working within their policy areas in carrying out the process of review.

  Electoral Roll
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) aged over 17 and under 26 years and eligible to vote in a general election and (b) aged 16 or 17 years in the United Kingdom on the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  No data are collected about the ages of people eligible to vote. There were 628,858 people on the 1990 parliamentary electoral registers in the United Kingdom who were aged 16 or 17 on the qualifying date and who became 18 and eligible to vote during the currency of that register up to 15 February 1991. Information about the 1991 register which came into use on 16 February is still being collected centrally by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. This information will be made available by the end of May.

ENERGY

  Oil Exploration, Wiltshire
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of oil exploration in Wiltshire.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No significant discoveries of oil have been made to date in Wiltshire. Since the reply given to my hon. Friend's similar question on 26 October 1989 at column 519, two further seismic survey programmes and one geochemical soil test have been carried out under petroleum licences covering parts of the county.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list all incidents and occurrences, including radioactive dose exposure to employees, involving the release or potential release of radioactive matter from high-level waste slurry/sludge storage tanks that have been reported to his Department or lodged with the nuclear installations Inspectorate under the established reporting procedures, in each of the last five years;

  (2) if he will list the size, number and types of storage tanks at each location in the United Kingdom at which high-level radioactive waste is stored; whether the waste is acid or alkali; what is the rate of hydrogen evolution from such tanks; and what is the method of purging this;

  (3) if he will name each establishment in the United Kingdom where liquid and/or slurry/sludge high-level radioactive waste is processed, treated and stored; and
  204
  what is the volume and total radioactive inventory and radionuclide composition of the high-level wastes stored at each such location.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  High-level liquid waste is produced in the United Kingdom at Sellafield and Dounreay, and is stored on site. Details of quantities and activity may be found in the United Kingdom inventory of radioactive waste, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  The high-level waste is acidic. Hydrogen evolution does occur, but levels are extremely low and the tanks are continuously ventilated.

  There have been no reportable incidents or occurrences involving high-level liquid waste storage tanks in the past five years.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provision he is making to ensure grant entitlement under the home energy efficiency scheme for those who cannot complete and sign their application forms for reasons of illiteracy, disability, illness or incapacity.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under the Home Energy Efficiency Grants Regulations 1990, the applicant for a grant under the home energy efficiency scheme must be a householder, although the person in receipt of a qualifying benefit may be the householder or the householder's spouse. There is no requirement for the applicant to complete the form him or herself, although the applicant is required to sign.

  For the very few cases where the inability to sign an application form causes difficulties, we are examining urgently whether the regulations would permit some form of proxy signature or other alternative. In the event that no satisfactory solution can be found, amending regulations will be introduced at an early opportunity.

  National Power
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration he has given to the implications for the maximising of revenue from privatisations of Nomura Securities' acquisition of a 9 per cent. stake in National Power other than by purchase from the Department of Energy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The market for equity in National Power and PowerGen was thoroughly tested through competitive book-building in the period before impact day. In addition, some of the benefit of the market rise during the offer period was obtained for the taxpayer through an international tender. I am satisfied that all appropriate steps to maximise proceeds were taken, having regard to other policy objectives. It is for investors to decide whether and if so how they wish to participate in the second market.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Environmental Issues
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider to seek to establish a Northern Ireland environmental protection agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to establish an independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The hon. Gentlemen will be aware that the Environment Committee of this House, in its recent report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland, recommended the establishment of such a body. I am at present examining the recommendations in this report. The Government's response to the report will take the form of a Command Paper and I would not wish to pre-empt that response at this stage.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has made to recommendation 21 in the first report of the Environment Committee of Session 1990–91 entitled "Environmental Issues in Northern Ireland"; and when the Department of the Environment will carry out a review of the effects of current policies on residential development in the countryside and institute a policy which will enable rural planning policy to be relaxed, and crossroads development to take place.

  Mr. Needham
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Environment Committee of this House, in its recent report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland, recommended a review of planning policies on residential development in the countryside. I am at present examining the recommendations in this report. The Government's response to the report will take the form of a Command Paper and I would not wish to pre-empt that response at this stage.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to ensure that long-term environmental considerations are fully taken into account when financial inducements are given to incoming investors to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Environment Committee of this House, in its recent report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland, recommended that the Government take steps to prevent the contamination of land by industry. The Government's response to the report will take the form of a Command Paper and I would not wish to pre-empt that response at this stage.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will introduce a system of grant-aid for the clean-up of contaminated sites.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will establish a register of contaminated land in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The hon. Gentlemen will be aware that the Environment Committee of this House, in its recent 206
  report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland, expressed concern about contaminated land. I am at present examining the recommendations in this report. The Government's response to the report will take the form of a Command Paper and I would not wish to pre-empt that response at this stage.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has made to recommendation No. 15 in the first report of the Environment Committee of Session 1990–91 entitled "Environmental Issues in Northern Ireland"; and what action the Government will adopt to reduce the incidents of eutrophication of inland waters.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government are at present examining this recommendation, as part of their consideration of the Environment Committee's report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland. The Government's response to the report will take the form of a Command Paper and I would not wish to pre-empt that response at this stage.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has made to the conclusion No. 25 in the first report of the Environment Committee of Session 1990–91 entitled "Environmental Issues in Northern Ireland"; and whether the Government will adopt measures such as national parks and management plans for areas such as the Mournes in the constituency of South Down.

  Mr. Needham
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Environment Committee of this House, in its recent report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland, recommended measures such as national parks and management plans. I am at present examining the recommendations in this report. The Government's response to the report will take the form of a Command Paper and I would not wish to pre-empt that response at this stage.

  Former Courtaulds Site
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is responsible for cleaning up the former Courtaulds site near Carrickfergus.

  Mr. Needham
  Responsibility for cleaning up this site lies with the new owners.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action will be taken to prevent pollution from solvents and drums of chemicals left at the former Courtaulds site near Carrickfergus.

  Mr. Needham
  Provided that the Carrickfergus borough council is satisfied that no public health nuisance exists, and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is satisfied that no water pollution is occurring, action on the former Courtaulds site would be the responsibility of a new owner who wished to develop the site.

  The Department has established that certain inorganic wastes are present on the site and will continue to monitor the situation.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give an estimate of the level of unemployment in each of the 17 Northern Ireland constituencies in both 1979 and 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested for parliamentary constituencies is not available prior to October 1984. Data from October 1984 onwards can be obtained from the House of Commons Library and information post-June 1986 is available from the NOMIS database which can also be accessed on-line by House of Commons Library staff.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Expenditure, Leicestershire
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent on education in Leicestershire in(a) 1979 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available, adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Fallon
  Leicestershire's returns show that it spent some £131 million cash on education in 1979–80, and some £289 million cash in 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available. At 1988–89 prices this represents some £247 million in 1979–80 and £289 million in 1988–89, an increase of 17 per cent.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to lay the orders on the national curriculum for history and geography; and in what respect they will differ from the draft.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I expect to lay these orders shortly. I cannot anticipate them.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report, 8 March, columns 299–300, he will give an estimate of the cost, in the case of each named city technology college, of visits and other attention by Her Majesty's inspectorate; and whether any part of this cost has been charged to the city technology college.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The approximate direct cost of the visits made by Her Majesty's inspectorate to the city technology colleges is as follows:

  Kingshurst: £3,750

  Djanogly and Macmillan: £3,750 each

  Bradford, Emmanuel, Harris and Leigh: £1,325 each

  Under section 77(2) of the 1944 Education Act I have a duty to cause inspections to be made of all educational establishments at such intervals as appear to me to be appropriate. City technology colleges are independent schools and HMI inspects such schools under section 70 of the Act. All visits by HMI to maintained and independent schools are made at no cost to the institution. As a consequence, no part of the cost of visits has been charged to the city technology colleges.

  Belize
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what contribution is being made by British scientific expertise to the protection of the rain forest and coral reef in Belize.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Neither this Department nor the Natural Environment Research Council is currently funding or undertaking any work in Belize.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the Number of permanent staff employed by the AFRC in 1984 and in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There were 5,660 permanent staff in post at AFRC-funded institutes and AFRC central office on 1 April 1984.

  The figure for 1 April 1991 is estimated at 3,225, including 450 staff who are employed by AFRC but seconded to Horticulture Research International.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the new Open university initiative on environmental education; and when he next expects to visit the Open university to discuss the development of environmental education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I welcome the steps which the Open university has taken to integrate its environmental courses and develop an interdisciplinary environmental education programme. The Open university's contribution to this area was recognised in the environment White Paper, and has been supported by grants from bodies including the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. I understand that the University's proposals for environmental education were further discussed during the visit by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment in October last year.

  I am expecting to visit the university in July, when I hope to see a range of its activities at first hand.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent on youth training in(a) 1979 and (b) the latest available year.

  Mr. Jackson
  Expenditure on youth training in 1979–80 was £123·4 million1. The estimated expenditure on youth training (YT) in 1990–91 is expected to be £833 million2.

  1Youth opportunities programme (YOP).

  2 As published in the departmental report (Cm. 1501–1519).

  Careers Service
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will publish the findings from the review of the careers service; and if he will make a statement.
  209
  Mr. Jackson
  I am currently studying a report by my officials on the review of career guidance. I intend to consult especially training and enterprise councils and local education authorities about the future of the careers service.

  Ports
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what change there has been in(a) operating costs and (b) profits to port employers since the abolition of the dock labour scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Port employers' operating costs will reflect the fact that since 1988, when the estimated total wage bill of registered dock workers was £175 million, some three quarters of them have been made redundant. A fuller picture of the benefits of abolition will emerge during the next few weeks, as port authorities publish their financial results for 1990.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what reduction there has been in dock dues to port customers since the abolition of the dock labour scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Rates charged by ports to their main customers are a commercial matter between those parties.

TRANSPORT

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many letters his Department has received on the orange badge scheme for each of the last six months;

  (2) how many staff in his Department spend most of their time dealing with inquiries relating to the orange badge scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  The following number of letters were received in the last six months:

  Number

  September

  122

  October

  136

  November

  116

  December

  68

  January

  121

  February

  106

  and it is estimated that there are more than 1 million orange badge holders.

  Three members of the Department's staff are primarily employed in answering inquiries from them and others.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to introduce regulations revising the orange badge scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  I wish to see agreements among user groups before making any decision on the orange badge scheme.

  I will then bring forward the necessary amending regulations.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to discourage local authorities from establishing local schemes which undermine the national nature of the orange badge scheme.
  210
  Mr. Chope
  I hope that the introduction of a new passport-style badge will be a significant aid to enforcement which will discourage local authorities from setting up their own schemes.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the current repairs and maintenance work on the Severn bridge to be completed; and when the bridge will become fully operational.

  Mr. Chope
  The resurfacing contract is due for completion in the late summer, when the bridge will be fully operational in its final configuration.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the original estimated cost of the current repairs and maintenance work on the Severn bridge; and what is the latest estimated cost.

  Mr. Chope
  The current estimated cost of the repair and strengthening work is £80 million. The estimates have been revised many times over the years as changes to the scope of work have become necessary and an original estimated cost on a comparable basis with the current estimate is not available.

  Motorway Safety
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the chevron marking of motorways for safety purposes is being considered for the road network as a whole; and whether road safety research carried out by other European countries is made available across the EC.

  Mr. Chope
  We are currently experimenting with chevron markings on motorways. That trial is due to end in the summer and we shall then consider the research report. The trial is based on French work, the results of which was made available to us prior to our own trials. Further work was considered necessary to see if the chevrons would be successful in different conditions.

  There is no formal arrangement for the transfer of road safety research results within the EC on such matters, but information is readily shared in practice.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy on the use of motorway warning lights in fog.

  Mr. Chope
  The matrix signs that are installed on most of the motorway network can indicate temporary speed restrictions and lane closures. They are activated by the police. The advice given to all police forces by the Association of Chief Police Officers is that they should be used only for hazards which are not readily apparent to drivers, and not for generally adverse weather conditions. I am arranging to discuss this policy with the association.

  Fog detectors linked automatically to warning signs that display the legend "fog" are under evaluation on the M25. The lessons to be learned from this trial will be applied to other parts of the motorway network.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to vary speed limits on motorways in adverse weather conditions; and if he will make a statement.
  211
  Mr. Chope
  Provision is being made in the Road Traffic Bill for the introduction of mandatory variable speed limits. Once the necessary signal technology has been developed and tested this will offer the potential for signing mandatory lower speed limits on motorways in adverse weather conditions as well as in other circumstances.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to modernise or improve the warning light systems on Britain's motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  A new signalling system combining an improved matrix signal with a supporting variable message sign is being installed on the south-west quadrant of the M25 during the next 12 months. This advanced signalling system will inform drivers of the nature of problems before they are encountered. It is planned that these signs will become automatically operated to give the earliest possible warning of problems or delays.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the motorway warning light system which operates in Holland; and how this compares with the British system.

  Mr. Chope
  Officials of the Department have visited the Netherlands and had discussions about signaling

  Analysis of empty property total

  Total stock

  Empty

  Being sold

  Repair/ relet in progress

  Awaiting demolition

  Awaiting decision

  South Eastern

  271

  154

  24

  90

  1

  39

  South Western

  98

  23

  17

  3

  1

  2

  West Midlands

  143

  48

  12

  24

  4

  8

  North Western

  385

  50

  16

  18

  8

  8

  Northern

  29

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  55

  12

  8

  2

  0

  2

  East Midlands

  43

  16

  9

  3

  0

  4

  Eastern

  362

  60

  9

  0

  43

  8

  London

  953

  128

  50

  11

  35

  32

  TOTAL

  2,339

  492

  145

  152

  92

  103

  Poynton Bypass
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what routes he is considering for the A523 Poynton bypass; and when he expects to make a decision.

  Mr. Chope
  Options based on the orange and green routes passing to the west of Poynton and combining with the eastern section of the proposed A6(M) to M56 (Manchester airport) link are being considered.

  I hope to announce a preferred route within the next few weeks.

  Scheme

  Authority

  Cost

  £ million

  A50 Coleville relief road stages 1 and 2

  Leicestershire County Council

  1·636

  A50 Coleville relief road stage 3

  Leicestershire County Council

  1·721

  A453 Dualling

  Department of Transport

  1·500

  A42 Measham and Ashby bypass

  Department of Transport

  35·500

  A42 Castle Donington (N) section contract 1

  Department of Transport

  29·011

  A42 Castle Donington (W) section contract 2

  Department of Transport

  13·140

  212
  practices. The Dutch motorway warning light system uses a matrix signal similar to that used in England. The system is concentrated on motorways in urban areas and is automatically operated. In England more than 97 per cent. of the motorway network is fitted with matrix warning systems, 100 km are automatically operated, the rest are operated by the police.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on 26 July 1990, if his Department has updated figures on the number of properties owned and administered by his Department(a) empty for more than six months or (b) empty for more than one year; and what is the regional distribution of these properties.

  Mr. Chope
  At 30 September 1990 the Department owned 2,339 residential properties acquired in advance of requirements for the trunk road programme. The Department's policy is not to leave properties empty if they are to be retained for six months or more and a tenant can be found. The table sets out the information that is available in the same form as the earlier reply.

  Roads, Leicestershire
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new roads in north-west Leicestershire since 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  Since 1979 the Department of Transport and Leicestershire county council have to date spent £85·25 million on the construction of new trunk and principal roads in north-west Leicestershire. The details are as follows:
  213

  Scheme

  Authority

  Cost

  £ million

  A42 Castle Donington (N) section contract 3

  Department of Transport

  172·742

  85·250

  1 Spend to date (under construction)

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report the major new schemes accepted for transport supplementary grant for 1990–91 and 1991–92 giving in each case (a) the net present value,

  Major new schemes accepted for transport supplementary grant in 1991–92

  Authority

  Scheme

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  NPV

  PVC

  Base

  Berkshire

  Phase 2 A33 relief road Rose Kiln Lane to I.D.R.

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  East Sussex

  East Hoathly bypass

  11·492

  1·964

  88

  Hampshire

  Totton western bypass (Stage 3)

  43·612

  12·836

  88

  Kent

  Roydon Hall bends to A26

  3·476

  0·960

  88

  West Sussex

  Hooklands improvement

  9·407

  2·912

  88

  Cornwall

  Poenryn and Falmouth distributor road

  9·460

  6·802

  88

  Devon

  Jetty Marsh ST2/Newton Abbot TC schemes

  15·970

  1·759

  88

  Devon

  A380 relief road (Kerswell to Hele road)

  15·924

  1·011

  88

  Dorset

  West Stafford bypass

  0·927

  1·402

  88

  Gloucestershire

  Eastington·Stroud ST2 (Stonehouse Court—Horsetrough Junction)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Somerset

  Shepton Mallet to East of Dean

  1·597

  4·448

  88

  Wiltshire

  Trowbridge relief road—Stage 2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Herefordshire/Worcestershire

  Alvechurch bypass

  17·130

  2·014

  79

  Shropshire

  Newport bypass

  5·445

  3·404

  88

  Staffordshire

  Keele bypass

  2·073

  1·611

  88

  Stockport

  A34 bypass (Etchells road to Schools Hill)

  10·80

  3·260

  79

  Cheshire

  Handforth BP & Maelr (Stockport/Developer funded)

  93·081

  20·400

  88

  Cheshire

  Urban traffic control system (Chester Warrington)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Cumbria

  Rothay link

  1·274

  1·414

  88

  Cleveland

  Portrack Lane dualling

  19·600

  3·522

  88

  Durham

  Teesside link and airport access

  9·964

  4·810

  88

  Durham

  Darlington cross town route Stage 1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Humberside

  Leven bypass

  5·233

  6·408

  88

  North Yorkshire

  Ripon BP/Distributor roads and works in city centre

  17·713

  4·880

  88

  Leicestershire

  Hinckley northern perimeter completion

  7·928

  1·360

  88

  Lincolnshire

  Grantham inner relief road

  1·744

  1·390

  88

  Northamptonshire

  Brackley southern bypass

  10·900

  1·400

  88

  Buckinghamshire

  A509/A422 Newport Pagnell BP dualling (MKDC CON)

  8·580

  1·847

  89

  Essex

  Stanford·le·Hope to Five Bells Stage 2

  110·544

  13·058

  n/a

  Norfolk

  King's Lynn traffic management scheme

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Norfolk

  Stratton Strawless·Hevingham improvement

  1·645

  0·925

  79

  Barking

  Beacontree Heath road improvements

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Bromley

  Elmers End road railway bridge

  2·810

  2·360

  88

  Ealing

  Iron bridge highway improvement

  21·159

  1·821

  88

  Hillingdon

  Uxbridge town centre improvement scheme

  34·600

  4·700

  88

  (a) The net present value (£ million)

  (b) The present value of cost (£ million>

  (c) The base year.

  Major new schemes accepted for transport supplementary grant in 1990–91

  Authority

  Scheme

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  NPV

  PVC

  Base

  Berkshire

  Sandhurst Crowthorne bypass

  27·884

  5·800

  88

  Berkshire

  Slough Bath Road Montem Lane—Wellington Street

  11·114

  4·985

  88

  East Sussex

  Boarshead to Eridge

  10·013

  5·750

  88

  Hampshire

  M3 link Minley

  45·663

  5·523

  88

  Kent

  Dartford northern bypass

  68·312

  6·000

  88

  Kent

  Thames·side industrial route (TIR) stage 1

  21·292

  2·580

  88

  Oxfordshire

  Banbury inner relief road

  37·360

  11·750

  88

  West Sussex

  Littlehampton bypass (main scheme)

  24·708

  4·000

  88

  West Sussex

  Crawley south western bypass

  15·067

  2·405

  88

  Avon

  Avon ring road (IV): Marsham way-A4 Bath road

  6·400

  4·190

  79

  Avon

  Weston Super Mare PDR stages VA and VB

  3·886

  4·380

  79

  Cornwall

  Liskeard industrial distributor road

  5·560

  3·303

  79

  Devon

  Milehouse junction improvement Plymouth

  28·603

  1·766

  88

  Devon

  Torbay ring road stage 2

  34·836

  3·491

  88

  Devon

  Thorns Cross to Eagle Farm stage 4

  6·806

  3·758

  88

  214
  (b) the present value or cost and (c) the base year used in calculating the net present value and the present value or cost.

  Mr. Chope
  The information provided by the local highway authorities concerned is as follows:
  215

  Authority

  Scheme

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  NPV

  PVC

  Base

  Devon

  Western approach/Union Street junction improvement Plymouth

  34·170

  0·839

  88

  Dorset

  Primary network/A37 improvement-section A AIP

  0·076

  1·148

  79

  Somerset

  Lysander road to Hendford Yeovil

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Wiltshire

  Swindon Cricklade road relief road-stage 2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Wiltshire

  Burbage bypass

  2·581

  1·843

  88

  Birmingham

  Middle ring road (Lawley street viaduct section)

  4·429

  4·965

  88

  Birmingham

  Lichfield road improvement phase 1 (UDA scheme)

  66·165

  7·700

  88

  Birmingham

  UDA Spine road (Heartlands)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Coventry

  North-south road phase 1

  28·433

  6·166

  86

  Dudley

  Dudley southern bypass

  59·300

  34·900

  88

  Solihull

  Shirley junction improvements phase 1

  3·248

  0·967

  88

  Herefordshire/Worcestershire

  Roman road Hereford phase 4 stage 2

  -0·252

  1·139

  88

  Herefordshire/Worcestershire

  A44-A422 Link Worcester road—Whittington road Marl. Bank

  71·260

  1·054

  88

  Shropshire

  Ironbridge bypass extension

  3·746

  1·156

  88

  Staffordshire

  Burslem town centre bypass

  0·468

  1·304

  88

  Bolton

  Outer ring road improvements

  20·527

  0·672

  79

  Manchester

  Intrmed ring road stage 1 (Kirkmanshulme Lane-Pottery Lane)

  11·617

  1·336

  79

  Manchester

  Airport access roads stage 2 (M56 spur/Airport)

  1·804

  1·660

  79

  Manchester

  Intermediate ring road stage 2 (Pottery lane-Oldham road)

  6·789

  3·256

  79

  Stockport

  Brinksway improvement phase 2

  4·160

  2·600

  88

  Wigan

  Lowton St. Mary's bypass

  2·610

  1·480

  79

  Knowsley

  M57—A562 link road

  20·620

  30·370

  88

  Liverpool

  Great Howard street improvement phase 1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Cheshire

  Wilmslow local bypass

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Lancashire

  Blackburn inner relief road (phase 1)

  13·892

  3·180

  88

  Lancashire

  Squires gate lane Blackpool dualling

  6·374

  1·440

  88

  Lancashire

  Park road/St. Helens road link Ormskirk

  7·602

  1·408

  88

  Sunderland

  Eastern relief road

  7·638

  0·945

  79

  Cleveland

  Thornaby bypass

  18·760

  13·500

  86

  Durham

  Metal bridge to Bowburn

  3·518

  1·158

  88

  Durham

  Consett bypass stage II

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Northumberland

  Prudhoe northern bypass

  23·182

  6·479

  88

  Northumberland

  Swinburne quarry to Fourlaws stage 1

  1·308

  0·729

  88

  Sheffield

  Penistone road stages II and III

  4·775

  1·377

  79

  Sheffield

  Outer ring road Darnall street II, III and IV

  0·206

  2·500

  79

  Bradford

  Bradford city ring road stage II

  71·924

  6·416

  88

  Bradford

  Killinghall Triangle

  30·547

  0·739

  88

  Leeds

  Leeds inner ring road stages 6 and 7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North Yorkshire

  Sherburn-in-Elmet and South Milford bypass

  7·358

  7·428

  88

  Leicestershire

  Ashby-Loughborough Coleorton improvement

  0·178

  0·461

  79

  Leicestershire

  Redland quarry to Quorn/Montsorrel bypass link

  0·264

  0·600

  79

  Northamptonshire

  Middleton Cheney BP and Overthorpe Hall improvement

  13·753

  5·518

  88

  Northamptonshire

  River Tove bends

  2·664

  1·645

  88

  Northamptonshire

  Nene valley way I Crawler lane

  1·384

  0·699

  88

  Nottinghamshire

  Manvers street link Nottingham

  3·781

  1·448

  79

  Bedfordshire

  Stagsden bypass

  1·157

  1·836

  88

  Cambridgeshire

  A14/A603/B1042 junction improvement Arrington

  n/a

  n/a

  88

  Essex

  Dovercourt bypass stage 2 phase 2

  2·881

  3·420

  79

  Essex

  Canes lane improvement (final stage)

  1·837

  0·599

  79

  Norfolk

  Watton inner relief road

  5·937

  1·333

  79

  Suffolk

  Stowmarket relief road

  10·144

  9·336

  88

  Suffolk

  Mutford bridge

  0·545

  5·625

  88

  Croydon

  Mitcham road/Sumner road-junction improvement

  1·040

  1·190

  89

  Ealing

  South road pedestrianisation (Southall town centre)

  1·620

  2·360

  88

  Merton

  Beddington/Mitcham relief road

  59·754

  6·644

  79

  Wandsworth

  Battersea park road (Alexandra avenue-Queenstown road)

  n/a

  1·617

  89

  (a) The net present value (£ million)

  (b) The present value of cost (£ million)

  (c) The base year

  Toll Road, Cheshire
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the alternative routes for the proposed toll road parallel to the M6 through Cheshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Four groups responded to our invitation for outline proposals for new privately funded road capacity between Birmingham and Manchester. We are still discussing with the respondents aspects of their proposals, which remain commercially confidential.

  Gulf Marine Environment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work of his marine pollution control unit in relation to the Gulf.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine pollution control unit (MPCU) has contributed to the response to the Gulf oil spill in a variety of ways in conjunction with the Department of the Environment (DOE) which has led on behalf of the Government.
  217
  In response to a Saudi Arabian request on 27 January the MPCU facilitated the movement of 90 tonnes of oil containment booms and skimmers from the commercial oil spill service centre at Southampton to Dhahran in Ministry of Defence chartered freight aircraft on 28, 29 and 30 January.

  On 28 January the Saudi Arabian Government requested the provision by the United Kingdom of two counter-pollution experts to assist their meteorology and environmental protection administration in responding to the spill. These were immediately provided by the MPCU—one MPCU scientist and another contracted by the MPCU from the DTI Warren Spring laboratory. After the necessary inoculations and training in personal anti-chemical warfare protection the experts arrived in Dhahran on 31 January. They assisted in the creation of a counter-pollution command and control organisation, checked and advised on the boom protection of seawater intakes to desalination plants and important economic sites, and advised on the identification and protection of important coastal ecological sites including plans to be implemented as equipment was made available. On-site reports relayed by these experts direct to the MPCU and thence to the DOE have provided a source of detailed information on the slick and the response to it which has been of great value to the assessment by the Government of the overall situation.

  On completion of the initial phase, these scientists were replaced on 15 February by the MPCU chief scientist to provide advice on the selection of disposal sites for recovered oil, spill movement prediction, and the short and long-term recovery of contaminated shores. In response to a request for assistance by the Bahraini Government he also visited Bahrain, to advise on ways in which Her Majesty's Government could help in the event that the oil might reach the Bahraini coast. This led to the gift by Her Majesty's Government of specialist oil recovery equipment—recommended by the MPCU—to the Government of Bahrain. On completion of these tasks and after agreement with the Saudi Arabian authorities, he returned to the United Kingdom on 1 March.

  Since 29 January the MPCU has also acted as the co-ordination centre for commercial offers of counter-pollution personnel and equipment from British companies to assist with the oil spill. These have been passed on, as appropriate, to Gulf states via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which has been asked by the Saudi Arabian Government to act as a clearing house for all international offers of this kind.

  The MPCU has provided technical advice to DOE throughout the incident and more recently, the unit has also advised IMO on various clean-up strategies which have been proposed by the Saudi Arabian control centre and which might be supported by the IMO fund to which Her Majesty's Government have contributed £1 million.

  Coach Bans, Pimlico
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress of the implementation of the coach ban in parts of Pimlico, as agreed by his Department in accordance with the submission of Westminster city council; when the ban will be introduced; how many signs are needed; what these will cost; and who will pay for them.
  218
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 March 1991]: The implementation of the area coach ban and the associated costs are matters for Westminster city council. The Department's approval for a coach ban in the Victoria/Belgravia/Bayswater/Sussex Gardens /Bryanston areas which was required under the Local Government Act 1985 because of the potential effect on traffic flow in the strategic road network, was given on 16 October 1990.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce his alternative proposals for agriculture reform to those proposed by the European Commission.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have set out on a number of occasions the objectives we are pursuing in negotiations on the reform of the CAP.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on any official proposals from the European Commission and member Governments to reform the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) earlier today.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the budget estimate for EC spending on agriculture in 1991, expressed in pounds sterling; and if he will make a statement outlining the legal and administrative procedures for preventing overruns in this area of spending.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Community agriculture budget for 1991 totals £24,240 million excluding the monetary reserve. All Community expenditure is subject to controls under Council decision 88/377 concerning budgetary discipline and any increase in budget provisions requires the approval of the Council and the European Parliament. Furthermore, there are specific procedures in the budget discipline decision to ensure that the agricultural guideline for market support of £22,656 million in 1991 is respected.

  Imported Wild Birds
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's actions to reduce the mortality of imported wild birds.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Ministry's second report on mortalities in imported captive birds, relating to imports in 1989, was published in February. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I regard the level of mortality as unacceptably high and the Department is taking what action it can to reduce losses. During the past year veterinary officials have visited major exporting countries and more visits are to take place. We insist that the authorities responsible for exports must comply with our import requirements and observe welfare standards of the International Air Transport Association. Consideration is being given to revised

  219
  pre-export isolation and certification requirements, and we will prohibit imports of birds from any country that fails to co-operate.

  Following a review of quarantine standards the number of birds in each quarantine premises will be specified according to physiological and behavioural needs. These measures are expected to result in reduced consignment sizes, and from 1 April the maximum size of any consignment of non-psittacines will be reduced from 6,000 to 4,000. Applicants for import licences are also now required to provide more detailed information and we are considering tightening further the application of our disease control arrangements.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is also considering what action can be taken within his responsibilities.

  Many of the problems arising from this trade would be significantly reduced if the public did not purchase captive birds. Some species should not be taken from the wild for this trade, and nobody should contemplate buying or keeping birds unless proper care and facilities are available.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the eight-day tie-up regulations affecting the fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  The regulations were thoroughly debated on 5 March, and I have nothing to add.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to ensure the accurate reporting of fish catches in area VIIA in the Irish sea.

  Mr. Curry
  Accurate reporting of fish catches, whether in area VIIA or elsewhere is primarily a matter for individual fishermen. The Government's role is to check the accuracy of such reports by means of spot checks and by comparing them with other data, including data from surface and aerial surveillance. When discrepancies are suspected they are investigated with a view to legal proceedings. In 1990 there were 92 prosecutions on United Kingdom vessels for offences against the control regulation (Council regulation 2241/87) which governs the recording of fishing activity and catches.

  Wheat
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current intervention stocks of wheat held in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  A table setting out intervention stock levels in the EC and the United Kingdom is deposited monthly in the House of Commons Library. Latest figures were tabled on 12 March.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average ex-farm price of wheat received by(a) British farmers, (b) French farmers, (c) German farmers and (d) the EEC generally in 1979, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 in pounds sterling.
  220
  Mr. Curry
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is not yet published for 1990. The information for the other years is set out in the table. Producer prices for the European Community as a whole are not available.

  Producer prices for wheat

  £ tonne1

  France

  Germany

  United Kingdom2

  1979

  91·51

  117·70

  96·90

  1984

  98·48

  123·90

  113·90

  1985

  96·06

  111·24

  111·80

  1986

  114·73

  129·25

  110·70

  1987

  113·82

  134·74

  111·20

  1988

  98·48

  116·40

  106·90

  1989

  101·57

  113·67

  108·80

  1Exchange rates based on average spot rates for calendar years.

  2 To facilitate comparisons between countries figures for the United Kingdom are prepared on a slightly different basis from those given in my answer to the hon. Member on 15 March 1991.

  Source: "Eurostat Agricultural Prices"

  Sugar Beet Quotas
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from the National Farmers Union in respect of sugar beet quotas.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the comparable increase in the price of food to consumers as measured against the retail prices index since 1979.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) earlier today.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what change in retail food prices there has been for each of the last three months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Food prices are leading the way to lower inflation. The rate of food price inflation fell from 6·9 per cent. in November to 6·6 per cent. in December and 5·9 per cent. in January.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he has introduced to the set-aside scheme since its initial introduction.

  Mr. Curry
  Several changes have been introduced for the third year of the set-aside scheme in particular to improve its impact upon the environment:The number of cuts required of the plant cover on fallow set-aside land has been increased from one to two;
  The list of environmental features which farmers have to maintain and protect on set-aside land has been extended;
  A limited grazed fallow option has been included;
  The rates of aid for permanent and rotational fallow have been increased, partly to offset the increased costs arising from the new management rules;
  Differential rates of aid have been introduced for farmers who fallow more than 100 hectares of land and more than 75 per cent. of their eligible area, in order to reflect better the fixed cost savings.
  221
  Other changes have also been made to the scheme in the light of experience of its first two years of operation.

  Knacker Industry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the knacker industry; and what representations he has received from United Kingdom knackermen and knackerwomen.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a number of representations from the knacker industry, which remains an important part of our animal waste disposal system. That is why we fought so hard and succeeded in securing arrangements under new Community rules on animal waste disposal which will ensure that the industry will be able to continue in its present form at least until 1995 and even after that if agreement can be reached.

  Farm Rents
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average farm rent in pounds per acre in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) England for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Curry
  The table gives average farm rents in metric terms for(a) Great Britain and (b) England. Information

  Year

  Bread

  Wheat

  Average price1

  Index

  Annual change2

  Average price4

  Annual change

  Nominal terms

  Real terms3

  Nominal terms

  Real terms3

  p/loaf

  January 1987 = 100

  Percentage

  Percentage

  £ tonne

  Percentage

  Percentage

  1988

  46·3

  107·9

  6·7

  1·7

  105·1

  -6·2

  -10·6

  1989

  48·8

  114·1

  5·7

  -1·9

  104·7

  -0·4

  -7·6

  1990

  50·1

  121·0

  6·0

  -3·0

  5109·5

  +4·6

  -4·5

  1 White sliced loaf 800g, annual average of monthly prices.

  2 The percentage change is based on the index rather than the price for bread. This takes into account the fact that the specification of the item may have changed over the period.

  3 Deflated using the all items Retail Price Index.

  4 Average price realised by producers, net of coresponsibility levy.

  5 Forecast.

  Sources: Retail Price Index, CSO.

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom, MAFF.

  Farming Subsidies
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about subsidies available to pig farmers and horticultural farmers in the Netherlands which are available through(a) the European Community and (b) the Dutch Government; whether those in (a) are available in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  European Community price support arrangements for pigmeat and for horticultural products apply in both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

  The Government do not keep comprehensive details of the national subsidies and other state aids available to farmers in the Netherlands and other member states, since to do so would not be a cost effective use of resources. All state aids are, however, subject to the provisions of articles 92 to 94 of the treaty of Rome, and member states are required to obtain the Commission's approval in advance for new state aids and modifications to existing aids and to
  222
  cannot be provided on a United Kingdom basis because Northern Ireland's land tenure system is not generally comparable with that of Great Britain.

  Average farm rents (£ per hectare)

  Year

  Great Britain

  England

  1979

  38·23

  42·13

  1980

  45·27

  50·01

  1981

  52·91

  58·36

  1982

  60·39

  66·14

  1983

  67·70

  73·93

  1984

  74·37

  81·27

  1985

  79·83

  87·38

  1986

  84·41

  92·65

  1987

  87·32

  95·86

  1988

  88·36

  96·82

  1989

  89·19

  97·12

  11990

  90·90

  98·48

  1 Provisional.

  Bread
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been(a) the price of bread and (b) the price of wheat in each of the last three years; and what have been the annual increases in real, actual and percentage terms.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  send an inventory of all state aids to the Commission annually. The Government monitor, through their embassies in the Netherlands and elsewhere, the introduction of new state aids and modifications to existing aids, and draw any that seem to be of doubtful legality to the attention of the Commission.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the different green pound rates operative in various agricultural commodities and each individual rate for each type of cereals and other crops listed under cropping in the annual review of agriculture White Paper for(a) Great Britain, (b) Northern Ireland and (c) the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  223

  Green rate

  Commodity

  1 United Kingdom

  2 Republic of Ireland

  All crop products

  0·779553

  0·878776

  Sheepmeat

  0·779553

  0·878776

  Beef and veal

  0·795232

  0·878776

  Pigmeat

  0·800520

  0·878776

  All other products

  0·758185

  0·878776

  11 ECU in £ sterling.

  21 ECU in Irish punt.

  Animal Medicines
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the levels of fees for licensing animal medicines in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the other countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is set out in the table. This is based on information circulated by the EC Commission in November 1990 to provide an approximate estimate of the fees payable in each member state. The pound sterling rates have been converted from ECUs at the rate prevailing on 30 November 1990.

  Fees payable for authorisation of veterinary medicinal products in EC member stales: 1990–91

  Country

  Product with new active ingredient (£)

  Product with established active ingredient (£)

  Belgium

  1,079

  1,079

  Denmark

  1,915

  1,915

  Germany

  8,202

  2,563

  Greece

  204

  204

  Spain

  8

  8

  France

  155

  155

  Ireland

  1,468

  296

  Italy

  525

  525

  Luxembourg

  49

  49

  Netherlands

  834

  303

  Portugal

  310

  310

  United Kingdom

  12,000

  3,000

  Horses kept on agricultural holdings in England and Wales

  1970

  1975

  1979

  1983

  1990

  (i) Horses for agricultural and horticultural purposes

  112,000

  4,100

  4,400

  5,400

  5,200

  (ii) All other horses and ponies

  114,000

  144,000

  132,000

  144,000

  138,000

  Totals

  126,000

  148,100

  136,400

  149,400

  143,200

  1 Collected in 1970 as: Horses (including mares kept for breeding) used for work in agriculture or market gardening.

  Note: All figures include estimates for minor holdings.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to recommend to farmers non-organophosphorous sheep dips; how many complaints his Department has received about damages to humans using the present dips; and when he expects to approve further alternative preparations.

  r. Maclean
  I am not taking any steps at this stage to recommend that farmers use one type of sheep dip rather than another. All sheep dip products are currently subject to a review to ensure the most up-to-date safety standards apply. Any products which fail to meet these standards will have to be withdrawn from the market. The results of the review will be announced later this year.

  Of the 55 reports of suspected adverse reactions I reported in my reply to my hon. Friend on 11 March at column 399, 41 relate to dips which are presently licensed.
  224
  Source: EC Commission.

  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make it his policy to limit the increase in fees for licensing animal medicines to the level of inflation.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Government policy remains that the full cost of licensing should be recovered from the industry through the fees it pays for licences and other services. Costs will continue to be reviewed annually and, where necessary, any increases will be reflected in the fees charged. But with improvements in efficiency at the Veterinary Medicines Directorate resulting from its establishment as a "next steps" agency, I would expect any increases that may arise to be kept below the level of inflation as is the case this year. Proposals currently before the House for 1991–92 are for an increase of 5 per cent. in fees for product licences and animal test certificates, and an average of 8 per cent. for other fees and inspections. Both are well below the current rate of inflation.

  Equine Population
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he estimates to be the equine population(a) currently and (b) five, 10, 15 and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  No official figures are available for the total equine population, but the department periodically collects information on horses kept on agricultural holdings in England and Wales. Figures for the years of collection giving the nearest match to the years requested, are shown in the following table:

  That is nine reports fewer than previously indicated. I regret that the expiry of two product licences, for which the nine reports were received, had been overlooked.

  I will be happy to approve any alternative preparations which meet the Medicines Act criteria of safety, quality and efficacy.

  Consumer Representatives
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with consumer representatives.

  Mr. Maclean
  Representatives of the consumer organisations were present on the 20 February 1991, at the fourth periodic meeting between my right hon. Friend the Minister and the office holders of consumer organisations. The next meeting is planned for 25 June 1991.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of farms, their locations, the number of cows and which companies are licensed for the testing of bovine somatotropin in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Cyanamid, Lilly Industries and Monsanto are currently authorised to conduct field trials using BST products. Trials involving 70 cows are currently taking place on three farms in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member is already aware, section 118 of the Medicines Act precludes me from disclosing further details.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Veterinary Products Committee is to consider the possible adverse effects of bovine somatotropin on the human stomach; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The VPC considered this aspect in relation to two BST products before advising me last year that their use would pose no risk to human safety. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a recent article on this subject in the British Medical Journal. I am asking the VPC to consider this paper in case it contains new data which they will wish to assess.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he now intends to allow the introduction of bovine somatotropin; whether the Veterinary Products Committee has considered the matter further; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The VPC has advised me that applications from Lilly Industries and Monsanto to license BST products should be refused for reasons of animal safety. Both companies have said they will be taking up their right to appeal to the Medicines Commission and to generate additional data for consideration there. I certainly do not intend to license any BST product while these expert committees continue to advise me not to.

  Fish Products
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to amend the ingredients regulations concerning fish products.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have just issued for public consultation proposals for new controls on fish products. The main provisions of the proposals:

  (a) require all fish products as defined to be labelled with a declaration of the average fish content;

  (b) require a declaration of the presence of minced fish if present in amounts greater than 10 per cent. of the total fish content; and

  (c) define the term 'fillet' and permit its use in labelling and advertising to indicate its proportion in the final product.

  Once enacted, the proposal will also revoke the Food Standards (Fish Cakes) Order 1950.

  Cattle
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the reasons for the imposition of the Food Protection 226
  (Emergency Prohibitions) (Lead in Cattle) (England) Order 1991 which was made on 6 March, giving the origins of the contamination and the number of cattle involved; and whether he expects an increase in the number of farms affected.

  Mr. Gummer
  These restrictions were introduced by an order made under part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to protect consumers by preventing the marketing of contaminated food following an outbreak of lead poisoning among a group of 80 dairy cattle on a farm in Devon. The source of contamination has been traced to an old car battery which had been inadvertently incorporated into a silage clamp. No other farms are affected.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that in the case of pollution control projects, grant aid approval will not be refused to farmers who have set about urgent remedial works, eligible for grant, in response to requests from the National Rivers Authority or any other regulatory authority.

  Mr. Curry
  It has always been our policy to pay grant on claims which comply with the terms of the relevant grant scheme.

  Farm Conservation Grants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many grant applications under the farm aid conservation grant scheme have been refused in the last two years; and for what reasons applications were refused in each case.

  Mr. Curry
  In England, since the farm and conservation grant scheme was introduced in February 1989, a total of 653 claims have been rejected or withdrawn and 6,626 claims authorised for payment up to the end of February 1991. Claims will have been rejected for a breach of either the statutory requirements or the administrative rules of the scheme. Reasons for rejections in individual cases could be given only at disproportionate cost as this information is not held centrally.

DEFENCE

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a licence has been issued to the Bicester with Whaddon Chase foxhounds to hunt on Ministry of Defence land at Arncott near Bicester in Oxfordshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a licence issued to a hunt to hunt on Ministry of Defence land has ever been revoked or if action has been taken for infringement of licensing conditions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No licence to hunt on Ministry of Defence land has been revoked for breach of the licence conditions. There have been two occasions in the last five years when hunts have been warned about the conduct of themselves or their followers.
  227
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the licence fee for hunts to hunt on Ministry of Defence land becomes payable in 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1991]: There is no specific date in the year for payment of licence fees for hunts to hunt on Ministry of Defence land. Licences with hunts commence on different dates in the year and payment is required at the start of the licence period and before the hunt enters MOD land.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hunts that had a licence to hunt on Ministry of Defence land have not fully paid the licence fee for 1990 by the end of the year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1991]: There are no outstanding licence fees in respect of 1990 for hunts to hunt on Ministry of Defence land.

  Missiles
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Kingswood of 11 March,Official Report, column 412, on the "Family of Weapons Memorandum of Understanding", if he will identify the factors which have given rise to the need to reconsider the status of the MOU with the United States Government.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The principal factors relate to changes in the international situation since the MOU was signed in 1980, and to progress made in developing the two weapon systems involved.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer to the hon. Member for Kingswood of 11 March,Official Report, column 412, when the review of BAe's ASRAAM proposal will be complete.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Any proposal made by BAe in response to the invitation to tender for solutions to SR(A)1234 will be evaluated along with other proposals received. It is too early to say when these evaluations will be complete.

  Christmas Islands
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel who were present at Christmas island during nuclear tests are(a) still living and (b) deceased.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Data on mortality amongst nuclear test participants up to 1 January 1989 is still being verified by the National Radiological Protection Board. Its report on this study will not be available for some time.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what documents relating to British nuclear tests have been released under sections 3(4) and 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958; what documents have been withheld; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Listings of documents related to the British nuclear weapons tests and experiments, whether released or withheld on grounds of national security under the Public Records Act 1958, could not be compiled and published without disproportionate cost.

  Gulf War (Casualties)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has informed Gulf support groups that casualty visiting officers will make special arrangements, including payment of allowances and travel costs, for nominated next of kin to visit hospitalised casualties from the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Next of kin of hospitalised personnel were informed by service authorities of the special arrangements for visiting their relatives, including eligibility for concessionary travel and subsistence allowances. It was not necessary to inform Gulf support groups separately of the arrangements, although advice was provided on request.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the nominated next of kin of the very seriously ill, the seriously ill and other hospitalised casualties following the Gulf war have been granted allowances for full board and lodgings and travel costs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the forces returning from the Gulf required or are likely to require hospitalisation; and how many of these have been classified as very seriously ill or seriously ill.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  To date a total of 811 service personnel requiring hospitalisation have returned from the Gulf during operation Granby. Information on the numbers of very seriously ill or seriously ill cases is collected on a daily basis, not as a running total. There were 10 seriously ill and no very seriously ill cases in United Kingdom military hospitals yesterday.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's special armed forces suffered any casualties as a result of participation in operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Four members of the special forces were killed in action.

  Gulf Trust
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he has given any advice to service benevolent funds regarding the distribution of money raised by the Gulf Trust; if the service benevolent funds have given him any information regarding money so far allocated; and on what criteria allocations are being made;

  (2) how much money has so far been donated to the Gulf Trust; how much has been allocated to the benevolent fund for each service; and on what criteria the allocation was made.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total value of donations to the Gulf Trust currently stands at £1·2 million. Allocations from the trust to the service benevolent funds will be made in accordance with needs. No allocations have yet been made. The service benevolent funds will distribute moneys to those in need in accordance with their established practices and within the ambit of their trust deeds.

  The Gulf (Camels)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of camels(a) killed by allied bombing raids or ground attacks in Iraq and Kuwait and (b) that have died of asphyxiation from smoke from the burning oil wells in Kuwait.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  The Gulf (Army Personnel)
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if British Army personnel serving in the open desert in the Gulf are being charged for their food and accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All Army personnel serving in the desert are exempt from food and accommodation charges.

  Fissile Materials
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been undertaken by or on behalf of, his Department concerning the long-term verifiable storage or destruction of fissile materials withdrawn from redundant nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  The Gulf (Smoke)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the work of the Meteorological Office research aircraft in studying the composition and behaviour of smoke plumes in the Gulf.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The C-130 aircraft of the meteorological research flight is owned and crewed by the RAF. It has been fitted out with a wide range of sophisticated scientific instruments which are operated by Meteorological Office scientists who direct the scientific missions.
  230
  The aircraft will conduct a number of flights over the Gulf states before returning to the United Kingdom where the data gathered will be analysed. Measurements will be made of the optical and chemical properities of the oil smoke plume at a number of downwind distances at varying heights. The results will greatly assist the evaluation of the smoke movements and its impact.

  Housing Sales
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the sale of ex-Ministry of Defence housing; and whether any changes have occurred to this policy in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1991]: Surplus service married quarters which are capable of individual sale are normally offered for sale to serving service personnel at a 30 per cent. discount. Surplus civilian dwellings which are capable of individual sale are normally offered for sale to the civilian occupant at a discount of up to 60 per cent; the difference in discount follows from the service personnel's discount being taxable whereas the discount available to a civilian is not. As an exceptional measure, civilian tenants of surplus service married quarters may be allowed to purchase at a discount of 30 per cent. Surplus housing which is not offered for sale through either of the two discount schemes is normally sold on the open market to the highest bidder. Exceptionally, private treaty sales—for example to a housing association—may be agreed provided that an open market sale is not likely to achieve a higher price; in such cases the price is determined by the district valuer. Apart from the introduction of the civilian discount scheme in 1980 and the service scheme in 1983, there have been no other changes to our disposal policy in the last 10 years.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act,
Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Act.

Community Charge
Lord Jacques Lord Jacques asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of local government expenditure was funded by the community charge in 1990–91 and what percentage by domestic rates in 1978–79.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the percentage of local government expenditure funded by domestic rates in 1978–79 was 16 per cent. The percentage raised from the community charge in 1990–91 is 28 per cent. However, following the announcement in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is estimated that the corresponding percentage in 1991–92 will be 15 per cent.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Why have the Government persisted in blaming local authorities for the high rate of poll tax when they very well knew that a major cause was the shift from national taxation to local taxation, coupled with the high cost of collection? Is it not a classic case of being economical with the truth?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree with the assumption that the major cause of high community charges related to the balance between grant supplied by the Exchequer and by local authorities. The noble Lord totally disregards local authority spending.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, may I, as an inhabitant of wise Wandsworth, which is next door to loony Lambeth, ask whether it is not a little bizarre that we should have heard the supplementary question from the noble Lord opposite?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is entirely bizarre. My noble and learned friend underlines the point that the Exchequer support for people in Lambeth is infinitely greater than for people in Wandsworth.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that may not be so bizarre when one considers Berkshire, where I live? In Reading I
720
pay a charge of £486. Berkshire has a Tory-controlled county council. It seems that something is more deeply wrong than that. Is it not a fact that local authorities have lost almost £20,000 million in revenue over the past 10 years? Is it not clear from that that it is the Government's policy of making local taxpayers pay more and the Government pay less that has caused the problem? Are not the Government now thoroughly ashamed of themselves?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes the wrong comparison. There has indeed been a shift, which I have recognised, from national taxation to local taxation. However, he totally disregards the fact that all authorities are treated on the same basis at whatever level that grant is distributed. The discrepancy which has been disregarded by noble Lords opposite is the variation in spending levels between one authority and another.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is not the truth the fact that demand for local services is not matched by any enthusiasm for paying? Since we are giving our addresses, is my noble friend aware that I live in Southwark and that prudence in expenditure is not always obvious there?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too share the delight of being a taxpayer in Southwark. Nobody likes paying taxes but the reason why the Government responded in this year's Budget to the issue of volume of money collected at local level was precisely because the financial burden on local charge payers has reached a level which is unacceptable to local people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is growing and grave concern á propos the situation in local government in general? Westminster Council and Wandsworth Council were regarded as the Conservative Party's flagships. However, when people look closely at the flag, they are reminded of the skull and crossbones.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure what point the noble Lord makes. However, when one looks at the quality of services in those two authorities, and the cost to their local charge payers, they bear very favourable comparison with many other higher spending local authorities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the facts given by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in his supplementary question were correct. The Conservative Government inherited a rate support grant of 60 per cent. which was paid to local authorities. Is the noble Baroness aware that the first Secretary of State in the Conservative Government which started these savage cuts was Mr. Michael Heseltine? Is not the measure that will come to your Lordships' House next week -which makes provisions to implement the cut of £140 announced last week by the Chancellor—a result of the appalling situation that developed from the policies of Mr. Michael Heseltine?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whether the level of grant to local authorities was at 1978 levels or at 1991 levels, it is the variations in spending levels between

721
one authority and another that one has to address when one talks about effective or ineffective local government. It is true, and we have recognised, that the balance has gone too far in the relationship between national and local taxation. That is why my right honourable friend responded very quickly in the Budget to the concern that local people had: that the cost of local services was reaching too high a level.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it has been calculated that the Government have completely wasted £14 billion on the abortive exercise of a poll tax. They might as well have poured the money down the drain. Will the Minister tell us who will fund that wastage in future? Will the payment fall on the local taxpayers or poll tax payers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will be many opportunities for the noble Lord to continue to make that point. I simply do not agree with him that that money has been entirely wasted.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, comparisons have been made between Southwark and Wandsworth. Will the noble Baroness give the House the assurance that, if a Question is put down, she will provide details—including the methods of calculation and the assumptions upon which they are based—in respect of each of the boroughs concerned?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with regard to the Question at the Dispatch Box it is not necessary to answer all those questions. If the noble Lord wishes information on the way in which the grant is calculated, I am absolutely certain that he will find it in the Library. If not, I shall be more than pleased to write to him in detail about how the grant is arrived at for Southwark and for Wandsworth.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the correspondence which the noble Baroness offers and for which I am extremely grateful contain details, first, of the calculations, and, secondly, the assumptions upon which those calculations are based?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall make available to the noble Lord in detail in writing information as to how those figures are arrived at.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Westminster—which she mentions—the poll tax has come down to £36, and that it will cost £42 to collect? What are the Government doing about that ridiculous situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to see a chief executive who admits to a scandalously high figure of £42 for collecting one community charge bill. I hope that the leader of Westminster City Council is listening.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, what will be the position in Shetland, where the authority is faced with the possibility of collecting 93p?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the people of Shetland will be delighted at having to pay only 93p.

Gulf War: Attack on Retreating Units
3.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there were any kidnapped Kuwaitis, Palestinian civilians or immigrant workers from the Indian sub-continent in the convoy of vehicles attacked by allied ground and air forces on the road to Basra during 26th-27th February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, allied forces had instructions to attack retreating units which could continue to pose a threat. We have no information on casualties sustained in attacks on the Basra road.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the situation is surprising because an earlier statement has been made about the attacks? Can he say whether before the attack was launched intelligence forces gave any information to our commanders in the field that what was being proposed was not so much an act of warfare but more an act of mass slaughter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this was certainly not an act of mass slaughter. Fighting was in progress throughout the area at the time. The troops were attacked just outside Kuwait City and south of Iraqi defensive positions in the Matla Ridge area.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the true master of mass slaughter Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Arran: Without doubt, my Lords.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some Members of this House would find it incredible if allied bomber pilots were kind enough to land and say, "Tell us where you come from before we bomb you "?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not certain of the noble Lord's question. The coalition made it clear that it would not attack unarmed Iraqi soldiers. The battle was continuing and retreating units continued to pose a threat.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, a number of Ministers, including the noble Earl, assured the House before the event took place that retreating Iraqi forces would not be attacked if they were retreating from Kuwait. How does he square that statement with the operation that took place, because according to all reports not only were a large number of unarmed Iraqi soldiers included but also a large number of civilians of various nationalities?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is reported that a few civilians were on the road at the time. However, I must make it clear that while the troops were retreating they were able to stop at any time, reform and still pose a threat to the coalition forces, which included our own armed forces.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all the difficulties about which we have heard this afternoon were caused by the brutal invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein? Is it not a bit thick that some of our soldiers who were killed or wounded have not been particularly honoured for their work while others who were wounded because of the invasion of Kuwait have taken priority over British and American forces who fought so gallantly in the war?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the perpetration and the horror of the campaign was due to one man; that was the evil ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, unhappily, many French civilians, and to a lesser extent Belgian, Dutch and Danish civilians, were accidentally killed by the allies in the course of liberating their countries from Nazi occupation? Is that not the sad price that one must pay for defeating an aggressive dictatorship?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is some truth in that, but the question is far removed from that on the Order Paper.

Gypsy Site at Middlezoy: Planning Inquiry
3.14 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the reasons for the delay in announcing the Secretary of State for the Environment's decision on the proposed gypsy site at Middlezoy.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a very difficult and controversial case which has aroused strong local opposition. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is close to issuing a decision as promised in the written reply to the noble Lord on 12th March.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer and for the fact that progress has been made. Is she aware that planning policy guidance document PPGI dated January 1988 states that the Secretary of State and local planning authorities have a clear responsibility to minimise delay and that planning applications should normally be decided within eight weeks? It is almost two years since the Secretary of State called in this application.
Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State's delay is preventing designation in Somerset and as a result gypsies are buying up small plots of land, putting mobile homes on them and acting completely outside the bounds of normal planning permission; and that causes extreme difficulties for local people, who are not allowed to erect buildings on the sites? That is entirely due to the fact that the Minister has not yet given an answer to the planning inquiry.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree that this is not the best example of trying to prove that my department is improving its record on dealing with planning appeals. Gypsies who are negotiating with
724
landowners and purchasing sites are doing so in order to provide permanent accommodation. However, the site in question is a transit site.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is there not a contradiction in the description? The idea one has of gypsies is that they move on and if they need fixed homes they can hardly be classed as such.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am prepared to accept that there is confusion about the matter. We are talking about travellers —I understand that to be the new term for gypsies—who are more often seeking permanent accommodation.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, are the Zoys, like the Wallops, divided into an upper, middle and nether component, and can the Minister tell us where they are?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am entirely incompetent to answer that question.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the Minister. Is she aware that Middlezoy, among other places, is near the site of the battle of Sedgemoor? Is she further aware that such homes are being put on sites that would not be available to other people under the planning permission regulations? In one case, where a caravan was ordered to be removed from the site by the local planning authority, the owners of the site said, "In that case I shall sell it to gypsies ". Indeed, he has done so and there is a gypsy caravan there.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern for the difficulty to which he refers. Until a decision on the site is made it is difficult for Somerset to deal with the problems surrounding travellers or gypsies, whatever one wishes to call them. I accept the significance of the decision and hope that it will be made soon.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Blatch will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the local government review. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Belstead who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the re-organisation of further education.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Child Support Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill will be taken.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved. That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 107:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause: ("Maintenance collection
.—(1) This section applies where any person ("the liable person ") is liable to make payments of child support maintenance.
(2) The Secretary of State may order that maintenance will he collected in like manner as income tax in order to secure the payment of any amount due from a liable person under the maintenance assessment in question.
(3) Maintenance may be collected in like manner as income tax so as to secure the payment of—

(a) arrears of child support maintenance payable under the assessment;

(b) amounts of child support maintenance which will become due under the assessment; or

(c) both such arrears and such future amounts. ").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 107, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 130. This amendment deals with the best way in which to enforce the collection of maintenance. As we know, the proposed child support agency will have the power to collect maintenance on behalf of the custodial parent, and to require deduction from earnings where appropriate. Also, if there are arrears, the child support agency has various powers of enforcement.
We are anxious because we believe that there may be problems with the enforcement of collection. Deduction from earnings orders could be evaded by change of employment and there is the problem of ensuring payment from those who are self-employed. Therefore, we do not believe that such orders are the appropriate measure to use.
Perhaps a better way to enforce effective collection would be by use of the Inland Revenue's resources. There is an old saying in farming that only three things in life are certain: death, Quarter Day and taxation. We should like to take advantage of that.
As we know, the Inland Revenue has to trace people for taxation purposes and it would be possible to enforce collection through the changing of tax codes. That would make it harder for liable persons to avoid payment through change of employment if they are on the PAYE system.
The anxiety we have is whether the child support agency, which is based in the Department of Social Security, will have sufficient experience to perform effectively and adequately its enforcement role. If not, the result will be that many one-parent families will be no better off.
The simplest, the most cost-effective and reliable means of enforcing collection would be to use the resources of the Inland Revenue because of the possible ineffectiveness of the enforcement measures in the Bill.
Amendment No. 130 is technical and makes the necessary changes in the Bill to enable the enforcement powers to be given to the Inland Revenue. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): It may be worthwhile taking time to explain, first, why we believe that the child support agency is the better agency to enforce the collection of maintenance; and, secondly, to set out the problems which we see in the noble Lord's amendment which attempts to shift responsibility for collection on to the Inland Revenue. I assure the noble Lord that in framing these proposals, we considered carefully and fully a number of different ways in which maintenance could be collected and who should be charged with that collection.
As the Committee will know, the Government's proposal to create a child support agency (CSA) will place the responsibility for all stages of child maintenance, in most cases, on a single body. The CSA will be a purpose—built organisation with its own independent identity, and dedicated to one purpose—that is, providing an effective and efficient service in tracing absent parents and assessing, reviewing. collecting and enforcing child maintenance payments, and offering advice and information. The provision of the quality of service which children and their families are entitled to expect will generate very substantial volumes of activity. It is estimated that, when it is fully up and running, the CSA will have some 2 million customers and will make around 3 million assessments every year.
The CSA will be accountable to Parliament through my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the department deals with people from all walks of life on a day-to-day basis—from payment of child benefit to nearly 7 million families for over 12 million children, through collection of national insurance contributions for 58 million accounts, to paying retirement pension to over 10 million pensioners. It is therefore highly experienced in dealing with complex questions relating to people's incomes.
It makes sense for responsibility for the CSA's work on child maintenance to lie with the Secretary of State for Social Security. Three quarters of lone parents receive a social security benefit (either income support or family credit). Some 855,000 lone parents receive income support. Furthermore, the DSS already has considerable experience in dealing with maintenance matters. It arranges for voluntary payments of maintenance to be made to over half of the lone parents on income support who are receiving maintenance. The DSS also collects maintenance for one quarter of the lone parents on income support who receive maintenance. Two thousand five hundred posts are already allocated to this work within DSS, and it is important that the CSA should be able to build on this foundation. It will employ some 4,700 staff in all, specially trained to deal with all aspects of child maintenance.
I turn now to the Inland Revenue which is the subject of the noble Lord's amendment. The Revenue —with its well-tried PAYE system for the collection of income tax from employees —was a possible candidate. But the PAYE system is concerned with the

727
collection of tax and, under separate social security regulations, with the collection of another duty, national insurance contributions. It is not designed or intended for the general discharge of liabilities or the collection of debts. And the Board of Inland Revenue is charged, under the Taxes Management Act, with the care and maintenance of the tax system. Maintenance payments are not a tax. It would be both impractical and inappropriate for the Revenue to be involved in their assessment or collection.
There are many very serious practical difficulties involved in trying to adapt to this task a system designed to a much more limited end. The PAYE system is aimed at collecting the income tax due on their wages and salaries from employees as efficiently as possible while ensuring that the confidentiality of their tax affairs is maintained and the compliance burden on their employers is minimised.
Tax is deducted by employers from earnings by reference to tax tables and a PAYE code for each employee. Tax is recovered on subsidiary income or chargeable benefits by an adjustment to the code. The PAYE code number effectively prevents a portion of income being subjected to tax. By reducing the coding, the amount deducted by the employer increases.
The positive element in most taxpayers' coding is limited to their personal allowance. This already causes problems in cases where there are significant benefits to be assessed. The tax code would simply not be large enough to cover maintenance payments.
The introduction of a new and separate element such as maintenance would require the redesign of accounting systems, of many of the forms used internally and externally and of employers' manual and computerised payroll systems. Any system which complicates PAYE would be opposed by employers' representatives. Larger organisations would have to change their computer programmes. Smaller ones will have to spend more of their own or their employee's time.
I have sought to explain why we believe it sensible that the new arrangements for collecting and enforcing child maintenance should be brought together in the agency as a responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I have outlined also why we do not think it right that the Inland Revenue should be used for those purposes which would give it a role which is well outside its proper scope and functions. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not sure that he has convinced me. For example, he mentioned the experience of the DSS in the administration of the social fund. The DSS spends no less than 31 per cent. of the total expenditure on the fund in administering it. However, I have tabled a Question on that issue. That is to be raised next Thursday and the matter can be dealt with at that time. In passing, it is not the case that the DSS is wholly effective in all the matters with which it deals.
I understand the point which the noble Lord makes about the PAYE system. I was amused when he spoke about the complications caused to computer systems.
728
I do not know whether the noble Lord has been watching the news in the last couple of days. If so, he will have seen the complications and wastage of time and money which has arisen in local authority offices as regards the alteration of computer systems.
As someone who has worked with the PAYE system, I am not convinced that that system could not be used. We are talking about the effectiveness of collection and attempting to collect the money as effectively as possible. We wish to ensure that the collection can be effectively enforced. There is anxiety about the CSA and how it will work. The PAYE system is already in existence and we believe that it could be adapted for these purposes. Therefore, I shall ask the opinion of the Committee on the matter.
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 107) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents.111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Brightman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Peston, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Richard, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Sainsbury, L.

David, B.

Scanlon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Shannon, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Stallard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Stedman, B.

Ennals, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayter, L.

Walston, L.

Hirshfield, L.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.[Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Willis, L.

Jacques, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Caithness, E.

Allerton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Alport, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blyth, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Boardman, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

729

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Munster, E.

Dormer, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Downshire, M.

Nelson, E.

Eccles, V.

Norrie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Faithfull, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Flather, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flowers, L.

Pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Reay, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rees, L.

Gisboroughk, L.

Renwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Richardson, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodney, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandyis, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Strange, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron. L.

Ilchester, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Joseph, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Terrington, L.

Knollys, V.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Waddington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Warnock, B.

Mersey, V.

Westbury, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wise, L.

Montgomery of Alamein. V.

Wolfsonws, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Henley: This may be a suitable moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Government Review, England
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg leave to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the local government review. The Statement is as follows:,lb/>
"The House will remember that when I announced the review on December 5th I explained the comprehensive nature of our review. For the first time we are looking at the structure, functions and finance of local government in the round.
"I should like to thank the very large number of people and organisations who have put forward their views. I do not need to tell the House that they have not always been compatible with one another.
"We took as our starting point our firm belief that the local delivery of certain services—many of them essential—is a central feature of a pluralist
730
society. Local government must enable local people to exercise continuing influence over the quality and the range of the services which Parliament entrusts to them.
"Local government is responsible for the efficient delivery of these services. We need responsible elected local authorities not only to provide a check and a balance to Westminster but also to reflect the multiplicity of aspirations amongst local communities.
"But given the primary responsibilities of central government, local government cannot be a fully independent power in the land. It traditionally derives its power from Parliament, and it must complement and not compete with central government in its activities.
"Within this framework, we believe that councils should be accountable for their actions and that there should be a direct and visible relationship between the costs of services and the local bills to which they give rise. We believe that those bills should be spread widely and fairly throughout communities; that they should bear some relation to people's ability to pay; and that it should be possible to levy and collect them without difficulty.
"These principles are guiding our review. I am able to announce today some interim conclusions and in other areas to narrow the options so as to proceed to more detailed consultations.
"Many parts of England now have in effect unitary local government. The GLC and the metropolitan county councils were abolished in 1986. The ILEA went in 1990. There is little demand for their restoration. Indeed it is difficult now to perceive any real role that they played.
"But outside the main conurbations, leaving aside the valuable role played by parishes, the system of two principal authorities in each area still prevails. The usefulness of two tiers is being questioned. Also being questioned is the continued existence of certain of those authorities which were created by the local government reorganisation of 1974, but which have not succeeded in inspiring local loyalty. Another challenge is that the role of authorities is changing as they increasingly become enablers rather than direct providers of services.
"There is therefore now an opportunity to think afresh about the structure of local authorities. But the Government do not see this as an opportunity to impose a new pattern of local authorities according to a national prescription. Nor do we believe that it is necessary to have a uniform pattern of authorities in every part of the country. Local people should have an important role in determining what structure of local government best reflects their community loyalties. This does not mean therefore the wholesale abolition of either county councils or district councils, nor even unitary authorities everywhere. It means arriving at the right solution for each community. We intend to adopt a practical approach in response to local views and local conditions. But it seems likely that we shall move to a larger number of unitary authorities.

731
"We shall therefore be consulting on the proposition that a local government commission shall be charged with responsibility for evaluating the most appropriate form of local government for individual areas, taking account of the wishes of local people and putting forward proposals for reform. It will proceed area by area.
"The reduction in the local tax burden and correspondingly larger contribution from central taxation announced in my right honourable friend's Budget Statement implies a need to consider whether a number of functions should now be brought into or financed directly by central government. This would be without further changes to the balance between central and local taxation.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is bringing forward today proposals for such a transfer in one area of his responsibility.
"The issue of how local authorities are managed is no less crucial.
"The problems which local authorities face are compounded by the cumbersome internal arrangements for the management of councils. The committee system, which dates back to the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, requires that all the decisions are taken collectively by large numbers of councillors, in full council or committees. Too many councillors spend too much time achieving too little.
"Consequently it is difficult for local government to attract and keep enough men and women of the right calibre both to lead what are now multi-million pound organisations providing a range of key services, and to represent properly the interests of the people who elected them.
"We therefore believe that there should be a new look at the internal workings of local authorities to improve the decision-making process. I shall issue a consultation paper on these issues.
"Alongside that, we also want to develop further the idea of the enabling council. Many of the Government's policies have been designed to move power to individual members of the community; in particular the right to buy, the tenants' charter and local management of schools. Compulsory competitive tendering has also been part of this process and we will be looking at ways to make it more effective and to carry it forward. In particular, we will be looking at new areas where contracting out should be applied. These will include professional and technical tasks as well as manual tasks. Housing management, legal services and computer services could all be added to the list. The success of a local authority must be measured not by its size but by the quality of the services delivered, from whatever source; by its responsiveness to its clients and customers; and by the value it squeezes out of each pound of taxpayers' money.
"I now turn to the question of finance. A local tax base is essential if there is to be any meaning to the concept of local government. But local
732
government services cost a great deal of money—more than £50 billion in the coming year—and the burden on local taxpayers has become too great.
"We have therefore decided to make a fundamental shift in the amounts which central and local taxpayers pay towards the cost of local government services. This change will take effect in 1991–92, and will reduce local taxation to a level that should be sustainable in the longer term.
"The first consequence of this was announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. We have concluded that it is right to reduce the present average headline community charge of £392 in England for 1991–92 by £140 to £252. The average amount payable by charge payers, after allowing for the community charge reduction scheme and benefits, will then be considerably less than this. To secure this my right honourable friend is providing a further £4.25 billion from national taxation to local authorities.
"As a result, in 1991–92 the community charge will be raising less than rates in their last year. For the coming year locally raised finance will fund 22 per cent. of local government expenditure, compared to 34 per cent. this year. And these figures are before the substantial benefit of rebates and the community charge reduction scheme.
"To achieve these objectives my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and I are today introducing in the House a short Bill. If enacted, this will have broadly three effects.
"First, it will provide that the community charges which authorities have set for 1991–92 are replaced the day after the Bill's enactment by new charges £140 lower. Councils will not need to meet to set the new charges, but they will be treated in all respects as if they were set by authorities in the usual way.
"Secondly, my right honourable friends and I will be empowered to pay grants to charging authorities to make up the loss of income resulting from the reduction in charges brought about by the Bill's provisions. It is also our intention to pay grant to cover authorities' additional administrative expenses arising as a consequence of the Bill. "All this means that where authorities have already issued their charge bills for 1991–92-and I know that some authorities have done so-they will, after the Bill's enactment, need to issue fresh bills reflecting their new lower charges. We propose to amend the regulations on the community charge demand notice slightly to provide the basis for the new bills, but we believe not in ways that would result in significant changes to authorities' computing arrangements.
"We are revising the profile of payments from the non-domestic rates pool to ensure that our proposals have no significant effect on local authorities' cash flow.
"These proposals do not affect the operation of the community charges' reduction scheme or

733
community charge benefits, though it will of course be necessary to recalculate entitlements under both schemes.
"My department has written to local authorities, and to the local authority associations, explaining the details of all these arrangements. Clearly it is desirable that the new charges should be in place at the earliest opportunity. Accordingly, we shall be looking to Parliament to consider the Bill as a matter of urgency.
"Having reduced community charges to reasonable levels, we will expect local authorities to restrain their spending to keep them at those levels. I shall therefore be prepared to use my capping powers rigorously again in 1992–93.
"Having achieved a reasonable balance between funding from local taxation we need to address the question of the local tax itself.
"I referred briefly in my opening remarks to the principles which I believe should underpin any form of local tax. Let me spell them out.
"First, accountability. As far as possible, a local tax should buttress the accountability of a local council to its taxpayers. People should be able to see some link between what they are being asked to pay and what their council is spending.
"Secondly, fairness. Nobody likes paying taxes. But in our society taxes have to be basically acceptable to taxpayers; and to achieve that they must be perceived to be fair.
"Thirdly, ease of collection. Any tax will require administrative arrangements to collect the revenue, including measures to chase up those who are late in paying. But if the tax is too difficult to collect the costs of collection become unacceptable.
"Fourthly, most people should make some contribution. We believe it is right that, as far as possible, any tax should take some account of the number of adults in each household, so that they contribute to the cost of services provided by the local councils which they elect. This principle has gained a wide measure of acceptance.
"Fifthly, restraint. No tax is acceptable if it is levied at penal rates either as a result of local authority overspending or because the burden on any individual or household is excessively high. We are adamantly opposed to excessively high bills for a minority of electors—a feature of the old rates system.
"In accordance with these criteria we have reached our conclusions about the future of the community charge. In spite of the comprehensive system of income related rebates and the reduction scheme we devised, the public has not been persuaded that the charge is fair. We have therefore decided that from the earliest possible moment the community charge will be replaced by a new system of local taxation.
"After a careful reappraisal of the options we have decided in principle to bring forward a new 'local tax' under which there will be a single bill for each household comprising two essential elements: the number of the adults living there and the value
734
of the property. There are a number of ways of assessing values, on a capital or a rental basis, which require careful evaluation and extensive discussion and consultation. But it is our intention that the system we introduce should have the following features. It should reflect people's concern that the system is fair; the balance of funding as between central taxation and the new local tax should be broadly in line with that announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. It will be essential to ensure that local taxpayers do not face undue changes in their bills as a result of the introduction of the new local tax arrangements. There will therefore need to be arrangements to protect them during the transition to the new system; it should ensure that regional variations in property values do not lead to disproportionate bills in high price areas; there should be rebate arrangements to protect people on low incomes from making a disproportionate contribution to local taxation; there must also be restraints to ensure that local taxpayers do not face excessive bills as a result of overspending by local councils, either before or after introduction of the new system. There are a number of ways—including capping —by which this may be achieved.
"I made clear at the beginning of this Statement my commitment to the institution of local government. But for its part local government has to recognise economic reality and the duty and responsibility of central government to manage the economy. Central government also has a duty to protect local taxpayers from excessive bills.
"1 intend to publish a consultative document after the Easter Recess setting out alternative approaches and dealing with these issues.
"The Government have no present intention to propose changes to the uniform business rate.
"My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will be making separate Statements about the outcome of the review as it relates to those countries.
"Let me summarise. We have already dealt with the burden of the local tax. I shall shortly publish consultation papers on structure, internal management and the new local tax. We will conclude the period of consultation in the summer. Depending on the outcome of that consultation, we intend to introduce legislation setting up the Local Government Commission and providing for the new local tax in the next Session of Parliament. We anticipate that the first of the new authorities could be in place by April 1994. We shall consult local authorities on the basis that the new tax could be in place in 1993–94.
"In conclusion, we believe that the proposals which I have outlined today will establish a system of local government which will carry through into the next century. These proposals are designed to end the sterile quarrel between supporters of central and local government. They should attract men and women of sufficient quality and commitment to restore authority to and confidence in local

735
government. They should enhance the quality of services and give extra momentum to the pursuit of value for money. They should result in a local government which puts people first. I commend these proposals to the House. "
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating that lengthy Statement. Unfortunately, what it gains in length it does not gain in precision. If we contrast it with the inspired leaks which came from the Department of the Environment on Monday of this week, we find that almost every single important issue which could be a bone of contention has now been fudged. This Statement has Cabinet blood all over it, on every page and in every paragraph.
I must start by questioning whether it is right for a Cabinet of this type to blame 40 million people for misunderstanding the purposes of the poll tax. I did not hear anywhere in the Statement a word of apology for the chaos which has been brought to this country over the past three or four years by the introduction of the poll tax. All we are told, blandly, is that the people of this country have not been persuaded that it is fair. Does it ever occur to the Government that it may be their fault that the poll tax is not fair and that the perception of people is right now and was right at the time when the poll tax was introduced?
We can spend relatively little time in discussing this Statement and in considering the questions to ask in looking at the structure element. Almost every one of the significant statements which were leaked on Monday has been withdrawn. We are now told that there will he consultation on the proposition, not that there should be a change, but that there should be a local government commission which will consider changes. The most we are told, in order to make sure that neither the county councils nor the district councils get up in arms about it, is that there may, at the end of this process, be a larger number of unitary authorities.
We are not told anything significant about the functions of local authorities, although we understand that there is to be a Statement in a few minutes which will affect those functions. One must ask the question: if the functions are to remain as they are, how can the financing system which is suggested here possibly be adequate to the task?
When we turn, as the Statement rapidly does, to the question of finance we must look first of all, again as the Statement does, to the proposals made in the Budget which are to be the subject of a Bill in your Lordships' House next week. It is not clear from the Statement that the £140 which is supposed to be applied to all people in this country will apply to less than half of the people in this country, because the £140 rebate will not apply to anybody who at the moment has a rebate; nor will it apply to anybody who is at the moment benefiting from transitional relief. Therefore it is simply not the case, as the Government have been claiming, that £140 will be taken off everybody's poll tax bill. I should like the
736
Minister to indicate to the House exactly how many people will get the full £140 and in how many cases that £140 will be reduced by the incidence at present of the rebate and of the transitional relief.
That brings me to the question of transitional relief. How will the new transitional relief he calculated? Will it be added to the existing transitional relief, or will the existing transitional relief be allowed to run its course before the new system is introduced? We have here a recipe for chaos.
The Statement refers to the burden of the rates, and the burden of the poll tax and the burden of any new tax. Is it not the case that the rates, when they were abolished, took up on average 3 per cent. of household income on average earnings, whereas the poll tax, even after the Budget measures and even after the Bill is passed next week, will still take up 2.9 per cent. of average household earnings? In other words, there is no proposed change from the rates. The change is simply from the increased burden which has been a feature of the poll tax. Is it not the case that, at the same time, the burden of value added tax on a household on average earnings will rise from 2.7 per cent. to 5.8 per cent.? Ordinary people and those on lower incomes will be suffering particularly.
The Statement is also virtually silent on the valuation base. It leaves open the question of whether it will be on capital or rental values. No doubt that has been done to satisfy those in Scotland who feared another revolution if there were to be a further valuation and the possibility of moving over to capital values. But on what basis is the decision to be taken? After all, the issues have been well exposed over many months. Surely the Government should he giving some indication of what the basis will be.
More important, what is to be the second element of this new local tax? It has been described as being an element based on the number of people. However, will it be a higher tax on those households with more than two people or a lower tax on those households with fewer than three people? Whichever is the case, what is the basis upon which it will be collected? Will it not require a register rather like the one which was used for the poll tax, with all the inherent costs involved? Further, will it not also involve all of the problems of collection and of chasing payment which occurred with the poll tax but in this case for a smaller amount? Therefore, will it not be systematically more inefficient as a tax than the existing poll tax—even, I have to say, than an existing poll tax?
Moreover, who is to be responsible in a household for collecting this extra money from additional individuals? If it is to be the householder, does that not mean that we shall have 14 million individuals in this country—that is, heads of households —conscripted as involuntary poll tax collectors? I suggest that what the Government are proposing is the privatisation of the collection of the poll tax. They know that they cannot do it in the public sector, so they are now proposing to put that burden on every household in the country that contains more than one person.
In order to evaluate those suggestions we must know which functions are to be the responsibility of

737
local government and which are not. There is no suggestion that there has been consideration of what functions are properly a matter for local discretion as opposed to those in which local authorities act as the agent for central government.
There is still a reference in the Statement to "capping ". How can that sit happily alongside the proposal for accountability? The Government have had all these years to establish a local government finance system which would achieve accountability. The test of accountability is that you do not need capping; you are able to trust local people because you have got the tax system right which enables them to make their own decisions as to what they want to spend in their area. Is it not a profound confession of failure that we have a continuation of capping under the proposed new regime?
There is no indication in the Statement about who gains and who loses. I suspect that that is deliberate. I say that because I believe that the very large number of people who gave their support to the poll tax because they agreed with it will now find that they are no better off at the end of the day.
What we have before us is claimed to be the abolition of the poll tax. However, what we have in practice is a property poll tax. The Government are claiming that this is a surrender; but in fact it is a demand for a ceasefire on inadequate terms. We on these Benches refuse to accept the surrender. We refuse to accept that the battle is over and that the poll tax has been abolished by these proposals. We shall continue to fight for a fairer and juster system of local government finance.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the Government and to the noble Baroness for the Statement, not least because it is a relief to have the proposals before us after they had been so extensively leaked and trailed in the press. However, it must be a surprise to the House to note how strangely incomplete the Government's proposals are, even for an interim Statement.
We in the Liberal Democrat Party have been glad to take part in the consultations to which the noble Baroness referred. On the question of the future structure of local government, I should like to think that our advice has had some effect. I notice that the Statement concluded with the longstanding Liberal slogan of "People first ". However, it is a shame that the Government did not feel it right to listen to our advice on the need for a regional level of government or to our proposals for a local income tax which the noble Baroness and I had the honour to discuss during the debate yesterday evening.
We agree with the Government's proposals on structure to switch to a patchwork of preponderantly unitary authorities. There is a welcome emphasis in the Statement on the wishes of local people. However, can the noble Baroness say how the wishes of local people will be ascertained on this very specific matter? In the Statement the Government say that they will proceed area by area in changing the structure of local
738
government. But over what period of time do they envisage this happening before we have reshaped local government in Britain?
So far as concerns finance, the Statement talks of a "fundamental shift" from local to central finance. We should all acknowledge what that means. A fundamental shift in finance inevitably means a fundamental shift in responsibility. Is that not putting the cart of finance ahead of the horse of structure and function? Should we not first have addressed the question of structure and the functions of local government and then reached conclusions on the proper method of finance?
It seems that the hasty and last-minute switch of taxation will create considerable administrative problems for local authorities, and especially for their treasury departments. They are already bothered and bewildered, if not exactly bewitched, by the Government's chopping and changing. I am glad that the Government are proposing to recompense for the costs of the proposed changes. I am quite certain that a government of this financial prudence would not have entered into an open-ended commitment without having an idea of what the costs would be. I shall be most interested to hear from the noble Baroness what order and magnitude of costs we are talking about for this maladministration. How are local people who are paying their charges by direct debit or standing order to be treated over the coming months during this period of uncertainty? It would be most valuable if the House were to be given more information on that aspect.
I turn finally to the meat of the interim Statement; namely, the so-called local tax. I believe that the Government want to calculate liability on the basis of the value of the property weighted by the number of people living in it. But, alternatively, is it to be calculated by the number of people living there weighted by the value of the property? It is quite impossible to tell which aspect will fundamentally affect the nature of the way that the tax is calculated, collected and understood by local voters. The proposal sounds suspiciously like a poll tax plus. I notice that in the rather vague system proposed the need for rate capping will still apparently remain.
In conclusion, I believe that the poll tax can now be seen fairly and squarely for what it is: the most massive piece of maladministration of this century. Can the Minister tell us, from beginning to end of this unhappy saga, what the cost of the poll tax to Britain will have been? Before we close its eyes and say goodbye to it—and it sounds as though that will take an unconscionably long time—may we know what it has cost? I believe that this House and the country have the right to know the figure.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for responding so thoroughly to the Statement. However, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that it is a bit rich to criticise the Statement as lacking precision. The Statement was as full as it ought to be at this stage. There would have been legitimate criticism if I had made an entirely definitive Statement without any consultation, following what has already been a

739
collection of concerns and representations from individuals and organisations. My department has been presented with a great deal of information. In the circumstances, we think it entirely proper at present that the people of this country—that is, in England, Scotland and Wales—should have an opportunity to discuss the finer details so that we ultimately achieve a system which is agreeable to as many people as possible.
The noble Lord made the point that some people would not receive the full benefit of £140. The only people who will not receive the full benefit of £140 are those for whom less than £140 wipes out the community charge altogether. Anyone who is paying the community charge will be eligible to receive up to the full benefit of £140. The people of Wandsworth will reach zero before the full benefit of the £140 is felt.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. Will the Minister say how many people fall into the category that she describes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has merely to look at the local authority tables to see what the community charges are at the moment. We know that for Westminster the resultant figure is £36; for Shetland it is 93p. —Shetland has already taken the decision that there will be no charge for the people of Shetland—and that for Wandsworth it will be zero. It would be wrong for me at the Dispatch Box to go through each and every local authority's community charge. The point was also made about people paying a reduced community charge as a result of rebate, the community charge reduction scheme or transitional relief. Again, all those calculations will be done on the basis of the lower community charge. The £140 will be applied and the calculations will follow.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is critical to our evaluation of the £140 figure. Will the Minister tell the House how many people in this country are paying £140 or more and will therefore receive the full £140? That figure cannot include those for whom the rebate or transitional relief bring the theoretical poll tax of their local authority below £140. If the poll tax is £400, and they are paying 20 per cent., they are paying £80 only and will not receive £140 back.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, £140 is deducted from the community charge. I know the point that the noble Lord is getting at, but if a student is paying, for example, 20 per cent. of £400 now, that £400 will be reduced by £140 and the student will pay 20 per cent. of the remaining sum.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, exactly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, therefore the full effect of the reduction of £140 will be of benefit to the charge payer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rest my case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amount of money raised by local authorities by a local tax will be the equivalent in today's terms of £7 billion. That also
740
answers the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. The balance has been decided and all the details about functions and structure will follow. The balance has to be struck between the bill met by local people and that met by national taxation.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that poorer people will be seriously disadvantaged by moving the money from local taxation to VAT. That is not entirely true. First, they would have to spend many thousands of pounds to discount the benefit of £140; and, secondly, because of the zero rating of the many fundamental goods and services that impact on lower income families, the change will not impact upon them as seriously as he suggested.
Many of the detailed questions I was asked are subject to consultation, and it will be for all noble Lords and the people of England, Scotland and Wales to become involved in that process. I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel able to participate in that process, in contrast to their decision not to participate in the review so far. I hope that they will change their minds.
Only yesterday the noble Lord appeared to be making fun about people in a house other than the house owner having to pay. Again only yesterday, the noble Lord, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, during the debate on the community charge, claimed that all adults, living anywhere in this country, paid their share of the rates. The unfairness of the old rates system was that it did not reflect whether one person or four, five or six lived in a house. The consultation process will take into account that unfairness.
The noble Lord's reference to capping leads me to ask noble Lords opposite a question. Are they saying, or will they say, to the country, that they believe that local government spending should go unfettered, and that there should be no limit on local government spending? That is what I deduce from what the noble Lord said. The noble Lord criticised the Government Statement for saying that there must be a limit on public spending. I rest my case on that.
The noble Lord asked for details about gainers and losers. That will be set out during the consultation process. It will depend upon the scheme that is adopted. I have no hesitation in saying to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the battle is enjoined and we shall enjoy it.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, also said that the Statement was strangely incomplete. Had we been entirely definitive at this stage, he would probably have been the first on his feet to ask why we were making final statements when we had not gone out to public consultation. The noble Lord was also forthcoming as to the details of the support that he and his noble friends would give to a local income tax which was described in some detail yesterday, and that they would support regional government as part of the restructuring of local government. I welcome his comments. The points were well spelt out yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who said that there might be a different solution for different parts of the country. I cannot be specific about time. If it is agreed that a local government commission should be set up,

741
it will be for that commission to determine the pace and speed. We expect work to take place fairly quickly.
I believe that I have addressed the points about functions being dealt with first, and on the balance to be struck between local and national taxation. I accept that the issue of functions is important, and that functions should come before structure.
I have already said that the costs of administration will be met. I was asked how the change would impact on direct debits and bankers orders. I see much less of a problem with direct debits than with bankers orders. People paying by direct debit may have a difficulty with the first payment if an individual does not have time to stop it. The sum will be adjusted by the second payment. A person who has negotiated a direct debit arrangement with the bank will be informed of any change of deduction. The same goes for bankers orders. It will be up to individuals, if they wish, to withhold the first payment until they receive the new bills. We expect people to receive their bills during April and certainly no later than the early part of May.
I was asked about the value of property and the number of people living in it, and how the charge would be determined. Those points will also be subject to consultation. The final question I was asked related to the cost of implementing the poll tax from beginning to end. I do not have the figures now, but I shall write to the noble Lord with that information.
4.19 p.m.
Lord HaiIsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend two simple questions. First, is she aware that all three Front Bench speakers fired their discharges into the air at approximately the speed as a Kalashnikov rifle fired in the streets of Baghdad, with the result that private Members of the House found it difficult to follow them?
My second question is rather different. Having regard to the fact that structure was at the heart of the review, have the Government considered, or will they consider, as part of the review and consultation, the repeated revival in every central government review of local government since Redcliffe-Maud of the suggestion of a wider system of regional government units which would make easier a solution to many of our problems—problems of quangos, with possible demands of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a local income tax? Will the Government give consideration to that as part of their further examination of the matter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on my noble and learned friend's first point, again I apologise to the House for the speed with which on the detail I responded to the questions of noble Lords opposite. In defence, however, I tried hard to make my initial Statement audible to all Members of the House. The answers to most of those detailed questions were contained within the main Statement.
Regional government does not feature in the Government's thinking in terms of restructuring local
742
government. However, I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend has made sure that his views on that issue are well known in my department.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Baroness two questions. As I understand it, the poll tax was always based on the Government's principle that everyone should pay it. In the summary of principles at the end of the section on the poll tax, the Statement said that most people should pay. Is that a change in the Government's policy? Has it been forced by practice or is it a reflection of the fact that the deduction of the £140 from certain poll taxes will mean that people like the residents of Wandsworth will apparently pay nothing?
Secondly, I feel that the noble Baroness has done no more than evade the question put to her by my noble friend from the Front Bench, Lord McIntosh. He asked how the Government equate accountability with capping. Are the Government saying that local electors should be entitled to control their own local councils, provided they do so in the way that the Government wish? If that is the case, are the Government saying that they know better than the electors how the councils are to be controlled and to what extent accountability will be accepted? If that is so, it is not accountability; it is merely limited accountability.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, I make no apology for saying "most ", because even under the poll tax it is most people who pay. Although the principle is that all people should be accountable and should pay, there is a series of exemptions. I shall not go through the list. The noble Lord is well aware that some people do not pay the poll tax.
Again, I must draw out noble Lords opposite on this point. We say that we want the maximum amount of autonomy to operate at local level. However, at the end of the day we take the view that the charge payers, the taxpayers, must be protected from irresponsible, high-spending local authorities. I reiterate the question publicly: is it right to deduce from what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords said that those on the other side would allow unfettered, high spending from local government?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as regards the review of the structure of local government, will my noble friend say a word about the Government's thinking on the situation in many parts of the country where top tiers of local authorities raise large sums? They do it not by imposing charges directly upon the citizens but by issuing a precept to a lower tier authority. That authority then has the responsibility, without any argument, of raising the money. Given the gap in accountability which that situation produces, will the Government give urgent consideration to putting it right?
My other question is this. I was extremely sorry to hear the Minister say that the Government were not thinking of doing anything about the uniform business rate. Is my noble friend aware that it causes

743
great difficulty to a number of small companies, particularly in the South of England? It needs further examination.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend in his first point echoes a real concern that has come through in many of the representations made to my department. That issue will have to be addressed either through a movement towards unitary authorities or perhaps by making absolutely clear one local authority's accountability to its local electorate. For example, that could include separate billing. However, the issue will form part of the consultation process. I can say no more than I have said on the uniform business rate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what are the implications for the police service? She indicated that there would be no uniform pattern of local government and we very much welcome that. Is it suggested that people in a local community should make representations to the new Local Government Commission as to whether they wish to retain a county police force? Or does the Home Secretary propose to make some scheme or set up an inquiry? There is now great uncertainty in the police service as to what the Government have in mind and, in my view, it is highly desirable that the matter should be cleared up as soon as possible.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. He will also know that the Home Secretary has a large say both in financing the police forces and in operational control over them. I understand the noble Lord's point and we do not have it in mind to move to a national police force.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend from the bottom of my heart. I was one of those who thought that the poll tax was the taxation policy of Selim the Sot, and I said so. Perhaps I may blow my trumpet a tiny bit. I also suggested in your Lordships' House that there should be a human-weighted property tax. Nothing is more satisfactory for a humble Back-Bencher than to hear important Front-Benchers coming forth with the same idea. Therefore, I sincerely congratulate the Government.
I wish equally to congratulate them on going so far and then saying, "We must think the next stage through carefully. People must be allowed to have their say ". This is surely what accountability and democracy are all about. It is a vast improvement on what went before.
Finally, one minor point and one less minor point. First, when it comes to what we may call rates, for want of a better word, and the rate bills going out to council houses, we should make absolutely certain that it is correct that the bills for the rent and the bills for the rates are totally separate so that there can be no confusion. Furthermore, I wish to underline the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made on the uniform business rate. Those authorities who previously tried to keep their business rates low in order to attract business felt very hard done by when their rates were greatly increased. Otherwise, the Government must be congratulated on showing
744
courage and an ability to say so when they are wrong. That is something on which one should always be congratulated.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we know that there has been considerable concern on the noble Lord's small point about whether rent and rate bills will be sent out separately. That view has been put to my department and the issue will be addressed during the consultation.
I know how strongly my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Boyd-Carpenter feel about the uniform business rate. I have said that I cannot elaborate on what we have said. We have no plans for change. However, I must remind the House about the changes for businesses made in this week's Budget by my right honourable friend. There are considerable benefits for them and I suspect that in total they outweigh some of the disadvantages perceived by my noble friends in terms of the impact of the UBR on businesses.
I welcome my noble friend's comments about the Statement. We now look forward to hearing the detailed proposals of noble Lords opposite. They have criticised us for scanty information, but that is nothing compared with the scanty details we have received about their proposals.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wish to ask the Government two detailed questions which are important in terms of the administration of the arrangements in front of us. As we are all aware, the administrative costs of collecting the poll tax are incredibly high. We are grateful that the Government have realised that the poll tax is unfair, but we are a little sad that they do not seek to abolish it.
As regards administrative costs, I wish to pay tribute to the men and women who work in the treasury and benefit departments of local councils and who, over the past few weeks and months, have given an incredible amount of dedicated service to ensure that the poll tax bills are correct and are sent out in a timely fashion. I know that many of them have worked seven days a week and some of them have been on call 24 hours a day to encompass that job. Most of them have completed it. We should express our heartfelt thanks to them for having done so. Many of them plan to take a well earned rest, if not a holiday, over the next few weeks. However we now seek to impose a continuing administrative burden on them in terms of the £140 rebate. The Government have said they will reimburse local authorities the administrative costs involved. But will the Government reimburse administrative costs with a bonus for those dedicated men and women who will have to do their work virtually all over again over the next few weeks and months?
My second question relates to the public perception that no one needs to pay poll tax bills until July. That is the perception among the public and it will result in a reduction in local authority income and cash. To fund their services local authorities will have to borrow money. Even though interest rates have decreased slightly, local authorities will still have to

745
borrow at high costs. Will the Government give us an assurance that all those extra costs of financing the reduction in income will be met by the Government?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have no intention of reimbursing local authorities for foregone moneys that have not been paid by local residents. There is no question of the Government condoning withholding payment to local authorities until July. I am not sure where the noble Lord obtained his information on that point. We expect that most people in this country will know what their bill is in April, and we expect payment to follow. We would not expect to meet foregone moneys that have not been paid by people who refused to pay. We hope that local authorities will vigorously pursue those who have refused to pay so far. There is no intention on the part of the Government to pay costs plus a bonus. We shall certainly meet costs, but not any bonus. The cost of collection is £50 million. That is twice the amount that the former rating system cost to be collected. The Government have estimated that it would cost £50 million to collect a local income tax.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, as regards capping, I express the hope that in considering expenditure by local government, the Audit Commission will install an audit system by which local authorities—irrespective of the way they may emerge under the terms of the commission—are made to adhere strictly to their responsibilities which should be well defined. Nothing has scandalised the people of this country, irrespective of the opinions they hold, more than the ways in which certain local authorities have spent public money on objectives which no one supports. Some former governments have appeared to allow local authorities discretion in the way they spend their money and that has brought local government into disrepute. I hope that strict audits will be carried out of local authorities to ensure that they adhere to their responsibilities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we see no cause to end the work of the Audit Commission or that of the district auditor. We would expect that with clearer understanding on the part of people who are paying for services and with stronger accountability on the part of councils, the incidences referred to by my noble friend will be eliminated.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Baroness replied to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham on the subject of direct debits and bankers orders. Will the Minister go a little further and say whether the Government advise people to cancel their bankers orders and to stop their direct debits immediately until the proper amount is determined? In considering the rating element—I use that term for want of a better phrase—in the new system, has any consideration been given to that being based not on capital values or on the developed value of property, but rather on the site value of property?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all of those options will be considered in the course of the consultation to arrive at what we consider is the fairest possible
746
assessment. It would not be the Government's intention to advise people to cancel their bankers orders. We envisage that the necessary information will be made available to people quickly, and soon after the beginning of the financial year. We would expect people who pay by direct debit simply to have an adjustment made by their banks. As regards bankers orders, we expect adjustments to be made very quickly after the first payment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness has repeatedly challenged this side of the House to declare our policy on this matter. However, this is not a debate about our policy; it is a debate about what the Government have done. What they have done is to impose, quite wrongly and against all advice, an administrative and financial nightmare on local authorities and a financial nightmare on the people of this country. That is why the Government have had to take the step they are now taking.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall come to my question. The figures that have just been published, which show a rise from 16 per cent. to 28 per cent. in the payment made by local taxpayers for local services, give the lie to all the criticisms that have been made of local government over the years. We now know whose fault it was that local government expenditure increased and local taxation increased. Does the Minister agree that what the Chancellor did on Tuesday was done not so much to mitigate the effects of the Government's policies, but rather to help the Tory Party win the next election? Is that not what it is all about? I repeat a question that was asked earlier as the noble Baroness did not reply to it. How will the population be consulted about the new local authority boundaries? In Wiltshire, for example, if Swindon wants to become an all-purpose authority, can it be overruled by the rest of the people in Wiltshire? People will want to know whether that is the case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards the final question of the noble Lord, he will have to become involved in the consultation process to obtain detailed answers to his question. The noble Lord again falls into the trap of considering only what is collected locally when he considers the costs of local government. The costs of local government are met by a combination of local and national taxation. All that has happened is that the shift has gone back to 15 per cent. The figure rose to 28 per cent. but went back to 15 per cent.—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: By the Government!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was done by the Government. However, the noble Lord totally ignores the level of spending and the overall cost of local government. As regards the point about detail, I said that the public will be interested in the details of how the party opposite intends to impose a property tax linked to ability to pay. The public will be interested in the assumptions of that tax and the basis on which

747
it would be conducted. I take it that the noble Lord's party is just as interested as we are in courting the electorate before the next election.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 27 [Liability Orders];
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 20. line 32, at end insert:("; or
(iii) the preferable option of Community Service Orders has been fully exploited. ").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 together with Amendment No. 108. Throughout the Committee stage it has become quite clear that the Bill is not really concerned with putting children first but with saving the Treasury money and pursuing unfortunate parents with a diligence which is usually reserved for hardened criminals. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has used some very apposite descriptions of the Bill. His description of the Bill last Tuesday (at col. 577 of Hansard) as the grubbiest and most unprincipled Bill in his experience was very apt indeed. I should like to add the adjective "poisonous ". Much of the venom is contained in Clauses 27 to 32 and the related Scottish clauses which seek to criminalise parents, many of whom are already enduring stress and are also likely to be financially distressed.
The progenitors of the Bill seem to have had scant regard for the feelings of children and the effect upon them of criminalising and perhaps pauperising and gaoling their father, or perhaps even their mother. Of what long-term benefit is it to the children for the liable parent's goods and moneys to be seized? And what of the children of a second family, who will be devastated by such seizure? Heaven knows what benefit the children will derive from one of their parents being committed to prison, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, where he or she will have no opportunity to provide for the children in any way.
My amendments would have the effect of softening the whole process somewhat —not a lot, but somewhat —in that community service orders could be used in preference to a court appearance which might result in pauperisation or the loss of liberty. It would enable the liable parent to continue to work, or be available for work, and at the same time pay his or her debt to society—and I say "debt " for want of a better word.
Furthermore, the amendments require that no liability order should be made unless there has been a social services investigation of and report on the likely effect on the children of the absent parent and upon any child who might be resident with him. Surely nobody, not even the Government, can be against such a procedure. If such reports are not to be an important part of the whole procedure then in many cases family life will be thrown into utter chaos, with baleful effects on the children whom this Bill is supposed to protect. If we really believe that children come first, and if we are to take the Prime Minister
748
seriously when he talks about a caring society, then the least the Government can do is to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support the amendment that has been moved with great conviction by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. We believe that it is a helpful amendment because it makes available to the Secretary of State or to a court the power to make a community service order in lieu of distress, if distress is unlikely to be available or to be successful, or instead of committal to prison.
One had understood from paragraph 5.23 of Volume One of the White Paper that the agency would have the full range of powers which it might need in order to carry out its duties of collecting and enforcing maintenance. One power which is missing is the power to apply to the court for a community service order in lieu of a commitment order. There are provisions in other legislation for a community service order to be made, but I am not sure whether those provisions are as yet in force.
If the Committee makes that power available to the court or the Secretary of State it follows that the regulations should be made to define in what circumstances the remedy or power should be made available.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 27 deals with the making of a liability order. The purpose of a liability order is to make available certain of the court's powers. The clause is not concerned with imprisonment. The purpose of the liability order is to enable a declaration to be made that has the effect of establishing the existence of the debt.
Members of the Committee are aware that the agency is to have power to make assessments, but before it goes on to exercise certain of the enforcement powers it requires, as a preliminary, an order from the court in effect showing that the court is satisfied that the debt exists. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I do not believe that we are in community service order country at this stage but when we come to the provisions of the Bill dealing with imprisonment the question of community service orders will have to be considered.
I am not aware of the provisions to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred. There may be some confusion about the matter, but we shall have an opportunity to discuss it later.
However, at this stage the liability order is intended only to establish the existence of the relevant debt and to enable the Secretary of State to make use of some of the powers of enforcement which he could not use without the order. The imprisonment sanction comes right at the end of the procedure. It would be more convenient for me to explain in that context how a community service order might or might not fit in.
At this stage the liability order is made, as Clause 27(3) makes clear, if the court is satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid. There is

749
therefore an opportunity for the liable person to question his liability and the question of nonpayment. Those two matters have to be established before further powers can be exercised. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I do not believe that this is the place for me to answer some of the noble Lord's more general comments on the Bill. I do not accept for a moment what he said about the Bill being unprincipled. I believe that it is a Bill for putting children first and for ensuring, as far as possible, that where a parent is liable for their maintenance under the Bill that maintenance is enforced against the parent. There are many safeguards, which we shall come to, but the purpose of the Bill is to enforce the maintenance obligation of a parent in respect of his child. That is an obligation which has been contained in the law for a long time and which has been regarded as part of the ordinary responsibilities of parenthood. The Bill is intended to make that effective and to produce a reasonable system for making it effective.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will not press the amendment. We shall address some of his anxieties later.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I do not wish to delay the Committee for more than a moment or two and I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for intruding a personal experience on the Committee. I have strong reservations about the use of "press-ganged " community service. For a number of years I was chairman and one of the trustees, along with the late Lord Selwyn Lloyd and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who is happily still with us, for the Young Volunteer Force Foundation. I believe that combining voluntary service with obligatory community service is not really the right sort of mix. In any case, I have my doubts about coercion for community service.
We should not be too ready to extend the area of use of this alternative to other forms of punishment; and of course it is other forms of punishment that we are considering when community service orders are made. This is not community service by a person who has been convicted but a method of "working off " a liability which might otherwise take a different form. I hope my noble friend will take account of that. I do not consider community service orders to be suitable for incorporation into this Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I first reply to my noble friend Lord Houghton. I understand his aversion to the use of community service orders—indeed, he has had a great deal of experience—but the fact is that, in my book anyway, it would be far preferable for the liable parent to be able to keep most of his assets which he may need for the upkeep of a second family. Certainly it would be better than going to prison for him to be required to embark upon some form of community service, in which case he would be able to continue to work in order to pay his maintenance and at the same time maintain his second family. Therefore, perhaps that is an option that must be considered.
750
Moreover, when we pass the Criminal Justice Bill we shall be encouraging the courts to make more community service orders. Indeed, magistrates are already making much more use of community service orders to keep people out of prison. Therefore, it may well be a legitimate use of the community service order in this particular case. However, I appreciate my noble friend's point of view. We are not in the realms of criminality but of non-payment of certain obligations.
To some degree I was encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. He seemed to accept that perhaps the community service order could be part of the remedy for non-payment. Whether he is going to say that at a later stage I do not know, but if he were to do so—
The Lord Chancellor: I should not like there to be any misunderstanding. It would be more comprehensible if we were to discuss community service orders in relation to imprisonment. I do not wish to anticipate the argument at this stage because that could lead to confusion, but it is in that context that the matter arises. Of course, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view that a community service order is preferable to imprisonment but I shall have to explain, in the context of the imprisonment provision, just how this does or does not fit. I should not like to give the noble Lord undue encouragement; all I am saying is that this is not really a suitable point at which to discuss the matter. I am not in any way wishing to inhibit the noble Lord but I think he will find that it is more appropriate to discuss this question in relation to the possibility of imprisonment, which we shall come to later.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What the noble and learned Lord is saying, of course, is that I put down this amendment at the wrong point in the Bill. I will certainly take his advice upon that and perhaps it is a matter that we can discuss on Clause 32: indeed, I am sure we shall discuss it.
The noble and learned Lord did not mention, perhaps because he thought we should discuss it later, the social services report. I think such reports are most important and I would welcome his view on that. In my view it is essential, before any enforcement takes place, to consider all the circumstances of the child for whom the father is liable and perhaps the second family that the man has fathered or the woman has mothered. Also, bearing in mind that we have all kinds of social services reports for all sorts of crimes, surely in this regard it must be written into this Bill that there should be a social inquiry.
The Lord Chancellor: I did not deal with that expressly because I sought to explain that at this stage we are dealing with a liability order and the purpose of a liability order, as the last part of the wording says, is to deal with cases where,
"the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid ".
A social services report cannot help on that point. That is a matter which does not depend on anything that the social services could help with. The agency will have the evidence and the information on which that is based. Clause 27 gives the liable person an

751
opportunity to challenge allegations of fact before anything further happens in the way of enforcement which may be consequent on a liability order being taken. I am also happy to discuss social services reports in relation to Clause 32, but I think at this stage they may give rise to a certain amount of confusion. We must keep our debates on a reasonable level so that we understand the purpose of these reports. I am suggesting to the noble Lord that, although I understand why he has tabled the amendment at this stage, it is easier and more comprehensible to discuss it in relation to Clause 32.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I understand that, and I see that I have Amendment No. 114 down on this very matter. In the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 20, line 39, at end insert ("subject to the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) below.
(4) Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates' court or (as the case may be) sheriff may remit the case to the Secretary of State who shall arrange for it to be dealt with by a child support officer.
(5) The court may, in remitting any case under this section, give such directions as it considers appropriate. ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment does no more than attempt to fill what seems to a small gap: namely, there will be authority for the Secretary of State to apply to the magistrates for a liability order but there is no corresponding provision to enable the magistrates to return the case to the agency if circumstances have arisen in which the absent parent has no capacity to meet the liability order. Things may happen swiftly—for example, disability, illness or unemployment. Therefore would it not be sensible, rather than chasing the father to the court and then back again if it proves to be unnecessary, simply to enable the court to pass the case back to the agency for it to consider any new circumstances?
5 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: What I find particularly worrying about Clause 27, if I have correctly understood it, is that once the Secretary of State has obtained his liability order it is open to him to proceed to levy distress without further reference to the court. He will obtain his liability order if he can produce evidence that there is an order of the agency in existence and that the liable person has failed to make one or more payments. That is the only evidence that he would have to produce to the court and the court would then have no discretion in the matter but will issue a liability order.
Once the agency has the liability order it is obviously in business to enforce payment. My fear is that the official may fail to pay due regard to these circumstances and the liability of the parent and that his vision may be too limited. The amendment moved by the noble Lord is again helpful because it introduces a safeguard.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can also explain whether the Secretary of State will make an
752
application exparte or will the liable person have notice of the application and have an opportunity to go to the court to explain his position, or indeed will he have a copy of the notice of the application? It may be that I missed the reassuring reply, but that is my worry.
The Lord Chancellor: As I said, the purpose of the liability order is in order to give in court a check that the payments in question are payments for which the liable person is in fact liable, and, secondly, that they have not been paid, as a preliminary to any further procedure of enforcement in respect of these matters. My understanding is that the magistrates' court would not make an order without due notice to the person against whom the order is sought, and also that the person against whom the order is sought will have an opportunity of disputing either or both of these branches of what the court has to be satisfied about before it can make a liability order. The liability order of course presupposes that the person in question—the liable person—has been given the notice of the agency's determination of the maintenance payable by that particular person.
If the Secretary of State applies for a liability order and these conditions have not been made out then that is the end of it so far as the Secretary of State is concerned. He cannot go further to make enforcement. What the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has proposed is unnecessary if he is thinking of a case where the Secretary of State has failed, because in that situation it will go back in the sense that he cannot go any further forward in the way of enforcement without the liability order.
The only purpose of seeking the liability order is restricted to these two questions; namely, whether the payments in question have become payable and whether or not they have been paid. These are the only questions that arise in respect of a liability order. If the Secretary of State does not satisfy the court on these matters then the court will not make the order and the Secretary of State is thereby debarred from going any further in the enforcement procedure. That is how the matter is intended to work.
Obviously if circumstances change the Secretary of State may be able at a later stage to come back to the court for a liability order in different circumstances, but so far as the initial application is concerned, if he fails to prove one or other of these matters then the liability order will be refused and there is no need for a remit. That is the situation as I see it, and accordingly I do not see that it is necessary to give the court power to remit to the agency.
There is implied in the noble Lord's approach to the matter the giving of some further powers to the court over and above what this clause deals with; but on the basis of what the clause deals with the amendment is not necessary because the matter is left with the agency if the Secretary of State fails in his application to the court by failing to prove one or other, or both, of the necessary prerequisites for a liability order.
Lord Prys-Davies: If at the hearing it became clear to the court that the liable person might have been in great difficulties in complying with the order—he

753
might have been ill or he might have lost his job—the court would be in no position to make a recommendation to the child agency. It would not be in a position to require the child agency to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of the liable person. The child agency would get a liability order because it had established that there was an order and that he was in default. It seems to us that the court ought at that stage to be able to make a direction that the child agency should consider the circumstances of the liable person before it proceeds to take action because it has obtained a liability order.
The Lord Chancellor: The situation is that if the Secretary of State—and it is a power in the Secretary of State to enforce the maintenance obligation—is in a situation to demonstrate that the person in question has the obligation for a particular amount and that the amount has not been paid, then it is for the court to decide that question. If there is some situation developed under which circumstances have changed, then there are of course ways in which you can undermine—as we looked at earlier—the existing assessment. For example, if the person had lost his job, then the existing assessment would be capable of being changed in order to take account of that circumstance.
The liability order is intended simply as a check by the court, and putting the court in the position to check that the necessary conditions for enforcement have been established. Obviously the situation so far as enforcement is concerned is then in much the same case as would be any other debt of this character. It will come finally to the ultimate enforcement situation, which is dealt with in Clause 32, and the conditions that must be satisfied. The purpose of Clause 27, which we are dealing with just now, is simply the one that I mentioned, and it is not intended to take account of any supervening circumstance. That is supposed to be taken into account under the procedures for assessment by the agency.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I certainly do not wish to press the amendment at this stage, although I should like to read carefully what has been said and if necessary come back to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Regulations about liability orders]:
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I ask one question about Clause 28? It is on the word "regulations ". I am anxious that a misunderstanding may be cleared up. If there was a misunderstanding I ought to say that it was entirely my fault.
A matter of great importance, because this is an enabling Bill, is when we shall see the regulations. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to say that
754
we would see them before Third Reading. However, he may well have intended to limit that commitment to the regulations under Clause 22. If there was an error, it was mine because when I read Hansard I believe that the commitment should be understood as limited to Clause 22.
I should like to know when we shall see the various regulations. Until we see them we cannot understand this legislation.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend Lord Henley gave an undertaking which is superseded in the event because the Committee took out Clause 22. The undertaking was to provide before Third Reading, first, the information which was asked for about the proportion of reduction in the relevant benefit that would be allowed under the provision, and, secondly, the maximum duration for which that reduction would be permitted. The clause having been taken out, there is no subsisting obligation on my noble friend in that respect.
I take the view that it would not be appropriate to have the regulations until the powers are granted. A good deal depends on the terms in which the powers are granted. We have indicated strongly that we would wish to have very wide consultation before the final terms of the regulations are settled. It is in order to deal with that general problem that we have used a method, with which I know my noble and learned friend is not entirely happy, of indicating in at least some cases the heads of subject matter with which the regulations may deal. I am in no position to promise that the regulations in anything like their final form will be available until the Bill has gone to another place. Indeed, I would not expect the regulations to be in their final form until after the Bill has been enacted. Obviously one has to take account of the full terms of the Bill in considering the proposed regulations.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I confess that I cannot understand why, if sight of regulations can be vouchsafed under Clause 22 before the power to make them is enacted, that cannot be so with other regulations. It is important that we should be able to see these regulations. It is not sufficient to say that we have indicated in the Bill the kind of regulation that they will be when a large number which are very important can be made under the general heading which is particularised often also in an ensuing subsection.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to do something better for us. Perhaps he will let us see the regulations in draft before we reach Third Reading of the Bill.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Enforcement of liability orders by distress]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 21. line 26, at end insert:
("(iii) any item relating to the children's family background or which it might reasonably be expected that the children will inherit; and ").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple and I hope easily understood amendment. It seeks to protect items, perhaps of value, from seizure where such items might have an important link with the past, might have been in the family for a long time and would form part of the child's identity and inheritance. Noble Lords opposite understand more clearly than I do the value of inheritance and family identity. I have never inherited anything in my life unfortunately; I feel deprived. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not wish possessions which provide identity and continuity to be seized and lost for ever to the children simply to satisfy the short-term needs of the Treasury.
I shall take no more of the Committee's time. I believe that that explains the amendment. I hope that for once the noble and learned Lord will he sympathetic and will accept the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure whether the noble Lord included me among those noble Lords opposite who were concerned with inheritance. I am sure that he has inherited a great many of the characteristics which he displays for all our interest, instruction and entertainment from time to time.
The effect of the amendment would be to say that the officer exercising the powers of seizures under this provision would be restricted from taking such matters as related to the children's background of which it might reasonably be expected that the children will inherit. That would put an impractical and rather unreasonable burden on the bailiff in this country and the sheriff's officer in Scotland executing his responsibilities. It would mean that before any goods could be taken in satisfaction of the debt, the bailiff would have to consider whether any of the goods could possibly be those which would be passed to the children on the death of the liable person.
The noble Lord is seeking to protect the interests of the children, and I sympathise with that intention. However, I doubt whether this is a practical way of doing that. The noble Lord always refers to the Treasury. Important as the Treasury is, this is not primarily a matter for the Treasury. It is a matter between the parent and child. It is the parent's obligation to maintain the child at the time that the enforcement is going ahead that is in issue. One knows very well that in seeking sometimes to evade obligations, promises are made about payment at a future time. I am sure that the "cheque in the post " reply in respect of debts is one well known to Members of the Committee. When the post arrives sometimes the expectation is not entirely fulfilled.
It would be even more remarkable for me to seek to fulfil my present obligations to pay for my children by saying that I intend to meet those obligations in due course when I pass away and that I shall leave some item to my children as part of their inheritance. That is a deferred way of dealing with the matter.
Apart from that consideration it is difficult to see how the officer in question could properly perform such a duty. How will he find out the information? Will he accept the liable person's word that he proposes to leave something to the children, or what? How does one determine what would be regarded as
756
being reasonable to leave to the children? Secondly, the amendment does not specify directly which children are referred to. However, I assume that they are the children in respect of whom the liability for maintenance arises.
I sympathise with the view that it would be good to protect for the child in the future an item that might be available for him. However, the important point is that there is a present obligation of maintenance and it is that to which the enforcement relates. It is not practicable to restrict the goods which can be used in order to satisfy that obligation in the manner proposed by reference to a fairly vague possibility of future inheritance. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the manner in which he dealt with the amendment. I accept that I have inherited my character, which I hope is good, and my general demeanour from my parents and their ancestors who came from north of the Border, Wales and England. I am a true Briton and I suppose that is why I am chairman of the campaign for an independent Britain. However, I was trying to point out that I have not inherited any material wealth.
I realise that it might be difficult to define exactly the items that have been in the family for a long time. It could be difficult to be certain that they would be handed on to the children for whom the parent was liable. It is a difficult problem. People who have long family histories and old homes and estates will understand, although they may not be involved, that something that one desires to be passed on to one's children to be kept in the family in perpetuity could be distrained upon simply to have cash to help the Treasury, or to help the person who for the time being has charge of the child. Something which is of long-term significance could be sacrificed for short-term expediency. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): If Amendment No. 112A is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 112B or 113. There is a misprint in Amendment No. 112B. It should read:
"Page 21, line 46, leave out paragraph (h) ".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 112A:
Page 21, line 43, leave out subsection (8).
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 112B. The clause is concerned with the grave remedy of distress. That is a powerful mode of execution and in this case it is used to execute generally on goods for liability orders.
That being such a potent mode of execution, the first matter to which I wish to draw the Committee's attention is that this clause, like so many others in the Bill, is no more nor less than a peg on which to hang regulations. The regulations will bite on the individual citizen. Secondly, the regulations are subject only to the negative resolution procedure. I have tabled a later amendment to make the regulations under subsection

757
(4) subject to affirmative resolution procedure. That is an error and should read "subsection (7) ". I am advised that in due course the correct way to deal with the matter is to ask the Committee to treat it as a printer's error. However, in doing so I must put on a white sheet and tell your Lordships how the mistake arose.
I draw the Committee's attention to the terms of subsection (7). It states:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing the provisions of this section ".
That would have been a provision close to the heart of Henry VIII or James II. It is nothing other than the taking of power to right Acts of Parliament supplementing what is in the statute. However, I shall return to that matter in due course when discussing Clause 38.
I draw attention to a matter to which my noble and learned friend has referred. Subsection (7) gives a general power to make regulations in a permissive form. Subsection (8) states, again in a permissive form, that the regulations may in particular do (a), (b) and (c). Since that is a particularity of a generality it is obvious that, strictly speaking, as my noble and learned friend always says, that subsection is unnecessary. I know that he will say that recently I reinforced his point in my plea to see the regulations before the Bill passes. Nevertheless, it is most unsatisfactory to have such a vague, general power and then to have particularities. That is all we have before we pass the Bill into law and it leaves us incognisant of what the supervening regulations will be under subsection (7).
Also, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend about subsection (8) (a) and (b). Subsection (8) (a) states:
"provide that a distress under this section may be levied anywhere in England and Wales"
I have surmised—and my noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong—that that is because distress is levied by sheriffs' officers and that power extends only to the borders of the county. However, there may be another explanation. In any case, I do not see why this particular provision is necessary.
Paragraph (b) is the subject of a particular amendment. It provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulation, cure any defect or want of form in the liability order. Want of form would be serious enough because what is being asked for is power to cure something which is defective in law. However, it goes far beyond want of form in the preceding words as if any legal defect can be cured by the waving of a regulatory wand. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: We have gone over the general argument more than once and I cannot elaborate on what I have said before on that point. My noble and learned friend illustrates the importance of having such provisions by his comment on subsection (8) (b). I have considered carefully what he said. I think it may be right that we should reconsider the terms of that provision.
758
As regards paragraph (a), the idea is that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to make regulations which would make the authority of the court apply in England and Wales in respect of a liability order; in other words, a liability order would be given general effect.
In relation to the later amendment to which my noble and learned friend referred, on which he spoke about the possibility of wearing a white sheet, I do not believe that there is any need for that. I understand the provision which he had in mind.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My noble and learned friend does not yet know that the fault was entirely mine.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand the situation, and I do not mind whose fault it was. I understand that the later amendment refers to subsection (7) and I shall be happy to consider it on that basis, without any necessity of a white sheet.
As I said, the situation as regards paragraph (a) is that it makes it clear that the authority of the court applies to England and Wales. The details of Scottish law on this matter are different. Therefore, it was thought right that an England and Wales provision should be provided for in regulations. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for offering to reconsider this provision. I am grateful to him also for his generosity in saying what he did about the possibility of correcting my mistake.
With regard to paragraph (a), I did not altogether follow what my noble and learned friend said about the court levying distress. My understanding is that distress is always levied by the sheriff or the under-sheriff or his officers. I thought that for some reason that was intended to allow execution outside the shire boundary. However, if I have that wrong my noble and learned friend will perhaps reconsider the matter to see how far and in what respect it is necessary to make that provision.
As regards paragraph (b), my noble and learned friend, perhaps because it is not yet formally before the Committee, did not refer to that. However, it is symptomatic of this Bill that power is taken by regulation to cure an illegality; that is, not merely a defect as to form but, as is clear by the contrast, a defect as to substance. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112E not moved.]
Lord Henley: My Lords, this may be a convenient time at which to take the second Statement. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Further Education: Reorganisation
5.37 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the Government's plans for the reorganisation of further education in England.
"We are determined to achieve better standards throughout the education service. The national curriculum is improving teaching and motivating young people in schools as never before. Parental choice is being exercised in more and more schools. A new and clearer system of vocational qualifications is beginning to open up exciting opportunities for school-leavers. The proportion going on to higher education has nearly doubled since this Government took office. But we still lag behind our competitors in the participation of our school-leavers in further education and training and their achievement of useful qualifications.
"I believe that the further education colleges have a vital role in providing education and training for both school-leavers and adults. They have never in the past been given the attention that their importance in education policy would justify. Through links with business they are well placed to provide the knowledge and skills needed in the workplace. The Education Reform Act has given them greater managerial autonomy and they are recruiting more students. But they are still subject to bureaucratic controls from local authorities. They lack the full freedom which we gave the polytechnics and higher education colleges in 1989 to respond to the demands of students and of the labour market. The polytechnics are demonstrating quite spectacularly the gains in increased student numbers and increased efficiency without any loss of academic standards which can be achieved with full independence.
"The Government therefore propose to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to form a new sector of post-16 education from April 1993 by taking all further education colleges offering full-time education and all sixth form colleges out of local authority control. They will be funded directly by the Government, through a council appointed by and responsible to me. The funding regime will consist of a basic annual budget together with an element dependent on the numbers actually enrolled. It will be designed to provide a powerful incentive to recruit additional students and reduce unit costs. The further education colleges will also assume responsibility for some adult continuing education.
"Spending by local authorities on further education colleges and sixth form colleges in England currently totals over —2 billion of current spending and —100 million of capital. That will
760
become central government spending, with a corresponding reduction in grant to local authorities.
"The colleges will work closely with the training and enterprise councils. The Government attach great importance to the developing partnership between TECs and other local interests in education and training. We have already given TECs specific responsibilities in work-related FE. They and the new independent colleges will have much to gain from close co-operation. The colleges will own their assets and employ their own staff. They will provide for an ever-increasing proportion of our young people the preparation they need for their working life in the rest of this decade and in the 21st century.
"I have a duty to ensure that the interim period before the establishment of the new independent sector is as smooth as possible. We must place the interests of the students first and ensure that the work of colleges continues undisturbed. I intend to give the right of transfer of employment to the staff of the colleges which will form the new sector.
"I intend to vest the institutions, which I propose being free-standing corporate bodies, with the land, buildings and plant which they currently use. I intend to seek Parliament's approval in the legislation which I shall introduce for a measure which requires my specific consent for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of the institutions.
"I am concerned that local authorities should not enter into contracts which bind the colleges beyond 1st April 1993, when they begin to manage their own affairs. Such contracts should be entered into only with the specific consent of the governing bodies of the institutions affected. Contracts for a consideration having a value in excess of £50,000 will in addition require my consent. The forthcoming legislation will seek Parliament's approval to a measure having this purpose. I shall also seek Parliament's approval for appropriate sanctions where consent has not been obtained in advance.
"I shall seek Parliament's approval for these measures to have effect from midnight tonight. In this way, I intend both to put beyond any doubt the long-term future of the colleges and to enable the transition period to be as smooth and trouble-free as possible. I am placing further details of these measures in the Official Report. My department will be writing to all LEAs to explain how these measures will be applied.
"These developments will still leave much of the education of young people with school sixth forms. I should like to assure the House of my determination to see good sixth forms continue. Whether under local authority control or in the grant maintained sector, proposals for the opening of new sixth forms and the closure of existing sixth forms already have to come to me for approval. I

761
shall use the powers available to me to see that sixth forms thrive and to encourage choice between schools and colleges wherever possible.
"This new sector of education will have a great deal to offer our young people. Indeed it is the education and training of our 16 to 19 year-olds which will be at the heart of a White Paper which will come jointly from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and myself. That White Paper will contain further details of the proposals I have described. I believe that these proposals will be widely welcomed by all sections of the community. I commend our proposals to the House."
That ends the Statement of my right honourable friend.
Following is the statement referred to above:
"The details of the measures for which I intend to seek the approval of Parliament are as follows.
The Government propose to introduce legislation this autumn to form an independent sector of post-16 education from April 1993. All further education colleges, maintained or assisted by a local education authority, offering full-time education, including tertiary colleges, and all sixth form colleges—that is, maintained schools which normally only provide education for pupils who have attained the age of 16 —will be taken out of local authority control. They will be funded directly by the Government through a new council appointed by and responsible to the Secretary of State. New sixth form colleges and further education colleges, including tertiary colleges, which are established after this announcement will also be funded through the new council, including any grant-maintained sixth form colleges.
Institutions in the new sector (apart from voluntary sixth form colleges) will be free-standing corporate bodies and will be vested with the land, buildings and plant which are currently used by them. I intend to seek Parliament's approval to legislation which requires the specific consent of the Secretary of State for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of the institutions. I shall seek similar powers to ensure that the LEA's interest in any land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of a voluntary sixth form college are not disposed of without the specific consent of the Secretary of State and that the LEA conveys its interest in these to the trustees of the school.
The disposals of land or interests in land requiring the consent of the Secretary of State will include outright sale, granting or other wise disposing of any leasehold or other interest in land, direct sale and leaseback, any mortgage or other charge designed to raise capital on the security of the land. It will also include any disposal which is made in return for the supply of goods or services. In referring to disposals I include entering into any binding obligation to make a disposal of the kind in question.
To ease the interim period before the establishment of the new sector, I am concerned that local authorities should not enter into contracts which bind the colleges beyond 1st April 1993 when they begin to manage their own affairs. Such contracts should be entered into only with the specific consent of the governing bodies of the institutions affected. Contracts for a consideration having a value in excess of £50,000 will in addition require the consent of the Secretary of State. The forthcoming legislation will seek Parliament's approval to a measure having this purpose.
I shall also seek Parliament's approval for appropriate sanctions where consent has not been obtained in advance. With the disposal of land or interests in land without the consent of the Secretary of State, there will be a power of compulsory purchase with a right of recovery from the local authority of any compensation payable. In the case of contracts, including contracts for disposal, entered into without the consent of the governing body concerned or,
762
where applicable, the consent of the Secretary of State, there will be a right of repudiation, and such repudiation will be deemed to be a repudiation by the relevant local authority, so. that any liability in damages will remain with the relevant local authority.
I shall seek the approval of Parliament for these two measures to have effect from midnight tonight. This statement does not affect enforceable obligations entered into before midnight tonight. "
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for the Statement. I welcome the fact that the Government have at last recognised and admitted that after 12 years of Conservative rule we still lag far behind our competitors in the participation of our school-leavers in further education and training and in their achievement of useful qualifications. What saddens me about the Statement is that it is driven by panic measures to get out of the appalling mess created by the poll tax and not determined by genuine educational considerations in relation to the future of further education. Moreover, the Statement suggests that the problems of further education can be solved merely by structural changes relating to whether they are under local authority control or under a funding council which is controlled and funded centrally.
The problems of FE concern standards, quality and the participation of young people and adults; they do not concern structures. The Government have lamentably failed to improve post-16 opportunities. They have under-funded national vocational qualifications and, above all, done little about the confusing jungle of qualifications and courses—confusing to parents, teachers and young people.
The Statement represents a massive U-turn in the Government's thinking less than a year after the last major reorganisation of FE, with the introduction of local financial management and restructured governing bodies in further education colleges. When these measures were being debated in Parliament in another place the then Minister of State in the Department of Education, Mrs. Rumbold, praised the role of local authorities in running further education and rejected proposals for change and centralisation. What has happened since then to alter the Government's view? What new educational arguments are they deploying? The main argument for these proposals is that they take £2 billion out of local government spending rather than that they are based on any proper, thoughtful and considered analysis of the likely educational benefits with respect to the quality, standards and participation to which I referred earlier.
I wish to ask a number of specific questions in regard to the Statement. Am I right in assuming that a new Bill is intended rather than simply amending the 1988 Act? What consultations are taking place or will take place regarding the composition of the new council? The Statement suggests that members will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Are we yet again to increase the powers of the Secretary of State for Education to determine what happens in our education system without involving the many other partners in the system?

763
Could the Minister say how these massive changes of the kind entailed in the Statement could be introduced in a period of not much more than 15 months? We are told that the legislation is planned for the autumn and implementation by April 1993. By the time the legislation is enacted, if indeed it ever is enacted, we shall certainly be to Christmas, leaving a very short period to plan a totally new system.
The Statement suggests that the budget of FE colleges will be based in part on the numbers recruited and that there will be incentives to recruit more students and reduce the unit costs of the institutions. That must give rise to two very major anxieties. First, the FE system was described by a recent Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Baker, as the Cinderella of the education service. Funding is certainly not generous at present. How can we ensure that yet lower unit costs will not lead to lower standards?
Secondly, pressures on institutions to recruit more students must mean a threat to the sixth forms, which remain in the secondary schools under local authority control. I always thought that the Government were attached to maintaining the sixth forms. Is this no longer the case? The method of financing the colleges will encourage poaching by the colleges from the sixth forms in the local authority sector. The Statement refers to an ever-increasing proportion of our young people being catered for by the colleges. Today many sixth forms are barely viable in terms of numbers. That surely will kill them off in spite of what the noble Lord said in the Statement.
I welcome the fact that staff will be transferred by right to the colleges in the new sector. I am concerned that these institutions are to be vested with the land, buildings and plant which they currently use. Are the local authorities to be compensated for the loss of the land, buildings and plant? We must remember that FE colleges, tertiary colleges, sixth form colleges, land and buildings have multiple uses. For example, many adult education classes are held in these premises. I assume that adult education will remain a local authority responsibility, though nothing was said about that. Where are those classes to take place in the future?
I understand from the Statement that voluntary colleges will be affected. I wonder whether the Churches have been consulted about that.
This Statement also says nothing about part-time study and whether the new council and its institutions will be fostering part-time study to take place alongside full-time study. It says nothing about ways of combining academic and vocational study and allowing young people to mix the two in a desirable way with a simpler system of qualifications which is at the centre of the Labour Party's policies in this area. I fear that these proposals will disrupt the good work that has been done by LEAs in linking work in FE colleges and work done at the top end of schools.
There has been no national planning of FE in the same way as there was a system of national planning of higher education under the national advisory body before the polytechnics were taken out of local authority control. The new system of planning will have to he invented from scratch. It is most unclear to
764
me how a national body will be able adequately to take into account the needs of local areas, local industries and local employers which are such a central part of the function of further education.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate has frequently reported favourably on the planning and management of FE by local authorities. I wonder whether the Government have given up listening to their own advisers. Unfortunately, this Statement misses the opportunity to improve the quality of education at the post-16 stage. Instead it plays around with structures at the expense of genuine education reform to get the Government off their own poll tax rack. There will be further massive disruption to the education system with little foreseeable educational benefit.
Fortunately, with the Government's timetable to bring the proposals back to the House in the shape of a Bill, by then we shall hopefully have had a general election. In that case the Government will have been replaced by a Labour Government which will not determine the shape of education by panic measures to get out of the problems caused by the poll tax.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is an optimist. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement made in another place. The commitment of the Liberal Democrats to improving training in skills and vocational education is deep and long-standing. I do not think that any noble Lord who has listened to my noble friend Lady Seear on this subject will doubt that for a moment. That is why, when I have read previous statements by Mr. Eggar on this subject, I have been inclined to respond warmly to them. When I read the advance press release which forecast, with a fair amount of accuracy, some of the points in the Statement, I responded warmly to that also.
Now we have the Statement I cannot help feeling that it is really something of a damp squib. There are some rather Panglossian notes in it. I do not think that I know of any teachers, even those most enthusiastic for the national curriculum, who believe that it is improving teaching and motivating young people in schools as never before. It is rather an extreme Statement. There is nothing in this Statement about what appears to us on these Benches to be the greatest weakness in arrangements for vocational training. That is the grave lack of funding which has been affecting the Training and Enterprise Councils as many others. At the moment Training and Enterprise Councils are in a very difficult situation indeed. When I heard that this Statement was coming I had hoped that it was going to indicate the commitment of some additional funds to solving these problems. I am deeply disappointed that it has not done so.
I share the suspicion of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of the funding arrangements proposed under this measure; namely, the incentive to take additional students and thereby decreasing unit costs. This pressure to increase so-called efficiency by decreasing unit costs is one which signals a hidden danger. There is pressure here to cut quality. I do not see how greater efficiency can be achieved without cutting quality. If we cut the quality of our industrial

765
training that is not going to enable us to catch up with our international competitors, which I thought was one of the major objects of the exercise.
I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about fiddling with structures and finding a measure for opting out, which is yet another proposal against local authority. Coming from this Government it has a certain knee-jerk quality. There may be a case for this measure, but I do not believe that this Government are the best people to convince us of it. My noble friends will scrutinise the White Paper with a great deal of care to see what kind of a case is made out for the measure. The only one we have made out in the Statement is that local authorities are bureaucratic. No doubt they are, but are they the only bodies in the world that are bureaucratic? Is the council to be set up under this measure not to be bureaucratic? If it is not, how is it to function? We shall need a good deal more information about the role and function of this council.
There is a point I wish to raise because we shall have to return to it. Unlike the Universities Funding Council, and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, I very much hope that the council will be able to give advice to the Government in public. The difficulties caused by the inability of the Universities Funding Council to do that emerged very clearly when Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer last gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. That is the kind of difficulty that we do not want to see recurring.
There are a good many difficult problems which will need clarification. I understand the purpose of the point made about the disposal of assets. But the word "contracts " in the Statement is rather vague. I am not at all sure how far it extends. For example, does it extend to preventing a college from taking on a major building repair contract some of which now cost over £50,000? The effects of deferring these projects can make them cost a lot more than that. We need a great deal of clarification on that matter.
We need a lot of clarification on what is going to happen about the role of sixth-forms, which will remain a very important part of our education. We need to know whether anything is to be done to enable those who do not leave school to do things enabling them to develop vocational skills.
Speaking as an academic, we must recognise that, valuable though academic education is, it is not the only valuable form of education. We also need to know whether this measure is to apply to Scotland, where in many ways arrangements are extremely difficult. Finally, when dealing with local government, we should remember that we are not dealing only with efficiency. Local government is not only about efficiency, but about consent; and consent is something which matters in our political system.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, though the questions that they have asked me may cause some difficulty, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their response to
766
my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Baroness began by making the point that what is important in these matters is educational considerations and not structures. The aims of my right honourable friend's Statement are to try to increase participation in the further education sector; to increase the freedom of colleges to manage and to try to have a greater responsiveness to the demands of the student population for the courses which they not only want but also need.
The noble Baroness was perhaps a little brusque —indeed, her remarks were echoed by the noble Earl —when she said that this matter was really about transferring resources from local to central government. There is a little more in it than that. The noble Baroness upbraided the Government for not listening to the inspectorate. Perhaps I may remind her that Her Majesty's Inspector, the Chief Inspector no less, made absolutely clear in a recent report that the institutions which are now completely independent, which is exactly what this Statement is attempting to achieve —namely, the polytechnics and colleges which have become independent under the Education Reform Act —have responded enthusiastically to their new status. The report also said that independence has resulted in better planning mechanisms and clearer objectives. That is precisely what we want now to achieve with the FE colleges.
With that as the basis for what I am saying, I shall try very quickly to cover the other questions which the noble Baroness asked me. She asked about a new Bill. Yes, indeed, legislation is flagged up in the Statement. I am afraid I cannot answer her specific question on exactly the form it will take. We will have to wait to see how we attack the drafting.
The noble Baroness referred to consultations. She will not he surprised when I say that many college principals have been saying that they would welcome the opportunity to exercise greater control over their own affairs. I give the assurance that my right honourable friend will be taking account of the views of interested parties as the legislation is being drawn up. The noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked what would be the effect on sixth forms. It is very important that I should remind your Lordships that a specific passage in the Statement makes clear my right honourable friend's adherence to thriving, good sixth forms.
The noble Baroness asked about three other areas. First, she asked me whether compensation would be paid to local authorities so far as concerns the transfer of land, buildings and other assets. These assets have been paid for by local taxpayers and community charge payers. Local people will continue to have access to the facilities for which they have paid, which in a sense covers another point made by the noble Baroness. Under the new regime colleges would be even more responsive to local needs and demands. Therefore, I do not think we are in a compensation paying situation.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked about adult education. I know that, in the White Paper which is to

767
come, it is the intention of my right honourable friend to make a detailed announcement of policy on the area of adult education.
Finally, the noble Baroness raised the most important question of voluntary colleges. There will be consultation, for instance, with the churches, as the legislation is drawn up to ensure that interests of the voluntary aided sixth form colleges are taken into account. The point I should particularly like to underline is that their status as voluntary aided colleges will continue to be protected.
The noble Earl made the point that it sounded as if the Government intended that there should be cuts in funding. I think I have paraphrased him reasonably accurately. Perhaps I may just make the point that it is possible to achieve increases in participation without constantly having to increase expenditure so far as concerns unit costs. That, I put to the noble Earl, is something on which the polytechnics, in their independent status, have proved him wrong.
The noble Earl said that more information would be needed on the new council. I entirely agree with him on that. I must ask him, if he will, to await the publication of the White Paper.
The noble Earl also, I think quite predictably and understandably, asked exactly what was meant in the Statement by contracts. In the interests of brevity, perhaps I may say that the Statement does include a reference to the fact that there is a Written Statement which is to be printed in Hansard at the same time. That would repay a reading so far as concerns the meaning of contracts and the intentions on contracts of my right honourable friend.
Finally, the noble Earl asked whether this was a Statement simply for England. It is, and we must await the intentions so far as concerns the Secretaries of State for the different territorial parts of the United Kingdom.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend one general question. I congratulate him wholeheartedly on what I believe is a step very much in the right direction. I have never wholly reconciled myself to what happened under populist pressure in the years 1963 to 1964, whereby there was an almost total amalgamation between responsibility at the top for schools and responsibility at the top for scientific research at universities and in higher education generally. Will he, even at the back of his mind, contemplate the possibility of bringing together the polytechnic section, scientific research and university education, not of course in an identical body in every case, but at any rate in such a way that they are not starved of funds and there is not this competition between schools and higher education research which has resulted from the 1963 and 1964 changes? I ask him that simply because I believe that, in the end, we shall be driven in that direction.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble and learned friend, with his enormous experience of education, asks an interesting question. He would not expect me
768
to try to follow him down that road. I am very glad that my noble and learned friend took the opportunity to ask his question, but it does go wider than the Statement which I am making this afternoon. I give my noble and learned friend an assurance that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to his comments.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we all welcome the attention the Government are giving to the post-16 sector in education. Unfortunately, we come back to the state we were in earlier this afternoon in welcoming the interest but not agreeing with the end result of the analysis. It points at one of the difficulties of not having two tiers of local government. The alternatives appear to be either local government control or national government control.
Perhaps I may touch on two specific questions. First, will the colleges inherit the liabilities as well as the assets involved in their operations? That is a fairly simple question. Secondly, under local authority administration—I describe it as administration rather than control, because even there FE colleges have a certain amount of independence —the FE colleges are structured in such a way as to provide an integrated range of services, if I may use that word. But if they have to stand alone in a national arena the circumstances of their existence will be completely different. Will the Government permit local authorities to reorganise the colleges within their boundaries in such a way as to provide a more sensible arrangement for groups of buildings and for the provision of services when they come under national administration rather than local administration?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's last question is almost certainly no, because what he is really saying is that the local authorities should be able to step in and pre-empt the proposals of my right honourable friend. What is more specifically the answer to what the noble Lord has said is that, as from midnight tonight, my right honourable friend is saying that there cannot be disposals of or changes in land holdings and other assets without his agreement, an agreement which I think he would not wish to withhold unreasonably. However, he feels very strongly indeed that when the colleges become independent, as he intends on 1st April 1993, they should have the assets which they will need not for their own glorification but for the service of the people of the locality. The noble Lord first asked me whether the colleges would inherit the liabilities as well as the assets. I must seek refuge from that particular subject. It is of course a very good question, but the noble Lord will have to wait for the publication of the White Paper.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in view of the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and others about central government control, will my noble friend accept that our experience in the secondary sector in the past has shown that what is proposed does not provide central government control; it provides an enormous incentive to excellence. Will he take it from one who taught for 10

769
years in the secondary sector, partly in direct-grant institutions and partly in local authority funded institutions, that the direct grant system, which appears to me to be analogous in some respects to what is now proposed, singles institutions out into a position where they are given funds which are finite and are charged to do their best with them? The resultant determination of the staff and their perception of the true interests of the institutions are highly beneficial. In the past, it led to a performance which meant that most of us on this side of the House deeply regretted the abolition of the direct grant schools. Moreover, the rightness of our regret was borne out in the event in that we were in time in 1979 to prevent the abolition of direct grant grammar schools in Northern Ireland. The performance indicators invented by the Government which abolished direct grant schools in this country have shown ever since that those schools produce the best results.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend said. However, at the risk of being repetitive, perhaps I may simply refer to the HMI report by the Senior Chief Inspector which stated clearly that the institutions which have become independent under the Education Reform Act have begun to show that they have clearer objectives than before and better planning mechanisms to achieve them. That is not a government statement; it came from HMI. Without wishing to be combative, I believe that there are local authority controls which can arguably be removed. The proof of the pudding is to be found in the words from that HMI report.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, when we were discussing the setting up of the UFC, it appeared that probably the majority of academic and senior academic opinion in Scotland was in favour of the funding of universities under the same system as existed in Great Britain; that is, without a separate UFC. However, I understand that there has been a change in the position. I merely ask the Government—I hope that they will agree—to take full consultation in Scotland about the special needs of that country. Scotland will of course have special needs and some supervision will be required. Such needs must be taken into account. I believe that there is a growing belief in Scotland in academic and other circles that separate funding in Scotland would probably be a good idea.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should just like to emphasise the fact that the Statement I repeated extends only to England.
Lord Grimond: Oh!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in the circumstances, therefore, it will be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make the pronouncement of what he intends to do as regards the general context of today's Statement; that is, if that is what he wishes to do. In the meantime, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what difference the proposals will make to the status of the academic staff of polytechnics? For example, will it bring them into a different field of analysis and comparison with the academic staff of universities? I raise this issue because when I undertook the inquiry into teachers' pay many years ago I was astonished to find that, as polytechnics came under the control of local authorities, the pay of their academic staff came to be reviewed as part of the area of teachers' pay under the Burnham umbrella. That not only caused difficulties; it also created a sense of being second rate in the minds of the academic staff of the polytechnics. Moreover, it eventually led to quite serious difficulties. We had the job of relating the pay and conditions of the academic staff to those of the teachers whose status was being quite significantly upgraded, especially as regards the top posts.
When we had completed that task, the university teachers and others concerned who had been waiting for us to finish then had a strong complaint that new relativities had been created which had to be rectified as part of their outlook on the economic value of their academic qualifications. That was quite a nuisance at the time and gave rise to serious difficulties when the pay of university teachers was considered immediately after my review of teachers in polytechnics. I should like to know whether the position has changed or whether it will be changed under the new scheme. Where will the polytechnic staff go for the adjudication of their remuneration under the new funding arrangements? I should be very glad if what is proposed removes the problem to which I referred.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I genuinely wish that I could help the noble Lord. However, I do not believe that I can this afternoon. That is partly because I do not think that I am competent to do so and partly because the Statement is not about polytechnics; it is about further education colleges. I must rest my case on the fact that in his remarks the noble Lord has gone very much wider than the content of the Statement. However, if I can help in any way by writing to the noble Lord I shall endeavour to do so.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to make a few comments and ask several questions. My remarks directly relate to the Statement; they are not about something quite different, as has been the case with some of the previous points which have been made. I was most surprised to read in the third paragraph of the Statement that further education colleges,
"have never in the past been given the attention that their importance and education policy would justify ".
That indicates to me the most abysmal ignorance of the education system by the Secretary of State. Further, from various remarks which have been attributed to him recently, it seems that he has much to learn. Further education colleges have been doing a good job. Indeed, they have very often taken on young people who did not progress very well in the ordinary school system but who have subsequently done very well indeed. They have also been extremely flexible in responding to business needs in the community. Those

771
words made me feel very angry. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the colleges are doing an extremely good job.
The other sentence which surprised me is to be found at the end of the first paragraph on page 2 of the Statement. It reads:
"The further education colleges will also assume responsibility for some adult continuing education ".
I must point out that these colleges have been dealing with many adults for a long period of time. They will not "assume " this responsibility; they have already done so. Those words also irritated me.
I have a question to ask about buildings. Where huge building operations are planned or where they have already been started, who will have responsibility for looking after them between now and April 1993? Then there is the question of governing bodies. Will they be constituted just as they are at present? Will parents be involved? Of course parents are very much involved with sixth form college governors and tertiary college governors. I should just like to know whether they will still be involved in governing bodies.
Finally, would it not have been more rational to issue a White Paper and then hold consultations, after which time legislation could have been introduced? The Government seem to have got the process the wrong way around. Of course we know the reason why: they want to get rid of some more money from the poll tax. In conclusion, can the Minister say when we can expect the publication of the White Paper?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that the White Paper will be published shortly. The noble Baroness chided my right honourable friend on his ignorance of the further education sector. I do not believe that he would in any way disagree with what she said about the good job that further education colleges have been doing for a long time. However, he feels—this is on the statistics available—that greater participation rates are needed and that—I am repeating this point for a second time—in the light of HMI's views, the probability is that we can do something about increasing participation rates by allowing the colleges greater freedom to manage, thereby making them more responsive to student wishes and demands. We may not agree on that point, but I thought that I should set out again my right honourable friend's thoughts.
Again, the noble Baroness will not expect me to say anything about adult education. With respect to buildings, the existing colleges and the local education authorities will be responsible for them until 1st April 1993—at least that is the philosophy of the Statement that I have repeated —when they will become independent. The contracts will contain measures to take account of the new situation. If there are contracts which extend beyond 1993, those contracts are called into question by my right honourable friend's Statement.
On governing bodies, I ask the noble Baroness to await the White Paper. There was nothing in the Statement to suggest that there would be a change in the composition of governing bodies.
Lord Annan: My Lords, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, a number of noble Lords from these Benches have been talking about the further education sector over the past months. It is a great pleasure to see that the Government are taking it seriously, although no doubt what the noble Baroness said about the Government's motives is true.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, will the further education council concern itself with what the noble Baroness referred to as the jungle of qualifications and the relationship of the numerous industrial training bodies which have been set up? I hope that attention will be paid to that issue, and also that the council will see that the further education colleges maintain their existing strong contacts with the businesses in their areas and with their needs.
Secondly, will the further education council consider the curriculum, in particular A-levels and the qualifications required to enter the colleges? I shall be grateful if the Minister will say whether any oversight of the school's curriculum will fall within the remit of that council. Lastly, is the Minister aware of what a pleasure it is to see him answering for education again after 20 years?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is kind of the noble Lord. It came as a slightly unexpected pleasure this afternoon. The answer to his last question is that the council will be responsible for funding provision. Once again, I am afraid that only the bare bones of the proposal have been included in the Statement. The council will not be running A-levels, as suggested by one newspaper today. The Schools Examinations and Assessment Council is the body responsible for overseeing and advising on all assessment and examination matters, including A-levels.
The noble Lord kindly welcomed the fact that we were making the Statement today. He referred, as did the noble Baroness, to the jungle of qualifications. The Statement does not propose that the council will become involved in such matters. It is a subject in which the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is immersed at present. It is endeavouring to classify them and is making some progress.
Finally, the noble Lord made the point to which I believe we would all say, "Hear, hear! "—that he hopes that the colleges and local businesses will come closer together. The Government hope that the TECs, as they are called, will, probably through the aegis of the council, be able to increase their input in that area.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
6.25 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 29.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 22, line 5, after ("to ") insert ("an award of costs against the court or the person levying distress and ").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to deal with what seems to be an omission in Clause 29(8) (d). The clause provides that if distress is wrongfully levied, the absent parent may recover his goods if they have been distrained or obtain an award of

773
compensation if they have been sold. The amendment would have the effect of enabling that absent parent to obtain also an order for costs against the court or the bailiff who had wrongfully levied the distress. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The clause provides for enforcement action by distraint where the liable person has not made maintenance payments following an assessment and a demand for payment and subsequent to the obtaining of a liability order from a magistrates' court. The amendment is to that part of Clause 29 which sets out what matters may be provided for in the regulations—another illustration of the possible value of such provisions. The subsection of the clause which the amendment seeks to change provides for an appeal to the court against distraint action by the liable person. The appeal may be against distraint that has taken place or has been attempted. As the clause is drafted at present, compensation may be awarded on a successful appeal if it were found that the distraint was wrongly carried out or carried out against the wrong person. The court will also be able to decide on the disposal of goods distrained if they have not yet already been disposed of. Those provisions are modelled on existing legislation for distress action in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and do not introduce any novel powers; they merely carry forward into the Bill the powers which the courts already have in respect of appeals against distress action. The effect of the amendment would be to provide in the regulations that the court would award costs against itself and against the Secretary of State in addition to compensation. Compensation can be awarded in such circumstances through the existing court processes if the action which is in question was as a result of an error either by the court or the person levying distraint.
We believe that the provisions for compensation provided for in existing legislation which will apply to the Bill are sufficient to deal with incorrect actions of distraint. As the Bill makes clear in this subsection, an appeal against a distraint action will be to the courts and the regulations will make provision as to powers of the courts in awarding such compensation.
I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment in the light of that explanation. In that situation, the person levying the distress is the Secretary of State rather than the bailiff.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord just one question. Who will levy distress on behalf of the Secretary of State? Will it be a servant of the agency acting in the course of his employment or a certificated bailiff? I ask that because the NCC has recently severely criticised the use of certificated bailiffs.
The other question does not arise under this amendment but under Clause 29. Does the reference to "special damage " in subsection (6) also include the costs of the aggrieved party? I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could throw some light on these matters.
The Lord Chancellor: The question of costs will be regarded as incidental. On the powers dealing with an appeal, the person authorised to execute the distraint would be a certificated bailiff; that is, a person certificated for that purpose, not an employee of the Secretary of State in the ordinary case.
I am aware of the views of the National Consumer Council in relation to certificated bailiffs in other connections. These matters will have to be considered. I should have thought it would be better for the person who is responsible for exercising these powers to have been certificated under the provisions. No doubt even people who are certificated can have their conduct further improved and perhaps some action needs to be considered on that. However, I believe that this is the appropriate way for enforcement to be taken.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I was going to ask about "special damage ". Perhaps it is more convenient to do so now in view of the recent colloquy than wait for the Motion that the clause stand part.
What is involved here? It may be a term of art. My recollection is that a bailiff may, when exercising distress, knock down the front door. However, that recollection may be derived from Pickwick Papers rather than any textbook of law. Does "special damage " mean damage over and above what a bailiff may. in the course of executing the distress, cause legitimately or at any rate without complaint by the person against whom distress is levied? Before my noble and learned friend answers, perhaps I may also ask what is the meaning of "and no more " in line 40.
The Lord Chancellor: My understanding of the phrase "special damage " is the ordinary meaning, that it is not a question of general damages but of pointing out a specific loss that the person has incurred. When the provision says:
"special damage (and no more) "
it means to restrict the matter to that. I sympathise with my noble and learned friend in sometimes finding it difficult to know whether one has picked up one's information from a textbook of law or Pickwick Papers. However, the situation is that the bailiff cannot break down the front door under the powers given to certificated bailiffs in our law.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 31 [Enforcement of liability orders by diligence: Scotland]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 22, line 29, at end insert ("and, in connection therewith, for the opening of shut and lockfast places ").
The noble and learned Lord said: A Scottish court order includes authority for commissioned officers of court to open shut and lockfast places in order to carry out a poinding. This amendment will make clear that

775
a liability order also provides that authority. As noble Lords will be aware, this is a well-established procedure and subject to proper controls, such as the giving of advance notice to the debtor. It is in the best interests of the maintenance debtor and the maintenance creditor that the law on this matter should be clearly stated, hence the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Commitment to prison]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert:
("(5A) No warrant may be issued under this section without a Social Services report on the likely effect on the children, including any other children residing with the liable parent. ").
The noble Lord said: I do not wish on this amendment to enter into a debate on the whole question of the imprisonment of liable fathers or mothers. I shall make my remarks brief as I have already commented under Clause 27.
I cannot believe that the Government want a liable parent to be committed to prison without the court first having had the opportunity to consider a social services report. There is not only the financial effects on the children but the whole ethos of the children's lives where a father has been sent to prison. It is not only the father of the maintained children but the children of the second family with which a father or mother may live. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell me that the matter is already covered under the existing court procedures. However, it is not clear to me that it is. Frankly, it must be made quite clear that we shall not send defaulting liable parents to prison without first having considered all the effects, particularly those on the children of one, two or even more families. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall respect the noble Lord's wish to avoid getting involved in the full debate about imprisonment in response to this amendment. However, what is envisaged in Clause 32 is very much a last resort situation. It is obligatory on the court, before there is any question of granting a warrant under subsection (2), to inquire into the means of the liable person and whether there has been a wilful refusal or culpable neglect on his part. That is a wide inquiry.
In this case, it is a requirement that it should be done in the presence of the liable person. In other words, he must come to the court and the court will have a full opportunity of inquiring into his circumstances. It will not be possible to grant any warrant under this provision unless the court is satisfied that having regard to his means there has been a wilful refusal or culpable neglect on his part.
The noble Lord may feel satisfied that that is an immediate inquiry with the liable person present. All the circumstances in which he has refused to pay will be examined in the inquiries. If there are other matters into which the magistrates wish to inquire before
776
granting a warrant, they will have full discretion to do so. However, the Committee will appreciate that there is no obligation on the magistrates to grant a warrant, even if they are satisfied that one may be justified. They merely have a power to grant a warrant, but they have wide discretion in the matter. I therefore believe that all the circumstances of a case can be made available to the court.
It is also worth reminding the Committee that it is intended that the formula should take full account of all the responsibilities of the liable parent in the manner prescribed. I hope that is sufficient comment at this stage. Obviously we shall have to consider the matter fully in connection with the full debate on imprisonment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am afraid that I am not at all happy with that reply. The powers, and indeed the abilities of magistrates, are simply not adequate to examine all the circumstances—irrespective of what has happened before—which must necessarily be examined before a person is sent to prison. They will not be able to reach a proper conclusion unless an independent body, such as a social services department, has undertaken a proper inquiry. As far as I can ascertain, there is no provision in the Bill for such an inquiry. A court is not a suitable place—I refer to the matters that I outlined in my opening remarks—for such an inquiry to take place.
I do not know whether I shall press the amendment but I feel unhappy about the reply that the noble and learned Lord has given. It is not satisfactory and I ask him to bear in mind that we may be sending a person to prison. We would by that action take him away from his children. We would take away the opportunity for him to work —irrespective of whether he contributes to maintenance—and we would confine him to a prison where he will get into bad company and perhaps emerge as an even worse person than when he went in. That too may have an effect on his children from a former marriage and on the children of a present marriage. It is essential that we do everything we can to ensure that all the circumstances of a case are known. I believe that only through an inquiry conducted by a social services department can we be sure that that will happen.
Baroness Faithfull: It is a little difficult to take a decision on this matter until we have heard the big debate on the subject of prisons. Some of us will have suggestions to make as regards alternatives to prison. If those suggestions were accepted, this provision would not be necessary. I say that although my suggestion may not be accepted. Nevertheless we need to hear all the arguments before we take a decision on this provision.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have a query which arises out of something that my noble and learned friend said. He said that the formula will take account of all liabilities. I have been trying to find out how far an order for spousal maintenance affects the formula. I am not asking my noble and learned friend to reply to that query now. However, I should be grateful if before the next stage I could be apprised of where the

777
formula takes account of spousal maintenance and how it affects Example 3 of Volume One of the White Paper.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe I said that liabilities would be taken into account in accordance with the formula—that is certainly the phrase I had in mind—because the formula is intended to take account of a person's expenses and that kind of thing. As regards spousal maintenance, I must have failed to explain to my noble and learned friend how I envisaged this provision working. The formula is designed to ascertain in respect of a particular case, in the given circumstances to which the formula is applied, the amount of child maintenance that is payable. The money that is left over from child maintenance is available for spousal maintenance. The ordinary powers of the court to operate on that, having regard to the amount of the child maintenance, will continue. It will be for the court to determine, in the light of the responsibilities of the liable absent parent for the children, what sum, if any, should be paid by the absent parent in respect of spousal maintenance.
As I have already said, there is an element of maintenance for the caring parent in the formula in respect of the cost of caring for the child. That is part of the maintenance award in respect of the child. However, in as far as spousal maintenance is required over and above that, it will be fixed by the court in accordance with the law presently operated by the court, having regard to the responsibilities for maintenance determined under the formula. I would expect a court to have information about that at the time that the spousal maintenance was finally fixed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply. I now understand the position rather better, but I confess that I still do not understand it fully. The element in maintenance relating to the expenses of a caring parent who cannot herself work is very small. I again refer to what my noble and learned friend termed the typical case that is mentioned in Example 3. I believe that in that example the father was left with £92. Of that a certain amount is represented by the exempt element. I have forgotten how much that is, but I believe it is about £46. Can the court make such an order as it considers just out of the father's £92 in the case of a wife who has, to all intents and purposes, no means and is bound to the house to look after the children, or is it restricted to the difference between the exempt element and the £92? Finally, when an order is made, are not all the computations thrown out kaleidoscopically?
The Lord Chancellor: No, that is not the result. In calculating the amount that is payable in respect of maintenance, the exempt income has to come into play at the first stage of the calculations. One then discovers the result of the calculation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend. When he refers to the calculation, is he referring to the impact of the formula or the calculations made by the justices?
The Lord Chancellor: I am trying to explain in broad terms how I understand the formula to work. The detail of the formula has been examined in respect of Schedule 1. First of all one applies the formula. The exempt income comes into the calculation in determining the amount of maintenance payable by the father—to take the typical case—in respect of the child. Let us say that there is one child, or two children, in the typical example to which my noble and learned friend referred. The exempt income is then used for the purpose of determining the maintenance award. Once the maintenance award is determined, one knows what the free income of the father will be after providing maintenance. The court will then be able to make an award out of that free income in respect of spousal maintenance to the mother.
The principles upon which the court will work are the principles upon which the court works now in determining how much should be given by way of spousal maintenance. The court will know for the future the element of spousal or carer's maintenance which is included in the formula award. It will have regard to that in making the award. However, the award of spousal maintenance operates on the money that is left after the award of maintenance for the child or children in respect of the formula has been taken into account.
Lord Prys-Davies: Assuming that the formula has been correctly understood by the official and correctly applied, it could nevertheless lead to an unjust result —which is an issue that we discussed the other day in Committee. In those circumstances, should the courts not have before them evidence of that unjust result for the liable parent? If it has led to hardship, is it not very likely that the social service report would pick up that fact so that the evidence would be before the court when deciding whether or not to issue commitment? Unless there is such a fallback position, it would appear that there is no means of adjusting the situation until new regulations are made in order to correct a defect in the formula which was not foreseen when the formula was drafted.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of the formula, and the reason for having a formula, is to provide a just result in all cases. I admit that it is possible that even the formula may not be 110 per cent. perfect and a situation might arise which would call for modification of the formula. However, the underlying purpose of the formula is to attain a just result in all cases. I hope that the cases in which it would not do so would be extremely rare.
I have to point out that if the formula produces, for example, a larger payment than justice should require, that would become evident in an inquiry such as is proposed in Clause 32. The circumstances that have to be inquired into relate to whether there has been a deliberate failure to pay which is a wilful refusal and culpable neglect on the part of the parent. That can

779
only be determined on the basis that money is available and the refusal to pay is a wilful refusal, the circumstances otherwise being in favour of payment. The objective is only to deal with the person who, having had a proper award made, then says, "No, I understand all about it but I am just not going to pay that money for my children". That is a typical case which the provision is intended to cover.
We have to proceed on the basis that the purpose of the formula is to attain justice. The thrust of the whole system is to achieve justice by means of the formula. That is why it needs to be very detailed and take account of the great variety of circumstances which may arise. One has a choice between such a system, which applies to a great number of cases—3 million in all,, both new and variation cases—and a discretion, which it is impossible to apply consistently. The formula aims at consistency and where it applies, it ought to produce the right answer.
Accordingly, I submit to the Committee that it is not right in this system to seek modification of the formula. One is looking for an ultimate sanction which is properly protected against misuse. That is where the inquiry in the person's presence into his means is a necessary preliminary to any exercise of that power.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We have had a longer debate on the amendment than I had anticipated; but the matter has aroused considerable interest. While I understand perfectly what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about applying the formula and that the formula is meant to be fair, as I showed earlier in our debate, the formula could be very unfair to many liable parents, especially where they have high costs of access.
It may very well be that the child support officer making the assessment might think that he has made a fair assessment under the formula; but because of the associated costs, it is impossible for the maintenance to he paid in accordance with the formula. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies made the point that injustice could result from applying the formula. The amendment is intended to introduce an independent authority such as the social services to provide the court with an independent view as to whether or not there had been wilful refusal to pay.
Having said that, and bearing in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, although I am very tempted to do so, it would be wrong to press the amendment. There is an opportunity to come back to the matter at Report stage if we are not satisfied with what is brought forward. I have to say to the noble and learned Lord, whom I very much like and respect and who I know is very sensitive about these issues, that I remain very unhappy about the matter. With those words, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment—at least for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 23, line 27, at end insert:
780
("Pending the making of such regulations section 79(2) and (3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and the rules made thereunder shall apply.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Meston has been driven from the Chamber in pain to the dentist and has asked me to move the amendment on his behalf.
Clause 32 provides for commitment to prison, which remains the sanction for non-payment of maintenance orders unless the High Court or county court judgment summons procedure is invoked under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The draftsman of the Bill clearly had the 1980 Act in mind when producing Clause 32. Subsection (10) applies Section 80 of the Act whereby the debtor can be required to turn out his pockets or his or her handbag. For some reason subsection (8) provides only for the possibility that regulations may be made similar to the provisions of Section 79 of the 1980 Act. Section 79 provides for release from custody on payment and for pro rata reductions in the sentence to be served when part payments are received. It is not clear why this part of the clause does not unconditionally allow for such a provision to be written into the Bill. Amendment No. 115 incorporates Section 79 until regulations are made, and in case they never are.
Amendment No. 116 incorporates Section 94 of the 1980 Act, which prevents arrears accruing while the debtor is in custody, unless the court otherwise directs in an extreme case. It also incorporates Section 95, which gives a power to the court on hearing an enforcement application to remit arrears wholly or in part. It is to be expected that courts would adhere to the practice of usually remitting stale arrears which are more than 12 months old. If arrears and interest under Clause 33 are allowed to accrue while the debtor is in custody and probably not in receipt of income, any payments which he makes during that period will or should be applied in or towards the discharge of the continuing maintenance assessment, with the result that the arrears which sent him to prison might never get cleared and might even lead to the possibility of a second imprisonment for the same arrears. It is all the more important that the courts have some discretion and control at this stage, because prison for this sort of debt is intended in theory to be coercive rather than punitive.
Secondly, imprisonment does not automatically clear the slate. Thirdly, the formulae in the Bill are very inflexible and should be subject to court control and modification when the last resort is used or invoked. Finally, if prison is to be retained, only the most recalcitrant should be vulnerable; but that is a point which the noble and learned Lord has made repeatedly.
Given the provision for interest and the absence of any power to remit arrears under the Bill as presently drafted, do the Government see arrears of child support being provable in bankruptcy, unlike periodical maintenance payments at present? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall deal with Amendment 115 at this moment. We intend to have regulations which, among other things, mirror the provisions of

781
the Magistrates' Court Act and the rules made under them. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has said, the intention of this clause is coercive and not punitive. The idea is to persuade the person in question to perform his maintenance obligations and therefore I do not think that the full form of the magistrates' courts provisions is so appropriate. There, there is a pro rata reduction because there is a penalty in question which is being redeemed, as it were, in part from day to day by the service of a period of imprisonment.
We have in mind regulations which would be more appropriate to this subject matter and would deal with the situation on the same general lines but tailored more to the particular situation. There is no question of Clause 32 being brought into force until the regulations are made to come into force with it on this aspect of the matter. The point made by the noble Lord will be covered in the regulations. That is probably better than trying to incorporate the less appropriate provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it might be a convenient moment to break now. Perhaps I may suggest that the Committee does not resume its deliberations before five minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 31 [Listed building provisions, etc., not to apply to works]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved the following amendment:
Leave out Clause 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment which stands in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Park and Lady Birk. I do so in the absence of my noble friend Lord Montagu, who is unavoidably detained abroad. My noble friend is chairman of the Historic Monuments and Buildings Commission, otherwise known as English Heritage. He would have spoken with those interests principally in mind. I thought it proper to seek to protect those interests and the interests of the public as a whole because I share his concern and was for a time the sponsoring Minister at the Department of the Environment for English Heritage. However, I speak on my own behalf and not on behalf of any organisation.
The amendment seeks to delete Clause 31 from the
782
Bill. The effect of this clause on its own is to remove the whole area covered by the Bill from the planning legislation designed by Parliament to protect listed buildings in conservation areas, leaving the promoters free to alter or even to demolish the buildings in question without interference. Normally such treatment would require the consent of the local planning authority. This was the form in which Clause 31, as it is now numbered, was introduced into your Lordships' House.
At this point I believe I should say two things. First, the purpose of the laws passed by Parliament to protect listed buildings, which would be set aside by the clause, is not—I repeat, not—to preserve second-rate buildings in aspic for ever; nor is it to frustrate desirable development in any way. The laws were passed by your Lordships in order to ensure that where a building was of some merit the pros and cons of knocking it down or altering it should be properly weighed up in the light of the views of qualified people before the action was taken.
That is a reasonable safeguard which acts in the interest of the local community as well as in the national interest. However, it is extremely tedious for developers, who have both to justify any plans they have for change and to forgo the saving otherwise open to those who are prepared to drive a bulldozer through our heritage. That was the form in which Clause 31, as it is now numbered, was introduced. Since its introduction the effect has been narrowed by the introduction of Schedule 6, which specifies those buildings to which these provisions would apply; that is to say, to which the protective provisions would be disapplied.
The effect now intended is to permit total demolition of only one building, as I understand it, and the alteration for agreed purposes but to a completely unlimited extent of the remainder. That is certainly an important limitation. Even though the proposal remains very substantial in its effect, I might have been minded to let it pass uncommented on were it not for the much larger effects that setting such a precedent would cause.
Why, your Lordships may well ask, if this was so important did not English Heritage formally petition against the Bill before? Why was it not represented before your Lordships in Committee? A full answer to that question is necessary and useful because it teaches us a great deal about the proposal which is before us. The proposal is not new in the form it came to us. It was made before in another Bill—a much bigger and more controversial Bill—which became the King's Cross Act. The attempt to free the developers in that case—
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am very sorry but I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend Lord Elton to repeat that remark. He referred to another Bill which became the King's Cross Act. I believe there are two points which should be made. The first is that it has not actually been in this House yet and so has not become an Act. Secondly, the clause to which my noble friend is addressing himself was withdrawn in another place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend nearly makes my point for me. I take his point about the Bill not being enacted. The withdrawal of the clause was precisely the matter to which I wished to draw your Lordships' attention, but I should not have done so in such a vigorous tone as my noble friend has kindly interjected into the debate.
The attempt to free the developers in that case from the tiresome burden of keeping the law was made before another place. The reasons your Lordships have not seen it and will not see it is that the other place threw it out. The attempt in that case appeared as Clause 19 of the Bill as then presented. The effects were similar in their intention.
The reaction to it by the committee in another place is instructive. First of all, in paragraph 48 of its report it says:
"We have unanimously decided to delete Clause 19 from the Bill, for two reasons. First, the exemption from normal planning procedures conferred by the clause would have resulted in the function of planning authority devolving upon Parliament, and in practice, upon this Committee".
In the next paragraph it says:
"We further note that had we chosen to assume the role of planning authority, we would have been handicapped by the fact that English Heritage, who have statutory obligations as the Secretary of State's advisers in these matters, were not entitled to appear as a party before us; their locus standi was challenged by the promoters on a technicality, and disallowed by the Court of Referees".
I hope my noble friend will bear that in mind when he comments on this amendment and gives his reaction to it.
The second reason given by the committee was:
"in our view it would set a deplorable precedent".
My last quotation is:
"We consider that the enactment of Clause 19 would have placed in jeopardy the whole existing system of safeguards for listed buildings under the general law. We observe with concern that despite the promoters' assurances that Clause 19 will not constitute a precedent, similar clauses have been included in several of the private hills deposited in the present Session";
and in heavy type,
"We urge that committees dealing with clauses which are open to the criticisms which we have made in respect of Clause 19 should have no hesitation in deleting those clauses".
In the light of that precedent history, of the fact that it operates with constraint of funds and that the cost of being petitioned against and being represented in the King's Cross case was of the order of £60,000 —I think it was £57,000— in fees additional to those it would have incurred by normal listed building procedures, I think that English Heritage would have been open to criticism had it incurred a further £40,000 or so in this case, feeling that the point had been made for it.
Were this a Committee stage, as I wish it were, I would rest my case there, but as it is Third Reading and we cannot cut and come again in debate, I suppose I should briefly look at what powers might nevertheless be open to the promoters for maintaining this otherwise wholly objectionable provision in the Bill. First, I would hope that the promoters would undertake that the guidance of English Heritage on the buildings listed in Schedule 6 would actually be adhered to. If that were the case, I think in the short term the damage would be minimal. I shall come to the long term in a moment. If they cannot do that
784
—and I presume it is through my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that they will do it, but she may be unable to do it on their behalf —I suggest that the costs of the representation of English Heritage which must follow would be considerable and ought to be borne by those who would benefit from it, or at least from some funds other than those supplied by the taxpayer for maintaining planning law.
Either of those provisions would protect the position as it would be immediately after the enactment of the Bill, but the precedent is more dangerous, as a committee in another place made clear. I hope that my noble friend will agree that the voice of English Heritage, appointed by the Government and funded by the Government to protect the built heritage from depredation, should have a right of being heard in proceedings on Private Bills of this nature. Will he bear in mind that the costs, as I have said, of appearing are considerable? The costs of parliamentary agents in the King's Cross case were, as I understand it, of the order of £20,000, and of counsel of the order of £27,000. That is nearly £50,000, and there are four or five such Bills liable to come through every year.
We are actually talking about that undertaking, if it is given, costing English Heritage £250,000, which is a sizeable slice out of its annual budget, which we provide out of central funds provided by the taxpayer. That money, and the effort that could be bought with it in the normal procedures of English Heritage, are not something for which you can make a contra account entry against the £50,000 or the £47,000. It is additional. I think that we, as beneficiaries of the work of English Heritage, have a right to expect that its budget is protected from this additional burden.
If those two things could be arrived at I, for one, would be greatly reassured. I hasten to add that I do not in any way wish to belittle the diligent work of your Lordships' Committee, very succinctly and well put in its special report, although I have to say as one with a close interest in the heritage that I differ from the balance of desirability it applied in the case of what is now Clause 31, although it was not then. I shall listen with great interest to the promoters and to my noble friend—indeed to all other arguments. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I intervene at this stage to briefly state the Government's view on the Bill. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by London Underground Limited. As the House knows, the Bill will enable major works to be undertaken at London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road Underground stations to relieve congestion and improve conditions for passengers. The works at London Bridge are essential if the Jubilee Line extension is to bring more passengers to that station. Moreover, the works at

785
Tottenham Court Road will have to be carried out before an East-West Crossrail station could be opened there.
I must make it clear at the outset that the Government oppose the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Elton, but I hope that what I have to say will be of some comfort to him.
I know that the committee that examined this Bill was understandably concerned about the provision in Clause 31 —originally Clause 28—of the Bill which seeks to disapply listed building consent controls. In the Bill as introduced the clause provided a blanket disapplication. During the committee proceedings, London Underground submitted amendments which have the effect of specifying those buildings which will be affected by the works, and showing whether they will be demolished or altered. Only one listed building (at Holborn) would be demolished. The other buildings that are specified for demolition are not listed but are situated within conservation areas at London Bridge and Tottenham Court Road.
However, the planning authorities for the sites affected by the proposals in the Bill withdrew their petitions against the Bill. In their special report on the Bill the Select Committee inferred from this that these authorities were content to allow the disapplication of listed building consent to be retained in this case. Your Lordships' Select Committee consequently concluded after very close and careful scrutiny of this issue and of the other provisions in the Bill that the Bill should proceed. The Bill now includes a schedule of buildings affected by the works so that the intention of the promoters is clear.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was also concerned about upholding the normal statutory arrangements for protecting listed buildings and reserved his position on the clause in a report to your Lordships' Select Committee. His view now—in common with mine—is that there has to be a very compelling reason for making an exception, given the forthright condemnation of the provision in the King's Cross Railways Bill by a committee in the other place, to which my noble friend Lord Elton has referred.
However, we believe that there is a restricted class of strategically important developments being promoted in pursuance of government policy objectives that could be at risk if promoters were not able to secure all the consents necessary for their projects from one procedure. There is some force in the argument that if Parliament sees fit to authorise such schemes it will be unreasonable for the promoters to be required additionally to apply for listed building consent to demolish or alter the required buildings. This is a sensitive issue and in accepting this compromise solution the Government are concerned to safeguard English Heritage's position as expert advisers on conservation issues. That means in practice establishing a mechanism for English Heritage to contribute to the consideration of works private Bills by parliamentary committees so that they are in a position to make informed decisions about the listed building aspects of the proposed development.
786
This would mean that, first, English Heritage should have a right to appear before Select Committees on matters within their competence; secondly, clauses of a Bill should contain details of the buildings which would be affected and in what way: blanket clauses would not be acceptable; thirdly, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for a project —which we plan to make compulsory for a Bill of this kind —would contain an account of its effect on the built heritage; fourthly, promoters would be obliged to consult with English Heritage; and, finally, the Government would expect to report against Bills whose promoters seek a blanket disapplication of listed building controls or who do not consult English Heritage on these matters.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has today written to the chairmen of London Regional Transport and British Rail advising them of these compromises.
In line with this, for these cases—which will be few and far between—the Secretaries of State would be prepared to support clauses which disapply the controls in respect of particular specific buildings and for particular works. We therefore find acceptable the amended clause which has emerged as a result of the deliberations of your Lordships' Select Committee. As I have already said, the works at London Bridge and Tottenham Court Road stations are essential for the construction of new proposed underground lines for London; respectively the Jubilee Line—the Bill for which is before a committee in the other place—and the proposed East-West Crossrail route. We believe that for this Bill the compromise clause maintains the proper regard for the legislative controls designed to protect the national heritage while averting any duplication of effort and the potential risk of Parliament's wishes being overridden by a planning authority.
Against that background I urge the House not to agree to the proposed amendment and to allow the Bill to pass in the form in which it emerged from your Lordships' Select Committee. Congestion on our transport system is an important matter of public interest. If we were to stop this Bill from making progress we would be holding up, perhaps for some considerable time, measures which we all recognise are urgently needed to relieve congestion on London Underground.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him to consider between now and the end of this short debate my point about costs and whether the procedures that he suggests would be in some way less expensive than the normal procedure of petitioning and representation. If not, has he anything to offer on that score? I thought that I ought to ask him now rather than in my reply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I may or may not be able to give my noble friend a reply before the end of this debate. I certainly take careful note of what he said. I shall ensure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is made aware of his concern.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I shall try to keep my contribution short because I agreed with everything he said.
Perhaps I may take up one point raised by the Minister in opposing the amendment. He spoke of it being a compromise position. It is not. It is not the blanket clause that existed in the King's Cross Bill until it was taken out by another place. However, the provision still does a great deal of damage. The Minister stated that the listing of buildings is covered in Schedule 6 of the Bill. But that refers simply to the listing of buildings and does not provide any justification for the works or any mechanism whereby the competent authorities can ensure that the scope of work is strictly limited. Nor does it leave with the Secretary of State, the local authority or English Heritage any control over the extent, design, structure or materials of any alternations or extensions. It is merely a list of what is supposed to happen under the Bill.
I find the provision very strange and disturbing. For five years I was responsible for heritage in the Department of the Environment. Since then I have spoken from this Front Bench on the subject. In this debate I am putting forward entirely my own views. We do not treat it as a party matter. It worries me how easy it is to erode the protection of listed buildings and conservation areas unless the legislation which is consolidated in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is strictly adhered to.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out succinctly and strongly what happened with the King's Cross Bill. The Minister did not think that there were other such Bills. However, the committee in another place thought that there were a number of such Bills. A number of London Transport Bills and other Underground Bills are on the way. What is the point of passing legislation to protect parts of our heritage —some of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, are of higher quality than others—just to ride roughshod over it? I find that quite appalling.
The King's Cross Bill has been referred to. It has not yet reached us. The Minister said that it was up to Parliament to take a decision about these matters. I believe that the Minister was taken by surprise. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, asked a Question in February 1989. I intervened to refer to the King's Cross problem. In April 1989 the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, asked a Question. Many of us felt that in both cases the answers were unsatisfactory.
I consider that the amendment is right. I am glad to hear that action will be taken in the future. I believe that something could have been done before now. The letter to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, from the Secretary of State for the Environment dated 14th February listed the points that the Minister has now made. However, that does not alter what will happen to this Bill unless the amendment is agreed to, or unless our strong feelings are made clear to another place so that it can consider the measure with the utmost care. I am not happy that the Bill should proceed with Clause 31 included.
7.30 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long. I rise to support the amendment. I listened with great interest to the reasoned approach of my noble friend Lord Elton and to the passionate oratory of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It is sad that my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu cannot be here tonight. It is a case of Hamlet without the Prince because he has been so robust in his defence of the rights and duties of English Heritage and the tradition of supporting buildings of outstanding architectural merit by listing. If it is Hamlet without the Prince, at least we have Hamlet with the ghost, even if it takes such substantial form as my noble friend.
The Royal Fine Art Commission also supports the amendment. We are not a conservationist body. Our job is to promote good, contemporary architecture. Let us have listed buildings, yes, but not listed buildings at any price. I make that point because, while it might be thought that English Heritage had a vested interest in the matter, the Royal Fine Art Commission is not open to such a reflection. We believe that if a listed building is inferior to the building that is promised the listed building should be allowed to go. The commission supported the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, in his efforts to secure planning permission for No. I, Poultry. I congratulate the noble Lord on his perseverance and stamina in pursuing the cause of that building. Even my noble friend Lord Montagu might congratulate him on that aspect of his activity. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, and Poultry is a contemporary version of the story of Bruce and the spider and had an equally happy ending.
If one supports the amendment one should make clear the fact that the Select Committee has greatly improved the Bill. There is no doubt about that. Clause 31 is a major advance on Clause 28. That overrode all listed legislation and was an intolerable proposition to be put forward yet again, particularly in the light of what was said about, and what happened to, Clause 19 of the King's Cross Bill.
In addition to the constructive work of the Select Committee I also recognise the important statement that was made tonight by the Minister. It was contained originally in a letter to my noble friend Lord Montagu from the Secretary of State and was dated 14th February. That was suitably so because it was a Valentine on this issue. No one should underestimate the importance of what my noble friend has said tonight. The four propositions constitute a new charter in this matter and will be welcomed by all who are concerned with the future of listed buildings.
The objection in principle remains. The objection to the clause is that it effectively excludes many normal planning procedures, not only in relation to listed buildings but also non-listed buildings which may have architectural merit. Unlisted buildings can also be aesthetically important; for example, buildings in conservation areas. Listing is an imprimatur but there is nothing exclusive about it; it is an additional support.

789
I do not believe that the promoters of the Bill have produced a case for creating a situation in which no justification is needed for the demolition of a building, no limitations are set and which excludes the Secretary of State and English Heritage from having their normal say in the matter. It also excludes the Royal Fine Art Commission. We are part of the planning process and exist precisely to advise on such matters as design, structure and materials. That is not in respect of old buildings as such but of extensions to old buildings and new buildings which may replace the old.
The most powerful argument before your Lordships' House was presented by my noble friend Lord Elton. It is the argument of a precedent. If the Bill were accepted we should have precedent for inclusion of similar clauses in other Private Bills. That is the important point. We can see what has happened because the fate of Clause 19 has not deterred the promoters of Private Bills. They are trying the same game over again. At the risk of producing a further explosion from my noble friend Lord Mountevans, I must point out that, when Members of this House and of the other place have made their views so plain on the matter, it is extraordinary that we should be back at square one.
I trust that my noble friend Lord Elton will continue robustly to pursue his views. It is important that there should be a deterrent to other people who wish to follow the same Star Chamber course in this respect. Of course it is up to him and to the other movers of the amendment to decide what to do, but I believe that the argument for setting a precedent is decisive. I hope that this precedent will not be set by the House.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, as chairman of the Select Committee I wish briefly to give the reasons why we issued our report and took such decisions. We were much influenced by the amended Clause 28 —Clause 31 as it now is. It was well restricted in respect of the building and what could be done to it. We were conscious not only of the vital importance of the scheme, which was not in argument before our committee, but also of the urgency which we saw in all the justifications of the Underground plan. Tottenham Court Road in particular is already overloaded. The dominating argument in our decision was time; we did not want any unnecessary delay in getting the scheme started. As the Minister said, if the matter goes back to the local authorities delay, and possibly substantial delay, is inevitable.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Birk prefaced her remarks by saying that she was speaking in a personal capacity. I must make it clear that the Opposition is completely neutral on the matter and that my remarks too are made in a personal capacity.
My position is one of division. I too am keen to enforce environmental and conservation provisions. Equally, I am concerned with the problems of transport and congestion. I was greatly influenced by
790
paragraph 7 of the report which pointed out that the planning authorities had withdrawn their petitions and were satisfied with the Bill as it now stood.
It is interesting on Second Reading that apart from myself only three other noble Lords spoke on the Bill —the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and my noble friend Lady Phillips. The question of Clause 28 was not referred to. We were dealing with the pertinent questions raised by the Bill; that is, safety and congestion issues and a need to get on with the work. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on expense. However, the question of English Heritage and listed buildings was not mentioned on Second Reading. I raised two issues concerning the London Bridge and Holborn works. I said that I hoped that the Select Committee, to which the Bill was to be referred, would take those matters into consideration. No one asked that the question of listed buildings and English Heritage should be taken into consideration, which is rather unfortunate.
From the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I can understand that a petition was not presented on grounds of cost. I believe that the Minister's statement is helpful for the future, and also as regards the point that the Bill should go forward as the chairman of the committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, said. From my standpoint it is important that the works should not be delayed.
The problems of congestion at London Bridge, Tottenham Court Road and Holborn are such that it would be a tragedy—and I believe that one can use that word—if these works were delayed because of the need for considerable discussions before a new decision could be taken. I believe, as does the Minister, that these works should proceed, providing as they do safeguards for the future.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too found what the Minister said extremely helpful, as was the statement by the chairman of the committee. However, I wish to express my strong support for the principle behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
I speak as chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. Thus I share fully the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord on behalf of English Heritage. The Royal Commission's interest is that it has a statutory right under the planning legislation to be notified of listed buildings which are to be demolished, and also has a right and a duty to make records and take photographs of such buildings before demolition takes place.
I understand that an exclusion clause proposed when the first King's Cross Bill came before the appropriate committee in another place met with strongly adverse comments. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, quoted what I was going to quote about the committee's view that no such clauses should be permitted in future.
On that occasion, the Royal Commission was granted the right to petition the committee in order to secure the withdrawal of the clause—Clause 19. In the

791
event British Rail inserted a protective clause which respected our interest and Clause 19 was rejected by this House.
Since then, on the advice of our legal advisers, the commission has had to seek to secure the insertion of similar protective clauses in this and no less than three other Private Bills because of the precedent created by the procedure adopted in the King's Cross Bill. That is a very time consuming exercise and costly for the taxpayer, as my noble friend Lord Elton said. However, we are obliged to do that to protect the interests of the commission. We too have a limited budget. Surely it is unacceptable that such Bills should repeatedly be framed to circumvent the existing planning and listed buildings legislation which Parliament put in place and from which we derive our statutory powers.
I understand from a letter which I received this afternoon that Camden Council remains as anxious as the commission about the proposed diminution of its powers. I was reassured to note that the Select Committee of this House views with anxiety any proposals to reduce the protection given by general legislation to historic buildings. While I must reluctantly accept the committee's final conclusion that the inclusion of Clause 31 is justified since the committee was anxious about a possible delay to an important project—and I see that point—and its members have clearly weighed very carefully the arguments for and against, I urge the House strongly to note the dangerous implications of what can only be the creation of a damaging precedent.
We are seeing a progressive erosion of the statutory powers which the planning and building legislation was designed to assure to us. This makes it difficult, and could ultimately make it impossible, for the commission to fulfil its recording role and for English Heritage to act to protect threatened buildings.
I was reassured by what the Minister said, and, should this amendment he withdrawn, I hope that a message will go back to the other place which may in the long term produce a decision of principle in our favour. That would mean a general agreement that such exclusion clauses will not be accepted in future.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, perhaps I may introduce my speech by apologising to my noble friend Lord Elton. I was not seeking to shout him down but I was putting forward a point which I may put again; namely, that the King's Cross clause is irrelevant to our debate today. That was a blanket clause and our debate this evening on the deletion of Clause 31 is very specific.
As a first-time buyer on one of your Lordships' Select Committees I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hood and other Members of the Committee sitting in this Chamber for making my first committee such an instructive and enchanting experience. I believe that that is a duty which we should all undertake from time to time and I am grateful to the committee for its support.
I shall continue to urge rejection of the amendment, and at the end of my speech I should like to comment
792
on the Minister's speech which probably wrong-footed or flat-footed many of us who had planned to speak this evening.
Having sat on the committee, I was anxious about this issue and I did some research. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will recall the occasion on 13th April 1989 when I spoke in support of the Second Reading of the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill and my noble friend put the views of the Government. That Second Reading was moved by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu who, alas! is not present this evening. Perhaps I may quote some of the remarks he made. He said:
"It may be appropriate if I now speak as chairman of English Heritage … Although we shall wish to express concern over the detailed design of this scheme and the actual route where it affects Mayflower Park and the city walls"—
and it is worth adding that the city walls of Southampton are a conservation area—
"we are confident that the matters can be resolved. We certainly should not wish to oppose the scheme in principle.
The detailed evidence of the petitions is of course a matter which can be examined by a Select Committee. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in expressing great faith in the ability of the Select Committee procedure of the House of Lords to give petitioners a fair hearing and to produce an objective and politically unbiased report on the scheme. [Official Report, 13/4/89; col. 452.]
As my noble friend Lord Hood explained, after we produced our special report I began to wonder about this matter. I did some research and asked myself some questions. As I understand it, our authority—and after all it was Parliament which gave to English Heritage its authority, and I believe that Parliament can take that away if it so wishes —was based on Section 42 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which provides that local Acts have effect subject to the provisions of the town and country planning legislation.
I was concerned that those who had the opportunity, such as English Heritage and the Royal Fine Arts Commission, did not petition your Lordships' committee although there was an opportunity to do so. Therefore, my reading of the law, as it is, is that the decision which we took was within our legal power.
I appreciate the arguments which have been made about "gang-bang" clauses. We were not looking at a "gang-bang" clause but at a very specific clause. I then wondered, discussed and read about possible reasons for seeking dispensation, as Clause 31 does, from what I call conservation area consent. I came to the conclusion that the first is that there is an interlocked transport and conservation issue.
I fully support those who argue for conservation. But noble Lords will be aware that I have frequently argued for the viability, well-being and safety of London Transport. Where the issues interlock, I felt it right that the safety issues came first; after all, we are discussing a Bill entitled the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill.
I accept the conservation issues. Our attitudes towards conservation are very personal. We tend not to be too concerned if the area in dispute is not adjacent to our own; if it is on our doorstep, we become concerned. It is a kind of reversed NIMBY-ism. I feel that the committee, and the

793
evidence before it, addressed the conservation issue. When I was looking through the Order Paper of another place a few days ago I discovered an Early Day Motion which referred to 930-odd endangered buildings in central London. I wondered whether the Astoria Theatre and other sites were on that list, or whether they were only included when this Bill was introduced.
The promoters opted for the Private Bill procedure. One of the matters of which they were aware was the need to avoid the repetitive process of consideration within Parliament by the two Houses—one could call it overlap—and decision-making by the local authority manifesting itself in terms of clauses such as Clause 31, in its disapplication of a conservation area rule.
I return to what I said earlier. The planning authority had the opportunity to object. It did not do so. In a way I would have been happy if it had; it has more expertise than I as to whether the buildings covered by Clause 31 genuinely merit conservation area status. I should have liked to hear the views of the local planning authority.
There is also a matter of timescale involved. If a duplicate process exists, if one deletes Clause 31 and goes to a planning inquiry, slippage will occur. I believe that Tottenham Court Road specifically, while not a matter of national importance, is a matter of regional importance. It is not a pleasant station to use. I am not convinced that it is safe. I am sure that noble Lords are mindful of the recommendations in the report on the King's Cross disaster. That is one of the points that underpins the Bill.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Is he aware that paragraph 42 of the Select Committee report on King's Cross deals specifically with the question of delay? It states that there has never been any delay in a Private Bill because the matter has been discussed and all the points considered. Has the noble Lord considered also that if it goes to the other place, and they take the view that was taken in regard to King's Cross station, that it may be delayed then? The question of delay should not be taken into account in these circumstances. It is not a matter that is particularly urgent and the process could work both ways.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific clause mentioned by the noble Baroness. The report suggests that there has been no instance of delay. I would argue that if we go down the road we are asked to go down tonight by those who propose the amendment, there could yet be delay on the Bill.
As I said earlier, I am not convinced that King's Cross is a relevant example. It is dead and gone; I have a different attitude towards King's Cross. I hope that the Bill will shortly come to this House and progress will be made on it for different reasons.
The statement of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara was interesting. It probably compromised several speeches that had been premeditated this evening. Several of us who work the transport scene in the House are anxious that reform of the Private Bill
794
procedure is slipping. Only six months ago my right honourable friend the Leader of another place spoke of it being a matter for the next Queen's Speech. It is now a matter of when parliamentary time permits.
Promoters of Private Bills—not only transport Bills which is my favourite subject—and others, want firm rules and guidelines. They may not be happy with the reform proposals but at least they will have a level and defined playing field.
The first point made by my noble friend, that English Heritage shall have the right to be consulted, is an excellent one. That would pre-empt the debate this evening. As have other noble Lords, I have argued on King's Cross. I think that Clause 31 is specific; whereas the King's Cross clause, which we have been discussing, is not. It is a blanket clause. The demand for specific clauses is essential.
The environmental impact study is important. The requirement that the promoter shall consult English Heritage —which slightly overlaps the first one—is important. Reserving the right of the Government to reject is equally important. Therefore I welcome what my noble friend called a compromise. I hope that it is not only circulated in a letter to the chairman of British Rail and LRT, but also to others in the business.
Finally. I come to the title of the Bill. It is a "safety measures" Bill. I appreciate that conservation is important; but safety is much more important. In urging your Lordships to reject the amendment, perhaps I may express a personal view. There is only one place where conservation should come before safety, and that is in the dictionary.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I listened with interest to the points made on the amendment, with which I cannot agree. I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton on one matter, and that is my regret that my noble friend Lord Montagu is not present. We went to great trouble to ensure that the debate came after the 20th, when we were advised that he would be back in this country. Evidently his plans must have changed.
I have a great interest in historic buildings. I am a member of the Heritage of London Trust; before that I served for many years on the Historic Buildings Committee of the Greater London Council. Therefore I do not take lightly any damage or change in historic buildings. Likewise, I do not believe that every listed building is as marvellous as we like to think. In London many marvellous buildings were listed and then the list seemed to grow non-stop. Many people on the Historic Buildings Committee were not so impressed by the later listings; but that is another matter.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, the aim,
"is not … to preserve second-rate buildings",
but buildings of some merit.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene, it is important. I did not say that it was to preserve them. I said that it was to ensure that proper consideration by qualified people was given to demolition or change before it was carried out. That is quite different.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I wrote down in quotes that what he said was that, "it was not the aim to preserve second-rate buildings but buildings of some merit".
The question of speed is important. It must be appreciated that the Second Reading of the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred, took place on 8th March 1990. It has taken a long time to reach this point. There were 36 petitions lodged. Why did English Heritage not lodge a petition? We were told that there was a problem with money. One does not need to be represented by counsel; anyone can appear and act as one's representative before these committees. It could be done in a more economical way by an officer of English Heritage, or the Historical Monuments of England Commission appearing.
There has been much talk regarding whether or not this will create a precedent. In one way everything creates a precedent. However, the argument of the promoters of the Bill is that each case should be treated on its merits. My noble friend the Minister made the same point in his contribution.
Clause 19 of the King's Cross Bill is a parallel to Clause 28, but it is not a parallel to Clause 31. All the discussion directed towards a parallel with Clause 19 is irrelevant because that provision is not the same. The King's Cross Bill is a very much bigger scheme and time is not so important on that. It is not a provision which is designed to bring in safety measures for people. Therefore, I believe that there will be continuing consultation on King' Cross. My noble friend Lord Elton also referred to the Court of Official Referees disallowing the King's Cross Bill. That does not apply to this House. There are similar Bills which are referred to in paragraph 50. After tonight's debate we shall find that the tone of the clauses in these Bills will be amended and in future specific properties will be listed. Discussion will go on, and I do not think the same blanket situation will ever come back.
Everyone who has a relevant interest should have the right to be heard. Individuals can petition a Standing or a Select Committee on the Bill. The Government said that if there was a blanket measure, or a complete lack of consultation, they would oppose. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that she did not feel that this Bill was justified. It is important to establish that point; though noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who had been at the earlier proceedings had gone into the matter at that stage. It should again be drawn to the attention of noble Lords that the Fennell Report contained 157 recommendations. The recommendation relevant to this matter was that:
"London Underground shall undertake an investigation of the problems of passenger flow and congestion in stations and take remedial action".
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I said that that particular clause was not justified. I did not say anything about the whole Bill not being justified. As regards not
796
taking up the matter earlier, the noble Baroness is right. I agree that in this instance English Heritage has been slow off the mark and negligent.
8 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. The purpose of this Bill is to bring into effect the recommendations for three of the busiest stations; namely, London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road. These are cul-de-sac or dead-end stations. They are stations with an exit at one end. They are an enormous hazard which has to be dealt with. These three stations have only one route to the street yet the Fennell Report said that two independent means of escape other than by train are required for new stations. We believe that greater access for safety purposes has to be provided.
Congestion is a regular occurrence. For London Underground and passengers, congestion and lack of safety go together. London Bridge station was built in 1900 and since 1981 the use of the station has increased by 92 per cent. I shall not go into detail on this because I know that noble Lords would prefer shorter comments. The present ticket hall at Holborn was built in 1906. It served the Piccadilly Line and it was altered in 1933 to serve the Central Line as well. It was used by about 35 million people in 1990; an increase of 50 per cent. since 1981.
Tottenham Court Road station we all know. It is one of the least attractive stations in London. It dates from 1900. It was built to serve the Northern Line and it now also serves the Central Line. Every year 35 million passengers use that station and it is the sixth busiest station in the whole system. Use of that station has grown by 57 per cent. between 1981 and 1989. It is quite clear that all these measures are very much needed, and needed rapidly.
The promoters of the Bill are perfectly happy to go through full planning procedures with local authorities for what is to be built above ground. I say to my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley that his interest lies in the replacement of buildings. He will certainly have an input in that regard in terms of the contemporary architecture which will replace buildings which have to be demolished. He said that the House had made its views very clear. He referred to the King's Cross Bill. I reiterate the point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Mountevans; namely, that this House has not made any views clear on the King's Cross Bill because it has not yet reached us. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is aware of the need for progress in this matter. I was interested in what he had to say.
The name of my noble friend Lady Park is often confused with my own. I do not know whether she is aware that an advance clause has been agreed with the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments of England. That gives her all the assurances that she sought and is to be included in the Bill in the other place. It would have gone into the Bill already but for the fact that the unopposed committee was discharged and therefore there was no opportunity to include the clause, but it has been agreed.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on that. My noble friend is perfectly right in saying that that is the point I made in my speech. We had been obliged to negotiate on the advice of our advisers about the clause and to initiate similar negotiations as regards three other Bills. That is why I said that I support the principle behind this amendment. I still believe that the question of precedence is an urgent one. We were advised by our legal advisers to go for negotiating a protective clause because that that was all that was open to us to do effectively. That does not alter the fact that we feel strongly that it makes good sense for the principle to be accepted in future.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it is Third Reading and noble Lords have been popping up everywhere which is rather contrary to our processes. My noble friend Lord Elton made the point that he would like to see costs awarded. As I have said, I do not think that would be reasonable because there are much less expensive ways of putting one's case. Entirely apart from whether or not I like the idea, the technical position is that costs are only awarded under the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865 where a Select Committee decides unanimously that the promoters for, or the petitioners against, a Bill referred to the committee have behaved unreasonably. Unless that has been changed a formal procedure therefore already exists.
It has to be appreciated that this Bill has gone through a full committee over a long period. Thirty-six petitions have been presented and considered, some of which have been withdrawn. English Heritage has not put its case, which is a great omission on its part. It has failed to do so to this day. The chairman of the committee has spoken very clearly about the considerations that his committee has given this Bill. It is entirely appropriate tonight that the Bill should go forward to the other place where there will be a further opportunity to raise any points that have not been covered in this House. I hope that my noble friend Lord Elton will not press his amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, although it would not be proper for me to express any views on the merits of Clause 31, I should like to make a few factual observations that concern Private Bill procedure. I was very glad that tribute was paid to the work of the Select Committee under my noble friend Lord Hood. As the House has heard, the Select Committee which considered the Bill did not, in, the event, hear any argument or evidence against what was then Clause 28 of the Bill. The special report from the Select Committee explains the reasons.
Opposition to the clause was specifically included in the petitions lodged by the London boroughs of Southwark, Camden and Westminster in respect of the sites within those boroughs affected by the Bill. All three petitions were withdrawn before the committee came to hear evidence on the clause. The clause, as originally drafted, as your Lordships have heard, contained a blanket disapplication of the general statutory provisions concerning works affecting listed
798
buildings and buildings within conservation areas. In committee the promoters submitted amendments which have the effect of specifying the buildings which are to be demolished. Clause 28, as amended in this way, has become Clause 31 in the present Bill. The Select Committee therefore took the view that the opposition to the clause had been withdrawn, at least so far as concerns proceedings in this House.
Erskine May, on page 942 of the 21st edition, makes it clear that Private Bills are occasionally debated at Third Reading and may, less frequently, be opposed. It gives some recent examples. This Bill is not opposed and has been given its Third Reading. But it is perfectly proper that this amendment should have been tabled. It is not the practice in this House to have a Report stage for Private Bills and Third Reading is therefore the only opportunity the House has to review the decisions of its Select Committees. If your Lordships wish to overturn the decision of a committee you are of course entitled to do so.
Where a decision of a Select Committee is in issue on Third Reading the House would expect to hear from the committee the reasons for its decision. I am sure the House would not lightly decide to overturn the decision of one of its committees. We have heard this evening from the chairman of the committee and from one of its members explaining the reasons for their decisions in this case. I am sure the House will consider carefully what they have said.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend and I hope that the House will consider carefully also what I am about to say, though I say that in all humility. The Bill before your Lordships is about safety. I should make it clear that nobody whose name appears on this amendment wishes to do anything to obstruct the proper course of safety. It is my belief that nothing proposed in this amendment would so obstruct the proper course of safety. I shall explain why in a moment.
I begin by referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who questioned what I said about the purpose of listed building consent procedures, because that is what this is about. She had misheard me. I read from the same manuscript and in the same tone of voice I hope:
"the purpose of the laws passed by Parliament to protect listed buildings … is not—I repeat, not—to preserve the second-rate buildings in aspic for ever; nor is it to frustrate desirable development in any way. The laws were passed by your Lordships in order to ensure that where a building was of some merit the pros and cons of knocking it down or altering it should be properly weighed up in the light of the views of qualified people before the action was taken".
I shall be very brief, because I am sure that your Lordships are not as hungry as I am for dinner but hungry for the next stage of the main legislation before the House. May I briefly say therefore that time appears to be the essence of the argument against this Bill. It is suggested that, by depending on established, tried and trustworthy procedures, the development which is necessary to save lives would be frustrated. This Bill was introduced in 1989. The King's Cross Bill was introduced in another place in November 1988. I do not think the parliamentary procedure is any quicker than the planning procedures in other

799
legislation. That in fact uninterlocks the planning and safety issues which were interlocked by my noble friend Lord Mountevans.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes skilfully sought to seduce my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley—with what success I know not—from his support of the amendment by saying that we were not talking about precedent. I think that this is a question of precedent. It is that I am most worried about, because precedent entails cost.
In a moment I shall give way and hope the Minister will tell me what he has decided in the interim. We must all pin very great importance on his statement that any procedure of the sort he suggested, which is attractive, would be exceedingly rare. I am not sure how that is to be secured—I presume by an instruction to committees —because I am sure it will not be secured if an attempt is made to secure it by exhortation to promoters.
The question of locus standi also arises because, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has pointed out the representations by English Heritage, which has been lambasted by not being here, could only be made in this House, which would be a disadvantage for a Bill starting in this House and a disaster for Bills starting in another place.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I ask the noble Lord to give way. That is not correct at all. English Heritage will be just as entitled to make representations in another place.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps I may also pop up, with your Lordships' leave, and say that the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, which now seems to have become a recurring theme in this debate, is a question of les absents ont toujours tort.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not know about that, but popping up has certainly become a sort of mushroom experience in this debate. I wonder whether my noble friend could at this time, if I were to sit briefly now, take an opportunity to pop up, since the precedent is now well established in this debate, and tell me something about costs.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to intervene briefly. I would emphasise that this is my preliminary advice on the matter only. We would need to discuss with the House authorities how to ensure the automatic right for English Heritage to appear before Select Committees, which would avoid the expense of petitioning. Alternatively, English Heritage could present its views in a report submitted through the Department of the Environment—a procedure which I understand was followed in the past by some public bodies. I emphasise that those are only my preliminary views.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend. We started with a blanket. We then had a blanket with holes in it. We now have a blanket with holes in it which is not to he used very often and, it is to be
800
hoped, a blanket with holes in it not to be used often and the expense then to be minimal or elsewhere defrayed.
My views, which remain strong against the precedent in this Bill, are to some extent allayed by what my noble friend has said. I believe there is more work to be done in another place. I hope another place will read our proceedings as carefully as we have read its proceedings on the King's Cross Bill and that it will come to the right conclusions.
I am most grateful to your Lordships. I am sorry that it has taken so long but I think it has been worth making the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
8.19 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 32.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McGregor of Durris: In opposing the Question that Clause 32 stand part of the Bill, I must now ask the Committee to examine the utility of sending maintenance defaulters to prison. I wish to begin by saying that I have no intention of testing the opinion of the Committee. I wish to attempt at this stage to present the noble and learned Lord with an argument, in the hope that he may be willing to consider at least some parts of it. I apologise to the Committee in advance as I shall take some time to explain the background from which this atavism stems.
The Debtors Act 1869 ended the practice by which thousands of debtors were detained every year by sherriffs' officers without any order from a court and incarcerated in the Fleet or similar prisons, the horror of which became a recurring theme of novelists from Fielding to Dickens. For decades lay, legal and parliamentary opinion urged the abolition of imprisonment and the creation in its place of effective means to enable creditors to recover their money.
However, the Act permitted contumacious debtors to be imprisoned for contempt of court, despite strenuous opposition in the mid-Victorian Parliament. The Walpole Committee of 1873 reported that,
"the power of imprisonment for debt as now exercised by county court judges should be abolished".
Governments ignored that recommendation for the next 100 years. Debtors were gaoled for contempt in large numbers—almost 10,000 on the eve of the World War I. The number fell back during the inter-war period but, with the expansion of credit trading in the

801
1960s, it again reached about 7,000. There was anxiety about the silting up of scarce cell space with a large increase in the reception of civil prisoners.
Therefore, the Payne Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts was appointed in 1965. At the request of the then Lord Chancellor, it made an interim unanimous report in 1966 that committal to prison under the Debtors Act and the judgment summons procedure in the county court should be abolished. The Payne Committee found that judges had neither the time nor the information,
"to distinguish in all cases between the recalcitrant and the inadequate debtor … (and that) … the procedure"—
the judgment summons procedure—
"is not compatible with the administration of justice, especially in circumstances involving the liberty of the subject".
That system disappeared as a result of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, though imprisonment was retained for Crown debts and for default on maintenance.
As regards maintenance, the Payne Committee was divided. Half of the 12 members wished imprisonment to be abolished immediately, three of them were in favour of abolition in the future and the other three wished to retain it permanently. The arguments were again examined by the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families which reported in 1974. It recommended unanimously the abolition of imprisonment forthwith.
Members of the Committee must rake over these arguments this evening. I think that the most useful procedure would be for me to quote from the two reports and, lest noble Lords should feel that I am plagiarising them, I can say that as a member of both committees I drafted the sections of the reports which we shall now consider. Moreover, having returned to the arguments after many years, I still find them persuasive and indeed compelling.
I shall deal first with the argument based upon deterrence. In the Notes on Clauses it is said that,
"imprisonment is primarily intended as a deterrent",
although the notes do not distinguish between general and specific deterrence.
So far as concerns general deterrence, the Payne Committee gave an unequivocal answer to the following question:
"Does the imprisonment of civil debtors help to inculcate or to maintain among the community the social and moral obligation to repay debts freely contracted?".
The committee could find no evidence that:
"the vast structure of credit trading can depend on the threat of imprisonment which results in a few thousand people being sent to prison, even if it were abundantly clear that those in prison were all deliberate defaulters or dishonest or in some way determined not to pay.
On this view, there is no causal connection between the threat or fact of imprisonment for debt and a disposition among citizens to pay their debts. Similarly, we know of no evidence to suggest that the family and the institution of marriage depend upon the knowledge among husbands that they may land in prison if they wilfully fail to maintain their wives and children. We know that the family is a universal institution and remains, in a variety of forms of which monogamy is the commonest the world over, the basic unit in all societies. It would, indeed, be astonishing if the existence of this institution in England depended on the maintenance of one particular method of enforcing a municipal legal rule. A
802
vast body of (anthropological and) sociological knowledge supports the view of Edward Westermarck that, the existence of marriage does not depend upon laws … if marriage is not an artificial creation but an institution based upon deep rooted sentiments, conjugal and parental, it will last as long as these sentiments last'".
The majority of the Payne Committee concluded by saying:
"Accordingly, we think that the health and stability of marriage and the family in our society are not in any way connected with the retention of imprisonment for maintenance defaulters".
Both the Payne and the Finer Committees examined specific deterrence—I have dealt with general deterrence—in the light of knowledge about the characteristics of civil debtors and maintenance defaulters who had been sent to prison. That evidence derived especially from the findings of a study of civil prisoners and their families by the late Pauline Morris and from evidence from prison governors and other informed sources. Those findings show that such prisoners,
"Apart from knowing little or nothing about the details of their indebtedness, or their financial position generally, were often unable to give coherent accounts of their employment history. Where they were able to do so, they seemed to have been unemployed for long periods, and those who worked did so only erratically. Furthermore, they seemed to have been involved in a great many accidents, usually at work, to suffer from a multitude of physical and mental troubles, not infrequently of the psychosomatic nature. In short, the civil prisoners appeared to be truly social inadequates, needing almost permanent support if they were to survive in the community".
I can confirm that fact because I was detailed by the Payne Committee to interview and report on a sample of 65 debtors and defaulters who were in prison. It was an experience which had a very great impact upon me. Moreover, so far as I was concerned, it had a remarkable deterrent effect. Apart from the minority of such prisoners with past criminal convictions, they were all hopeless, feckless folk, often illiterate, always innumerate and mostly incapable of organising their life. Nearly all of them had multiple debts; and many of the maintenance defaulters passed their time in prison afflicted with an obsessional hatred of their wives insisting that not even torture would make them pay money to such evil people.
When, on an earlier amendment, the noble and learned Lord talked about the typical case, I could not relate his concept of the typical case with my experience or with anything that I had read about such prisoners. The noble and learned Lord might say, as he said on another amendment, that my experience was that of yesterday; but, nevertheless, I have been at some pains to talk to people who are knowledgeable in this field today and who deal all the time with such prisoners. The information I gathered is that nothing much has changed on the central issue of the personalities of the defaulters who are expected by the Bill to respond to specific deterrents. They are not capable of it.
Yet again in this instance we come to a case where, in an important part of the Bill, there is complete ignorance of the world and the people to which it is proposed by the Government to apply it. We do not

803
know, and there has been no work done since of the nature of that done more than 25 years ago by Dr. Morris.
The debtors' characteristics were one of the main reasons which led the Payne Committee to a major recommendation, rejected by the Government, to establish an enforcement office. Because many debtors were feckless and hopeless, and because the majority of them were multiple debtors, the committee recommended that there should be an enforcement office to bring the judgment debts of all courts into one centre where they could be handled by a species of financial social worker who could discharge for such people the functions which the happier part of the community employs bankers, accountants and solicitors to deal with. No government have accepted that indispensable recommendation. Such centres have been set up by the CAB in Birmingham and elsewhere. They have been remarkably helpful in those areas.
The Finer Committee wrote that everyone agreed that sending maintenance defaulters to prison—today's cost I understand is £321 a week—was an essay in economic and social futility for the taxpayer. The defaulter had to be kept in prison where his future earning power was reduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said earlier, his wife and family, upon whose maintenance he has defaulted, fell upon (as it was in those days) the Supplementary Benefits Commission, as did his second wife or his mistress and her children if he acquired a second family. That might be a justifiable social cost if the result was to inculcate or strengthen among the population at large a disposition to maintain their dependants; but we know that it does not.
Nevertheless, many involved in the administration of family justice hold that the value of the procedure which permits a court to make a committal order, and then to suspend it subject to regular payments being made, lies chiefly in what the court can threaten. Just as some teachers argue that, although they never themselves use the cane, the sight of one lying on the desk helps to secure obedience and good behaviour from their pupils, so it is said that a committal order will extract money from men who are unwilling to pay but who are more unwilling to go to prison. That is undoubtedly true in some instances.
When Parliament was debating the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill in 1978 a Home Office Minister explained that an informal survey in magistrates' courts carried out by his department showed that in nearly 90 per cent. of the cases in which a committal warrant had been issued and then suspended the defaulter escaped imprisonment because he paid up. I am doubtful of that survey and its findings, because in all the time that I worked in the courts I never saw the mythical figure who, when a committal order was made, put his hand into his back pocket and paid off his maintenance from a roll of greasy £20 notes. However, he is said to exist. The findings of that unpublished survey testify to the inadequacy of the machinery for extracting money from those who have it. They do not testify to the virtues of suspended committal orders.
804
The rate of recovery for civil debts has not been adversely affected by the abolition of the threat of imprisonment, despite the evidence to the Payne Committee given by the great majority of county court judges that their power to make suspended committal orders was an indispensable feature of the procedure for enforcing judgment debts.
The Finer Committee regarded an empirical demonstration of the effectiveness of the threat as irrelevant to the point of principle: that if imprisonment is inadmissible as a sanction to enforce family obligations, so equally must be the threat of imprisonment. I do not believe, pathological situations apart, that the policeman and the prison officer are appropriate agents for the regulation of family life, because they bring penal sanctions into a social and personal area where compensation or restitution are the only tolerable aims, and moral denunciation the only proper method of expressing disapproval.
Citizens in 1991 do not regard failure to discharge marital obligations as criminal behaviour; and to treat it as such by imprisoning defaulters damages the law and degrades marriage. The numbers imprisoned over the past 15 years have ranged from over 3,000 to less than 500. The powers of professional judges derive from the debtors legislation and are limited to committal for six weeks. Those of magistrates, to which the agency will go, are harsher and extend to three months, having stemmed from the 19th century bastardy legislation. Professional judges rarely commit when applying the delicate domestic arithmetic required by the test of contumacity. Lay magistrates, on the other hand, used to be more ready to send defaulters to prison under procedures which, like those of the county court judgment summonses, were not compatible with the proper administration of justice when the liberty of the subject was involved.
My fear is that the new agency will be under immense pressure to show results; to show that it is much more efficient than the court system which it replaces. The result will be that, just as the old supplementary benefits commission used to herd women into the magistrates' courts to obtain useless maintenance orders, so this new agency will herd fathers into the magistrates' courts for purposes of securing committal orders against them.
In my view, deterrence is irrelevant in the personal, financial and social circumstances with which this clause deals. I cannot imagine anything more damaging to the interests of children and to their relations with their natural and step-parents than the introduction of the threat of prison into already precarious loyalties and loves.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the possibility of using community service orders instead of imprisonment. As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, also stated that she would bring forward a similar proposal. I hope that against this background of the history of the consideration that has been given to committal of maintenance defaulters, the noble and learned Lord will he willing

805
to reconsider this clause and the possibility of substituting for imprisonment as the last resort, some other less harmful and less damaging procedure.
I conclude by citing a sentence from the Payne Committee:
"We have explained why we think the imprisonment of maintenance defaulters … is morally capricious, economically wasteful, socially harmful, administratively burdensome and juridically wrong".
Lest this be thought a dangerous modern view, I end by returning to the old lion Bentham who, more than 200 years ago, recorded his views on imprisonment for debt. They were:
"its inaptitude as an instrument of compulsion; … its inaptitude, applied as it is as an instrument of punishment … and its needlessness demonstrated by experience".
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has given an academic and historical survey of the futility of sending debtors to prison. I wish to transpose his academic recommendations into practical suggestions on practical issues. First, from the point of view of the men going into prison, I wish to comment on one remark of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor: that men who have intelligence, ability and money in the last resort pay; therefore there must be a sanction. I agree. I also totally agree with the historical survey given by the noble Lord, proving that often the debtors who go to prison are in the end those who are inadequate and who will never profit from prison. They learn nothing and come out worse than when they went in. The wives gain nothing because they receive nothing when the man is in prison and they certainly receive nothing afterwards.
Concerning the children, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that they must be considered, although if a man is not paying, he is not paying. One cannot altogether invoke the welfare of the children in the argument. I cannot forbear saying to the noble Lord that I used to take two small boys aged 10 and 12 to visit their father in Winchester Prison. When I got them home, the other children asked, "Where have you been?" One small boy said, "We've been to see our father; he lives in a big house". Children sometimes look at things in a different way from the way we look at them.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships what happened to the mentally inadequates during the time when I worked as a director of social services, and before that. These people could nevertheless be helped if they were kept in the community. I imagine this still happens, but then all local authorities in England ran industrial training units. When I worked in Oxford we ran such a unit for the men who could not hold down a job, who were inadequate and could not manage their monetary affairs. We put them in the industrial training unit, we approached British Leyland and asked for a contract for the men to carry out simple mechanical jobs in that unit. British Leyland paid us, or the men, for the work that they did under supervision in the unit. At the same time, the men lived in a hostel, well supervised, and were cared for and
806
looked after. After a while, not all but a proportion of the men were able to leave the industrial training unit and take their place in society.
Perhaps I may transpose that suggestion into the Bill and base it on the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. I see that there must be a sanction, but perhaps it would be possible to set up a unit and persuade industry to co-operate and provide a simple mechanical job which could be carried out within the unit. Perhaps hostels could be set up nearby where the men could live. We would then be in line with the National Health Service and Community Care Act allowing for men to stay in the community. The children would not suffer because their fathers would be in the community and could be visited; but they were not in prison.
I am sure my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will say that this would be costly. However, I am quite sure that it would be possible to deal with this matter in the voluntary sector. I would point out to the Committee that two outstanding people in Birmingham were worried about the treatment of men who are child sexual abusers. Those two people were worried that those men were being sent to prison and were not receiving the help they were entitled to. Those two people set up the Gracewell Institute in Birmingham. That institute was a voluntary initiative. It has been a success and the offenders have been looked after and helped in the institute. So far as I am aware, not one of the men discharged from the institute has committed a further offence.
If we could transpose the industrial training unit into our penal system, it would help men to work and they would earn money which would help maintain their wives. A certain proportion of the men would be rehabilitated and could live with their families. Such a system would be an asset to the children of those men and it would save prison places for other offenders. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has said, it costs £321 a week to keep someone in prison. I believe that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, on the academic and intellectual grounds mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and on the practical recommendations I have made, which I feel could be carried out in our society today.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, for his learned tour de force—I hope I may put it that way—in opposing this clause. We must also be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for giving us the benefit of her long and detailed experience of these matters. I find it incredible that this provision on imprisonment should be contained in the Bill. The Criminal Justice Bill is before the Chamber at the present time and has received its Second Reading. That Bill states in Clause 1(2):
"Subject to subsection (3) below, the court shall not—"
I emphasise"not"—
"pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion—
(a) that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one other offence associated with it, was so serious—"
I underline the word"serious"—
"that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence; or

807
(b) where the offence is a violent or sexual offence, that only such a sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm".
In this Bill we are bracketing parents who do not pay maintenance with serious offenders and sexual offenders. We cannot do any worse than that. Frankly, it is quite abhorrent to me that we should seek to do so. At the same time as we are telling magistrates and judges in the Criminal Justice Bill that they must not sentence people to a term of imprisonment except for serious offences, we are saying in this Bill that people may be sent to prison for a purely domestic offence.
I must ask the Government and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether a term of imprisonment will wipe out the debt that we are discussing. That is not clear to me. It is not stated that a term of imprisonment will wipe out a debt that has already accrued. I ask the noble and learned Lord: what will be the position as regards further maintenance payments which will accrue while someone is in prison? Will those be set against the offender, and will he have to pay those maintenance payments while he is in prison and is not earning any money? Are maintenance payment defaulters to be incarcerated with thieves, muggers, rapists and the like? If that is the case, is it not likely that inadequate people in particular—such as the people referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—and normal decent human beings will be led into a life of serious crime by association with the perpetrators of serious crime?
When those people come out of prison, will they be more or less likely to obtain a job as a result of that experience? It will be essential that they obtain a job if they are to decide to pay the maintenance which may be ordered against them, or any arrears of maintenance. Frankly, it is absurd and cruel to include this clause in the Bill. I cannot believe that in his heart of hearts the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor really believes that this is a just provision. If the noble and learned Lord believes that the provision is just at this stage, I hope he will think deeply about it after tonight. I am sure he will do that.
There are and must be alternatives to prison. Prison will not solve this problem. On an earlier amendment, I suggested the use of community service orders. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has suggested alternatives, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. There are alternatives and I urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Government to seriously consider the alternatives. I hope that we shall not divide on this issue tonight. I believe that has already been indicated. Nevertheless I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us on Report that the Government have had second thoughts and that they will take this odious provision out of the Bill and include either the alternatives that have been suggested or alternatives of their own.
Lord Prys-Davies: I can in no way add to the authoritative, impressive and powerful contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. As a member of the Payne Committee and the Finer Committee, the noble Lord is uniquely qualified to
808
give guidance to the Committee on how we should approach Clause 32. I have also listened to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I respect her immense practical experience in this matter. I understand that, in general, she goes along with the thrust of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, although she has certain reservations. The noble Baroness has proposed a constructive solution to this problem. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will feel able to give sympathetic consideration to that suggestion. From these Benches I am more than content to adopt the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, on economic, social and moral grounds. In our view there is no case for investing the Bill with the aura of criminality.
A few hours ago I referred to certain provisions in earlier legislation which contained a power for a magistrates' court to make a community service order in lieu of a warrant of commitment in certain circumstances. During the dinner break I went to the Library and I am able to refer the Committee to the reference. It is contained in Halshury's Laws of England, volume 13, paragraph 442. I should be doing a disservice to the Committee if I were to attempt to traverse that ground.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: I shall not gild the lily by expanding on the eloquent and powerful arguments of my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris. I should like to take up two other points. One is the question of a sanction. We on these Benches entirely agree that there must be a sanction for defaulting fathers who do not pay maintenance. We contend not that there should be no sanction, but that this is the wrong one.
1 was extremely interested in the suggestions offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, which seemed to be entirely along the most appropriate lines. We should certainly be very interested in hearing more about them.
I also want to comment very briefly on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, about the potential contradiction between this and the Criminal Justice Bill. I have remarked before that this Government seem to suffer from the lack of what the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, described as a halfback line. There does not seem to be anyone who considers the effect of one policy on another. It might be a good idea if someone did before the Bill reaches the statute book.
The Lord Chancellor: Since the point is fresh in my mind, I shall take up the last point made by the noble Earl. There is indeed a halfback line in this Government, certainly in relation to matters connected with the powers of the courts.
It is important to set out the position regarding service orders and the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull concerning the industrial training centre. That is a valuable initiative. However, those are not sanctions which can be used without the person's consent. One needs agreement to submit to

809
community service. No doubt in the case of industrial training there was no question of compulsion, the people concerned agreed to go and work there.
Baroness Faithfull: My noble and learned friend said with regard to my recommendation that there was no element of compulsion. I believe that I am right in saying that there was compulsion under the Mental Health Act.
The Lord Chancellor: In that case there was compulsion under the Mental Health Act; that would not be available in this situation. An element of compulsion was necessary in order to secure the agreement of the person to go to the industrial training centre. The powers under the Mental Health Act would not entitle anyone to force those people to go to the industrial training centre; but I assume that they agreed to go there in preference to going anywhere else.
The question of compulsion under the Mental Health Act does not arise here. We are assuming that in this case the person in question is wilfully in default as a result of culpable neglect. Therefore the clause as drafted precludes the sending to prison of people who would answer the description given by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that there must be a sanction to enforce payment. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, agreed. It is impossible to enforce community service or any such positive action as punishment under any provision; it must always be with consent. I believe that that is the provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred. I am not aware of an express power to provide community service as an alternative to a warrant where one is trying to achieve the coercive result of a warrant.
The purpose of the provision is not to put people in prison, it is to ensure that people who have the means to do so pay what they are required to pay in order to maintain their children. We do not want to have people in prison but we want to make sure that people do not readily refuse to pay. I entirely agree with my noble friend and with the noble Earl that a sanction is required. Otherwise there will be a situation in which someone may have plenty of money but it is impossible to lay hands on it.
Prison should be available as a last resort. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, appears to be approaching the matter as if we were creating the power to imprison in isolation from the general law. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has so clearly pointed out, that is not the position. Notwithstanding the eloquent testimony of the Payne Committee and the Finer Committee, the present law in respect of maintenance is that the prison sanction exists. We have therefore thought it right to maintain that sanction in this Bill in terms which are extremely carefully delimited.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, questioned the effectiveness of that sanction. The figures that I have tell me that in 1989 25,150 enforcement proceedings were discontinued because the arrears were paid in
810
full, the warrant was cancelled or not issued. That represented 30 per cent. of all applications for enforcement. That figure suggests that the ultimate sanction of imprisonment is effective in securing payment. These are maintenance debtors under the existing law, but they have nothing to do with this Bill.
Against the general background of the law as it stands this is appropriate, but it is very severely fenced around in order to make it difficult to use except in what I would describe as the typical case. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was referring to people who are actually in prison in the situation which he described. I certainly think that the way this new clause is drafted would make it quite impossible for somebody to be put into prison simply because they were inadequate, unable to manage their affairs or unable to respond to their obligations.
This is an entirely different situation from that in which people are in prison as punishment for a criminal offence. I see no inconsistency whatever between the policy under the Criminal Justice Bill, which I thoroughly support as representing a proper policy, and the policy of having imprisonment as an ultimate sanction in the case of a wilful refusal to pay maintenance for one's children.
The community service orders are only available as a penalty for criminal offences and on the basis that the person prefers, in effect, to do community service rather than go to prison. However, I want to emphasise, because I entirely share the feelings of your Lordships about these matters, that the Bill makes plain that prison is a last resort. There is no question of prison being used as a way of, as it were, paying off the debt. The debt will not be wiped out. The purpose of imprisonment in the case of a person who is wilfully refusing to pay is to oblige him to pay the debt. It is a deterrent, only to be invoked in the last resort when all other efforts to obtain maintenance payments have been made.
The liable person will not be committed to prison until he has had the opportunity to be heard by the court and to give a full account of his circumstances. The court will be required to determine that the person has deliberately refused or culpably neglected to make payment of the maintenance debt. In other words, the court cannot commit the person to prison unless it is satisfied that the person has the means to pay, that the money is there and that the only obstacle is obstinacy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Tam much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. I think I heard him correctly when he said that a term of imprisonment will not wipe out the debt. In that case we now have a situation where a thief will have his debt to society wiped out by a term of imprisonment but somebody who does not pay his maintenance will be imprisoned, which is a punishment as well as a sanction. However, the original offence will still remain and perhaps will even be exacerbated by the fact that while in prison that person will accrue further maintenance debt because he will have had no funds to pay the maintenance. That seems to me to be a very unfair situation.
The Lord Chancellor: With the greatest possible respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, he is confusing two different situations. When a person is sent to prison for an offence, that is intended as a punishment for an offence which is past. The facts have emerged; he can do nothing more about it; he has committed the offence and he cannot take it back. I remember reading when I was a little younger that theft is not wiped out by restitution, however complete, or by repentance, however early. So there is no question of repentance so far as that is concerned —obviously repentance is taken into account in mitigation—but there is a past offence of which the person concerned is guilty, and punishment comes along later. That is not the situation.
We are now dealing with a person who has money and is in a position to pay the required maintenance but deliberately refuses to do so. The court is entitled to use imprisonment in order to persuade him to meet his obligation to pay. All that he has to do to avoid going to prison is pay the maintenance. Where a person has committed an offence, such as theft, burglary, or a similar offence, he has committed that offence in the past before a sentence is pronounced. It is beyond his power to recall that. It is a totally different situation and the noble Lord is not comparing like with like.
I have to say that the general law allows this provision, notwithstanding the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, or what is said in the Payne or the Finer Reports. All we are doing is adapting it to this type of situation, with stringent safeguards and, I hope, efficient methods of securing payment. It will be a last resort only available if all other methods fail, and if the refusal to pay is absolutely deliberate or due to culpable neglect: not just neglect, not just inadequacy, not just inability to give one's proper attention to the matter, but culpable, blameworthy neglect, or wilful refusal.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Suppose this fellow who does not pay his maintenance is gaoled for six months, comes out of prison and continues to refuse to pay maintenance. Does that mean he will go back to prison? How many times can this happen? He could be in prison for life under these provisions.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble Lord said, there are ultimate amounts of imprisonment, but the purpose of it is to seek to secure his agreement to pay. The noble Lord knows very well that magistrates would wish to be actuated by the same sort of motives as he. I do not think that in the situation that we are in these days there is any question of magistrates wishing to put people in prison just for the sake of doing so. The purpose of it has to be taken into account, and the ultimate idea of the sanction is to produce payment.
I do not believe that there is any likelihood of any substantial period of imprisonment arising from this clause. The present maxima in other fields are comparatively small as compared with the sort of term that the noble Lord refers to. The point of it is that the
812
existence of the sanction produces the result. The need to use the sanction is almost nil, but if you take away the sanction altogether you will produce the result where there is nothing you can do.
A person has plenty of money. You cannot get at it because he has it in such a way that it is not possible to attach it by any of the ordinary means by which property is attached, and he just laughs in your face. He has three children very in need of support from him, he has plenty of resources, but is unwilling to devote it to his children, and you cannot do anything about it. That is the sort of situation that this clause is designed to cure.
Baroness Faithfull: Where in the Bill does it say that only men who have money to pay will go to prison? I have not found that. It looks as though there are two sets of people who do not pay who are going to be treated differently. If a man has money and he will not pay, the final sanction is prison. If a man is inadequate and psychopathic, what is the sanction for him? Are there two different channels for dealing with these two types of people?
The Lord Chancellor: Obviously if a person has inadequacy, if there is something wrong with him, he has some mental trouble and cannot pay, then this sanction does not apply. May I refer my noble friend to the clause we are dealing with. It says in Clause 32(2):
"On any such application the court shall (in the presence of the liable person)"—
that is, the person has to be present—
"inquire as to—

(a) the liable person's means; and

(b) whether there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on his part."

If the person is suffering from some mental trouble as a result of which he is unable to come to any conclusion on these matters, that certainly would not apply. I would not have thought that a sanction of this kind would be appropriate for such a person.
Then, at the top of page 23 it says:
"If, but only if"—
in other words, the restriction is only to that situation—
"the court is of the opinion that there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the liable person it may—(a) issue a warrant".
It is clear from that that you can only have culpable neglect or wilful refusal if the liable person's means are adequate to discharge his obligation of maintenance. That is the only situation in which a warrant of imprisonment is competent.
Of course there is no obligation on the court to impose it. They would have regard to all the circumstances in imposing it. They have of course the power, if they think that bringing it a little closer may be the idea, to go under (b) and fix a term but postpone the issue, and in other words say, "Unless you pay within a certain time this is what will happen to you". That brings it close to the person and is usually successful.
Baroness Faithfull: I am sorry to pursue this argument, but if we had a penal institution of the type that I described, why could not the man who would

813
not pay, but who could pay, go to that institution and be earning money so that he could and would have to pay his wife? Such a scheme would be far less expensive. It would restrict the man's liberty. It would be a much more positive way to treat the man than sending him to prison.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend may be thinking of a rather good prison in which there is fine work of an engineering kind and rather more pay than one receives in the ordinary prison system. However, one needs compulsion to send the person there. One cannot send someone to prison or any other institution without compulsion. One needs a power to send the person there.
If prisons run by the voluntary sector are provided, that may be possible under the system. At present, apart from such sanctions as seizing the person's assets, and so on, the only institution available to which one can be committed by compulsion, apart from mental institutions, is prison.
Baroness Faithfull: I am sorry to pursue the matter. Under the maintenance Bill that we passed recently, if a man has money it will be possible to make an attachment of earnings order or to instruct him to make a debit on his bank account. Why did we pass that Act if such provision will not be used in this instance?
The Lord Chancellor: Prison is to be used only if the other methods of enforcement fail. All the other methods will be available. I shall certainly consider whether the present enforcement methods can be strengthened. There are other possibilities. In Scotland we have an arrestment of bank accounts. I believe that it may be possible to replicate that in England by a garnishee order for which there is not yet special provision, and possibly a charging order on real property.
This provision is to operate only where all other methods have failed. The methods under the maintenance Bill that we have now passed from this Chamber are methods of getting at the person's earnings. But people may be in a position to pay and yet are not earning. They may derive their money from other sources than employment.
I believe that I have said all that I reasonably can. I am only wearying the Committee. I commend that Clause 32 stand part of the Bill.
Lord McGregor of Durris: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he stated first that the scheme of the noble Baroness—which I thought pointed in admirable directions—cannot be considered because there is no power of compulsion in the Bill. There are many powers of compulsion in the Bill. If the noble Baroness's ideas are sound, I am at a loss to understand why a necessary power could not be put into the Bill.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord speaks as though the powers of dealing with maintenance defaulters who wilfully refuse or culpably neglect to pay, are somehow a novelty introduced into the law by
814
this Bill. They have been part of our law since the report of the Fischer Williams Committee in 1937. There is nothing new about those powers.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. That is exactly what I was saying. I am not under the impression that the position is new; quite the opposite. I am saying that it is part of the general law adapted for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord McGregor of Durris: Exactly so, but every committee that has considered debt has had to face up to the problem of contumacity. What the Payne Committee said, and what the Government accepted when they enacted its recommendations about civil debt, was that we must have a machinery for extracting money from contumacious people. The state cannot accept that somebody has the money but will not pay and therefore must be put in prison. For heaven's sake, let us extract the money as we do in respect of all civil debts!
The last point that I believe it essential to make is that the noble and learned Lord spoke of 30 per cent. of the cases of suspended committals producing the money—
The Lord Chancellor: It is 30 per cent. of all applications for enforcement.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I and people who are concerned in this area know that where there is a threat of imprisonment one of the reasons why the money is not paid is that the person threatened with committal goes to loan sharks and borrows the money, or gets it from his relatives if he does not have it. The essence of this matter is that those who have the money but will not pay always get away with it, because they know the rules and never put themselves into the position of being committed.
I am profoundly distressed by the noble and learned Lord's reply. I had hoped that he would be willing to consider the removal from the statute book at long last of this particular sanction. As he is not, I shall certainly return to the matter at a later stage—
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble Lord sits down, I understand that one cannot compel somebody to operate in a situation where he is required to do something. One cannot force labour; one cannot force somebody to go to an institution in order to work, as my noble friend suggested. One must first obtain his consent because he is required to agree.
Obviously this is an important matter. We are dealing with the general law, as the noble Lord said. I shall consider all that has been said and wonder whether there is anything further that we can do to strengthen the other enforcement procedures under the Bill. Even when all others are in use, and when all else has failed, the ultimate sanction might well be in that direction. I shall consider everything said by the noble Lords, Lord McGregor, Lord Stoddart and Lord Prys-Davies and my noble friend.
Lord McGregor of Durris: The noble and learned Lord has greatly over-simplified the problem of dealing with contumacity. We have no knowledge of the personalities of the people who are involved. Until

815
we have that knowledge we cannot elaborate effectively on the procedures for dealing with it. All the committees that have dealt with the matter have said that it is an area in which the liberty of the subject is seriously involved.
The opinion of those committees was not properly regarded by lay magistrates, who will be operating the system under the Bill. If one compares the number of committals made by professional judges applying this test with those made by lay magistrates, the result is most worrying. In Scotland, for example, the sheriffs make three or five committals in default of alimony in the course of three or four years. The English magistrates make several hundred.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, will move the amendment formally because I do not believe that it was discussed with the previous amendment and I wish to make a few comments on it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Amendment No. 117 is not moved. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could make his point when speaking to his Amendment No. 117A. I should remind the Committee that if this is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 118.
Clause 34 [Special cases]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: As I have been given the opportunity to do so, I shall ask the noble and learned Lord to look favourably on Amendment No. 117. It raises a point which is different from the one discussed by the Committee in the long debate on the previous amendment.
I should like to make two points on that amendment. First, it is a rule of practice although not a rule of law that the courts will not enforce arrears which are more than 12 months distant. Secondly, the common law has elaborate schemes to appropriate payments towards debts. My noble and learned friend will be fully cognisant of those.
However, this Bill is extraordinary. One of the ways in which it is extraordinary is that under Clause 37(2) (c) the Secretary of State is seeking power to appropriate payments towards arrears as he chooses. Taking those two matters together, I ask my noble and learned friend, who is not in a very receptive mood this evening, to look favourably on Amendment No. 117, which does not raise any point which has so far been discussed.
As regards Amendment No. 117A, it formally asks for the excision of Clause 34(2). It gives examples of the sort of regulation which can be made in particularity of the general power given in the previous subsection. The Renton Committee recommended this method of drafting; in other words, the giving of examples. I am bound to say that that seems
816
to me preferable to the system which has endeared itself to the heart of the noble and learned Lord; namely, taking a general power and then setting out endlessly particularities of that general power.
The Secretary of State may make regulations directing grandmothers to suck eggs. In particular he may make regulations as to which end of the egg shall be pierced, what implement shall be used in piercing the egg, and so on endlessly. We have many examples of that in the Children Bill and again in this Bill. This Bill is very much superior.
I ask my noble and learned friend what he considers to be the effect of subsection (2) on subsection (1). Does he agree that, as a matter of construction, regulations may only be made under subsection (1) which are of the same sort as or sui generis with subsection (2)? If so, that would be superior to the method of drafting cherished so dearly by the noble and learned Lord through so many Bills.
Perhaps I could mention one other point at this time rather than on clause stand part. All the regulations in this clause are subject to the negative procedure, except under subsection (4). It is a curious way of drafting when under subsection (3) the Secretary of State is given a general power to make regulations to provide, "with respect to special cases" and under subsection (4) the regulations "may in particular" and those are rightly subject to affirmative resolution. I ask the noble and learned Lord what is envisaged over and above subsection (4) by way of regulations made under subsection (3). Why are they subject only to negative procedure? I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I note what the noble and learned Lord says in regard to Amendment No. 117. My noble and learned friend will read carefully what he had to say. Perhaps in passing I could say that my noble and learned friend is always in a receptive mood and particularly so tonight.
I would not argue with the aim that clauses should not be longer than necessary. However, a balance must be struck between brevity and the need to indicate what the legislation is doing. In this instance, by adding subsection (2) it was our intention to be as helpful as possible in setting out the sort of case where some modification of the maintenance formula may be necessary.
Although that may not be strictly necessary it is worth doing. Without subsection (2) it is not clear what kind of case we would want covered by the clause. The inclusion of subsection (2) is particularly important in view of the powers that the noble and learned Lord mentioned which are given to the Secretary of State in subsections (3) and (4) to modify any provision made by or under the Act which, as the noble and learned Lord said, would be by affirmative procedures. On previous occasions the Chamber has expressed the wish to know more about what we intend to put into regulations. That is exactly what we are doing in subsection (2). Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his Amendment No. 117A.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very grateful for the very clear reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley.

817
I hope that I did not suggest that subsection (2) was not a useful method of drafting. On the contrary, it is more useful than the alternative method.
I have one question on a point of law. In the opinion of my noble and learned friend is subsection (1), in view of the drafting of subsection (2), to be read as subject to the ejusdem generis rule? If that is so, it is a very important and valuable limitation. However, what then is the sanction for seeing that regulations under subsection (1) do not go beyond regulations which are ejusdem generis as regards subsection (2)? Is the sanction judicial or purely parliamentary? If it is parliamentary should it not be subject to affirmative resolution?
The Lord Chancellor: With the permission of my noble friend perhaps I may answer that point. As I see it, the situation is that the ejusdem generis rule would not apply because it is clearly stated in subsection (2) that these are examples. I believe that the judicial review is available to control the exercise of such powers on the lines of cases, such as that of Padfield, dealt with in your Lordships' House. The court would look to see what the purpose was to be abstracted from the Act of Parliament in granting the power. It would allow power to he exercised which would be only an implement in pursuance of that purpose.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I cannot see why the fact that subsection (2) is drafted in an exemplary form rules out the application of the ejusdem generis rule to subsection (1), but at ten minutes to ten o'clock it is no time of night to discuss a recondite point of law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Contribution to maintenance by deduction from benefit]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 25, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Where an absent parent is on income support he will be zero-rated for maintenance purposes.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to ensure that an absent parent on income support will not contribute to maintenance. The idea of deducting a sum from the benefit of an absent parent on income support appears to us to be rather harsh. At the same time it offers little real benefit to the child. It is important that the principle of financial liability towards the children should be recognised. We feel that that can be achieved if the deduction is left in the system but zero-rated, rather like the VAT system, while the absent parent remains on income support.
Absent parents who are on income support have by definition only a subsistence income on which to support themselves and to maintain contact with the children. We understand that the Government propose to deduct a sum for maintenance from the subsistence income even though the income support entitlement of the absent parent takes no account of his maintenance payments or any other expenses.
818
That is unfair and could perhaps result in a backlash against the idea of maintenance in general and the lone parent in particular.
As income support is set at such a low level, the amounts of money that a one-parent family will receive from the absent parent who is on income support will be very small. We believe that, for the lone parent and the children. the disadvantages of a possible backlash of resentment from the absent parent will outweigh the advantages of a very small maintenance payment.
However, as I have said, the principle of maintenance is an important one. Where the absent parent is on income support, his liability for maintenance should he recognised; but, as I have said, the payment should be zero-rated. This would mean that the child support agency would hold information on the absent parent when he found work. The calculation and enforcement of maintenance could then proceed. Income support is designed to cater for individual subsistence and nothing more. Any deductions would not only cause hardship to the absent parent but would also be at such a low level as to produce only a negligible increase in income for the caring parent and the children.
If payments by absent parents on income support are introduced, they should be used only as a method of ensuring that all absent parents are covered by the new system. The useful analogy is with the VAT system, whereby one is in the system but is zero-rated. One is not actually involved in payment but one can be picked up automatically as income increases. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has outlined very clearly the reasons why we tabled this amendment. Amendments are often overtaken by events and sometimes become less significant. This amendment has become a good deal more significant as a result of the assertion of my noble kinsman Lord Henley last Thursday in Committee (at col. 543 of the Official Report) that income support was not a subsistence benefit. I must admit I found that a rather surprising claim and it is one of very direct relevance to this amendment. We tabled this amendment in the belief that income support is a subsistence benefit. That was precisely why we were arguing, as the Social Security Advisory Committee has argued, that a 5 per cent. deprivation is not a notional sum and places a heavier burden on those in receipt of income support than they are able to stand.
I have been aware for quite a long time that there was a widespread feeling, both among groups involved with issues of poverty and among academics working in the field, that income support is actually below the proper level of a subsistence benefit. Most providentially, as it happens, a study on precisely this point by Dr. Sean Stitt of Newcastle-upon-Tyne polytechnic has been published today and reported in today's Independent. I was able to get some details of it at five o'clock this afternoon. That has developed a very powerful case indeed for arguing that income support is below subsistence levels. Dr. Stitt came to

819
the conclusion on food that income support was providing something between 40 and 52 per cent. of a subsistence level, depending on which figures for an adequate level of diet one took. The standards of diet on which he relied were those drawn up since 1979 by the Department of Health and Social Security, wearing its health hat. As he observed, this indicates a gross duality of standards.
The standard the Department of Health was using was levels of diet below which deficiency might develop. He found a similar picture with energy, where, again, he was relying, it seems, quite heavily, on government figures developed by the Energy Efficiency Office of the Department of Energy. It is estimated that there is available under income support £9.75 for heating, whereas it seems the amount needed for those using gas would be £14.27, or using oil, £26.33. It would help to explain why the Government have had so much trouble over cold weather payments. The report makes the point that houses occupied by those less well-off tend to be less well-insulated and therefore less energy efficient. That underlines the point that insulation may actually save money for the Government.
As regards clothing, Dr. Stitt found that the amount provided on income support was between 18 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the amount recommended by the National Foster Care Association. Therefore, he has made a very powerful case which will need to be taken into account when we are considering whether the levels of income support are too low, and that they are perhaps below subsistence level.
That information makes it rather difficult for my noble kinsman to argue that income support is above subsistence level. It also makes it rather difficult for him to argue that parents can spare 5 per cent. out of their income support to pay maintenance payments. Further, it makes it difficult for him to oppose this amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have given notice that I intend to oppose the fact that Clause 35 should stand part of the Bill. However, at this time of night it would be much more helpful if I were to speak to this amendment. As we have already heard, Clause 35 proposes to make deductions from the state benefits of parents who are separated from their children.
I must say that not only do I find that provision to be mean minded, but I also find it to be self-defeating in that the people whom it will hurt are the children. Once again, we have reached a point where the Government are taking action which is bound to hurt the children and not the parents. That is not the intention of the Bill. The White Paper proposal means that income support will be reduced for those parents unfortunate enough to be divorced and unemployed. Those two aspects of life often go hand in hand.
As I understand it, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations affecting any benefit, including disablement benefit, invalidity benefit, invalidity care allowance, mobility allowance, sick pay, family credit, and no doubt maternity allowances for absent mothers. However, if I am wrong in that assumption the Minister will put me right.
820
What is proposed does not go hand in hand with the caring society about which we have heard so much recently and which I frankly believe the Prime Minister wishes to put into operation. The proposition is in conflict with those ideas. I wonder whether the Prime Minister knows what is going on as regards this Bill. Perhaps I should send him a copy of the Hansard report of the proceedings so that he may understand what is happening.
Income support is supposed to be the minimum income necessary to maintain life above poverty level. I believe that very few of us in this Chamber understand what it means to live on income support. We have no concept of what it is like to live on such an amount, let alone what it is like to have £3, £4, £7 or £8 deducted from that sum. It is a catastrophe for families living in such circumstances. I urge the Minister and the Government to take account of that fact.
It seems to me that the clause discriminates against separated parents. As I understand it, parents with children in care do not have any deduction made. Indeed, under the Social Security Act a parent is not liable to contribute during any period when he is in receipt of income support or family credit if the child is in local authority care. Therefore, why on earth should a person who is separated, but maintaining his children, have a deduction of 5 per cent. made against his income support? It does not seem to add up. However, it may be that this is an aspect which has been overlooked. Perhaps the Minister will pay attention to that point and give me a reply. I support the amendment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I shall add just a sentence to what my noble friend Lord Russell said. Other data have been published recently by the King Edward VII Trust which support the paper that he was citing. I hope the Minister will accept that there is evidence that income support is too low, and will therefore be willing to accept the amendment.
Lord Henley: My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will obviously read everything the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said. I am sure that he always takes considerable notice of what he says. There is an important issue of principle involved here. The legal and moral obligations on parents who are in receipt of income support are the same as those on other parents. They are responsible for maintaining their children. I am glad to see that the amendment, unlike the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to strike out the clause, recognises that to an extent by proposing zero rating.
It is important that the responsibility for maintenance should be established straight away not least so that liability can be clearly established in readiness for if and when circumstances change. In principle, all parents should make some contribution to their child's maintenance. So when a parent who is fit and able to work receives income support, we propose to make a small deduction of £2 per week at 1991 rates as a contribution towards child maintenance.

821
I take issue with my noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord McGregor, about the adequacy of income support. Income support is not, and has never been said to be, a subsistence benefit, providing scarcely enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested, to keep body and soul together. As I explained last Tuesday, there are many occasions upon which we and all right-minded people believe it to be right to make deductions from income support and other social security benefits. It is right to do so on this occasion.
My noble kinsman mentioned the research conducted by Dr. Stitt of Newcastle Polytechnic. I am grateful to him for giving me warning that he was going to raise the matter. I am aware of the article published this morning in the Independent and the Guardian. I have of course not yet been able to study the report in detail, but I was pleased to see the press release attached to the report. As I have not studied the report in detail, I obviously cannot comment, but if it is based on Dr. Stitt's previous work, I should say that we do not accept many of his initial assumptions about the amounts included in benefit rates for food, fuel and so forth. For example, on diet, there is no reason why people receiving income support should be unable to follow a normal, healthy diet.
Although it is true that income support rates are intended to cover all normal day-to-day living expenses, they do not include, as my noble kinsman seemed to be suggesting, separate amounts for specified items of expenditure. There is no amount specified in income support for heating, lighting and so on, as he seemed to suggest. My noble kinsman mentioned the lack of insulation in many of the homes of the less well off. I refer him to the debates that we had last year on the Social Security Bill, although I cannot remember which clause (or which section of the Act as it now is) enabled my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy to make grants for insulation to the less well off.
We propose to make some deductions towards child maintenance. Other deductions can be made from income support, as Members of the Committee will know, for example, to meet arrears of fuel bills and in future towards the payment of fines. However, the current ceiling on deductions, which is intended to protect claimants from excessive deductions, will continue to apply, as also will a strict order of precedence which ensures that the most essential expenditures have priority. A deduction for maintenance will take its place in this list. It will come after deductions to meet housing costs and other essential expenses such as fuel. These items will appear in the exempt income of someone who is working, so it is right that they should take precedence over maintenance payments. However, maintenance will come above payments due to, for example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, such as the recovery of overpayments or repayments to the social fund.
Other parents on income support will have their liability established, but their contributions to maintenance will be zero-rated so that no deduction
822
will be made from income support in their case unless their circumstances change. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about these. They will be those parents who are sick or disabled and unable to work or those who have dependent children for whom they are also claiming income support. Zero-rating, as I have already implied, does not mean that there is no responsibility. On the contrary it means that responsibility has been established but that we accept that in the particular circumstances a zero rate is the most appropriate course.
We do not believe that it would be right for all absent parents on income support to be zero-rated. In particular, we think it right that an absent parent who is fit and able to work and who does not have responsibility for bringing up children should make a small contribution to maintenance so that he makes a start to meeting his responsibility for his children. I hope that with that understanding the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman will accept that we are going a long way towards meeting the objectives of their amendment.
I do not accept that this provision is in any way harsh. It establishes liability and ensures that a parent who is single or a partner in a couple with no children and who is fit and able to work, while receiving income support is honouring his responsibility—and it is only those people whom we are talking about—for the maintenance of his children in the same way as anyone else. I therefore hope that the noble Lord and my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: I accept that in academic terms deciding precisely what is a standard of subsistence is difficult. In querying Dr. Stitt's criteria for this, however, my noble kinsman was not only a little ungenerous, he was also a little unwise. What struck me most forcibly about that research is that the criteria used are almost entirely those developed within various departments of Her Majesty's Government since 1979. So if my noble kinsman believes that they are unreliable, perhaps something should be done about it.
Lord Henley: I should be loth to comment at this stage on my noble kinsman's remarks because I have not looked carefully at the evidence from Dr. Stitt. However, one should be careful, since some of the figures on which Dr. Stitt's evidence is based date back to the old supplementary benefit days and do not relate to what we have now with income support.
Earl Russell: I admit that that point had already struck me. However, it seems to me that Dr. Stitt has taken evidence across a range of dates covering both benefits. As I understand it, my noble kinsman complained of the standard of classification, not the precise figures for particular dates. I have in front of me the section on this which is taken from the Department of Health's recommended daily amounts of food, energy and nutrients for groups of people in the UK. It is published by the Department of Health and Social Security so perhaps my noble kinsman is

823
unwise to run it down so forcibly. Perhaps there should be a little internal consultation here, but clearly, we cannot pursue the matter much further tonight.
I wish to ask my noble kinsman another question. He has drawn attention to differences of academic standards. Can he quote any piece of academic research which agrees with his argument that income support is above subsistence levels?
Lord Henley: We have absolutely no evidence that people cannot manage on income support and on other comparable benefits.
Lord Carter: This is all extremely depressing. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a powerful case. Although the Minister did his best to rubbish the evidence, he did not succeed. What is achieved by all this except to introduce aggravation into what is already a difficult situation? The sums involved are tiny and the Government have at least accepted the analogy of the VAT system and the zero-rating. Therefore the principle of liability is accepted; it is a matter of who is relieved of the liability. I do not wish to take up any more of the Committee's time. All I can say is that I feel Mr. Gradgrind would be very much at home on the Government Front Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 120:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Maintenance disregard for calculation of benefit entitlement
—Where the person with care is in receipt of income support, family credit or housing benefit, such a sum of maintenance as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State shall be disregarded in calculating that person's entitlement to any of these benefits.).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that maintenance paid by absent parents on behalf of children whose carers receive income support will go towards the care of the children. I hope that we shall have a little more success with this amendment than we did on the previous one. By way of introduction I have referred to the care of the children or the welfare of the child. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on the first day of the Committee stage when I moved an amendment to make the welfare of the child a paramount consideration in the Bill:
"It may be possible to introduce something which would show that the whole idea of maintenance is for the benefit of the child. I shall consider whether we can do something of that nature". —[Official Report, 14/3/91; co1.341]
What we are trying to achieve with this amendment is a better overall level of maintenance payments by the use of incentives rather than punishment. However, after the experience of the previous amendment, I am not too sure whether we shall be successful. Knowing that part of the maintenance received will go to benefit children is likely to encourage absent parents to contribute voluntarily and caring parents to assist in making contact with absent parents to determine maintenance assessments. We know that any maintenance received will be
824
deducted, pound for pound, from their benefit, as the Bill stands. This will not only fail to benefit the children for whom this measure is intended, but it will needlessly add to the pressures faced by caring parents and will exacerbate already difficult relationships.
In Australia child maintenance is disregarded, partly or wholly, in the calculation of benefit entitlements by ensuring that in every case where the caring parent is in receipt of income support the children will stand to benefit from any maintenance payments made on their behalf. I emphasise that we are talking about maintenance payments made on their behalf. That seems entirely justified when the overriding aims of the Bill are to improve arrangements for child support and to make the welfare of the child paramount.
We appreciate that the introduction of what might be termed a maintenance disregard will have some cost implications, but a positive incentive of this nature could increase the overall amount of maintenance paid and thus offset some of the additional cost. However, in any case, the consideration of any additional cost must be set against the welfare of children and the protection of those children. Establishing the basis for positive maintenance arrangements which are entered into voluntarily will certainly improve the prospects of achieving better relationships between separated parents. It will also ensure a greater commitment on the part of absent parents towards their children and it will not threaten any hopes of reconciliation where the future of the relationship is uncertain. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: In putting down this amendment, the noble Lord has recognised the influence that features within the benefit system can have in helping those on benefit to work and thus be better off. We recognise that parents who wish to work should be encouraged to achieve greater independence and we are concerned to help caring parents. Lone parents can have particular difficulties to overcome when making decisions about work, having to combine on their own the role of breadwinner with the responsibility of caring for their children.
In the White Paper Children Come First we announced that we propose to introduce a £15 maintenance disregard in family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit, which are benefits available to people who are in work and on low earnings. I noticed that the amendment includes income support, family credit and housing benefit but for some reason known only to the noble Lord does not include community charge benefit or disability working allowance. I leave it to the noble Lord to explain why he decided to include some benefits and to leave out others.
The disregard that we have announced for family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit is intended to help parents who are caring for children to work if they wish to do so. As I said, we propose to extend the disregard to disability working allowance. It will be introduced by amendments to social security regulations. That is because the rules of those in-work

825
benefit schemes, including how income is to be treated and other disregards, are contained in social security regulations.
The maintenance disregards already announced do not include a disregard in respect of income support. We considered very carefully whether maintenance should in any way be disregarded for caring parents in receipt of income support and concluded that it should not. If custodial parents were to receive maintenance in addition to income support payments then the custodial parent would have to earn a higher salary to be as well off in work; so it would act as a disincentive to going to work and further frustrate the ambitions which the parents have for themselves.
In addition, the extension of the £15 disregard to income support would also have the considerable cost of an additional £180 million a year. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I shall have to read with some care what the noble Lord said because we are dealing with a complicated issue. I do not propose to extend the debate on the amendment at this time of the evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 121:
Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Review of family credit entitlement
. In section 20(6) of the Social Security Act 1986, after the words"change of circumstances" there shall be inserted the words"other than a change resulting from a review under section 15 of the Child Support Act 1991,"").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Under the maintenance proposals there will be a review of maintenance where circumstances change. We can see no reason for not also reviewing the family credit arrangements at the same time to take into account the changed income from maintenance. Perhaps the Minister can explain why that should not be the case. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I accept that this is a probing amendment. It appears to have the effect of requiring reassessment of the family credit award only in respect of a change arising from a review of maintenance. In other words, all other changes of circumstance which had occurred since the start of the 26-week award period would be ignored. That could lead to some rather bizarre situations where the family credit had to be reassessed to reflect quite a small change in the amount of maintenance but no regard could be had to much more significant changes which had taken place, such as a change—up or down—in earnings or a change in the composition of the family.
I do not believe that that double standard in responding to changes in circumstance would be justified, and yet the alternative would be to have regard to all changes as and when they occurred, which would change the fundamental basis of the family credit scheme. As the noble Lord knows, once one receives one's payment for 26 weeks it is paid for 26 weeks and does not change whether one's earnings
826
from employment or self-employment go up or down. The amendment would therefore introduce an unnecessary complication.
Lord Carter: I understand the point that the noble Lord made. As I said, it is a probing amendment to establish why that was the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 122:
Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Absent parent claiming family credit
. In section 22(8) of the Social Security Act 1986, at the end there shall be added the words ", provided that in the calculation of the income of a person claiming family credit who is an absent parent within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Child Support Act 1991, there shall be deducted the amount of any child support maintenance that he is liable to pay under the provisions of that Act"").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the amendment is to back up the principle stated in the White Paper that no useful purpose is served by shifting the first family off income support if in the process the second family is shifted on to income support. The amendment refers to the family credit entitlement of second families. In the assessment of eligibility for family credit of second families no account is being taken of maintenance payments under the Bill.
This again is a case of dealing with notional income when we should be dealing with real income, because the income which is going on maintenance is clearly not available for the second family. Therefore it is going to have the effect of shifting the second family on occasion below the benefit level. I shall not again go into the argument about the adequacy of benefit level; but it clearly applies here also, and it is important that in the end we get that right.
The other point of importance which arises here is the possibility of a disincentive to work, because if you do not get family credit and you are paying maintenance you may end up working and getting an amount of money which is below benefit level. I think it is a principle of government policy that people ought not to be worse off as a result of working. That is a principle in which I can see a good deal of sense and one which I think this amendment would help to uphold. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: I was pleased to add my name to this amendment and when the Minister replies I should be grateful if he could deal with the point that many second families will find themselves with a low disposable income after maintenance had been paid and yet they will not be entitled to family credit because income will be too high. This seems to be an anomaly and the amendment would deal with that situation.
Lord Henley: In putting down this amendment, I believe that the noble Lords have been seeking to change the rules of the family credit scheme so that income used to pay maintenance is ignored when calculating family credit entitlement. That would

827
mean that the absent parent receiving family credit would get extra family credit equivalent to the maintenance they were liable to pay.
We recognise it is right that the taxpayer should help to maintain children when their own parents, despite their own best efforts, do not have the resources to do so. However, it is not right that taxpayers, who include other families, should shoulder this responsibility instead of the parents who are able to do so themselves. The provisions of this Bill are intended to ensure that parents meet their legal, moral and financial responsibilities for their children wherever they can afford to do so. An important aim of the new system is to ensure consistency of treatment between people in similar financial circumstances. For example, we do not think it is right that the benefits system should provide help towards the cost of maintenance through the family credit scheme. This would be unfair to absent parents who have the same level of income entirely from earnings; for example, as between a family whose income from earnings are £130 a week and another whose income comprised £125 earnings and £5 family credit per week.
We accept that occasionally there will be circumstances where inescapable financial obligations mean that if an absent parent has to meet both those and the amount of maintenance calculated under the formula, his income would be close to or below that which he would receive on income support. So there is provision for a protected level of income to make sure this does not happen. Nevertheless, if noble Lords are still convinced that there might possibly be occasions when second families are going to be worse off I shall certainly take a look at that; but a protected level of income should make sure that this does not happen.
On top of all this, I have to say that the amendment itself makes even more generous provision to the absent parent, since it provides for his family credit to reflect the amount of maintenance that he is liable to pay and not the amount he is actually paying. Thus family credit would be assessed on the amount he was supposed to pay and would continue—family credit being a benefit, as I said earlier, awarded at a fixed rate for 26 weeks—whether or not he actually paid any maintenance at all to the parent who has care of the child. I hope, with that explanation and that assurance, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to my noble kinsman for his willingness to look at that issue again. The point at issue between us is beginning to get a good deal narrower. We agree with the principle as my noble kinsman stated it, that absent parents should pay for their children when they can afford to do so. The point at issue then narrows down, as to whether they can afford to do so. We need to look at the question of the level of protected income, and whether this will be achieved under this arrangement that the Government propose.
It is essential in making any new system work that there should be a certain modicum of goodwill towards its operation. If we had an effect of impoverishing the second families it could tend to breed what happens easily enough anyway, and that is
828
a growing resentment between the first and second families. That cannot be in the interests of the child. Now we have narrowed down the issue to a point which can be discussed in a limited and practical way, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, while thanking my noble kinsman for his willingness to look at it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 25, line 41, leave out ("or the person with care (or by both)").
The noble Lord said: I would also speak to Amendment No. 124. Both amendments are supported by the Law Society and by a large number of voluntary organisations. The object of the amendments is to ensure that where the Secretary of State takes action under Clauses 3, 5 or 6 to collect or to enforce maintenance payments, he is only able to charge fees against the absent parent. It would be inequitable for the Secretary of State to be able to charge fees to a child, or a person with care, for any services carried out.
As the need for any of these services should arise only if the absent parent is in default, he or she should be liable to pay the fees. As well as being fairer these amendments would probably provide an incentive for the liable parent to pay the maintenance promptly and regularly, and thus avoid the circumstances where the agency would be obliged to take action against another. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As the Committee will be aware, we intend to intervene as little as possible in what is essentially a private matter between two individuals. In general, the best arrangement for the payment of child maintenance is, where possible, a wholly private and effective financial arrangement between the individuals involved. Where it is possible for a wholly private arrangement to be made, it is not appropriate for private individuals to pass on the responsibility for making such arrangements to the taxpayer, if they are able to do so, without contributing to the cost incurred by the taxpayer.
The charging of fees to both the parties involved in a maintenance assessment will provide an incentive for them to explore the possibilities of making a private arrangement. If they are unable to make a mutually satisfactory arrangement, then either party may apply to the child support agency. It is reasonable that, in such circumstances, the parties could be asked to make a contribution to the agency's costs if they are in a position to do so.
It would not be reasonable to charge fees to persons with care who are obliged, as a result of claiming certain benefits, to make an application under Clause 5 of this Bill. The exemption in Clause 36(3) (a) will cover all such persons. That is to say, there is an obligation there, in Clause 36(3) (a), on the Secretary of State to make exempting provisions in that case.
It will also cover any party to a maintenance assessment who is in receipt of those benefits. We are also looking at whether there may be additional circumstances in which exemptions to the charges might apply.

829
We are also concerned that a person with care, or the child if applying himself under the provisions of Clause 6 for Scotland, should not bear the cost of the additional action taken against an absent parent who demonstrates reluctance to comply with his responsibilities. We are considering, for inclusion in regulations, ways by which the absent parent can be held responsible for the full cost of any fee to cover action taken to enforce payment, as distinct from determining the amount of it.
In that situation what we have done is to say that if somebody applies for a maintenance assessment, then that person should have to pay for it unless they are exempt under the exemptions. On the other hand, where there is a default and execution is required, then the person who has caused that would be responsible; namely, the person against whom the payment is taken. That seems a fair arrangement. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the explanation. I confess that my attention had not been drawn to Clause 36(3)(a). The Lord Chancellor makes the point very clearly, that distinction will be drawn between making the assessment and taking proceedings in order to enforce the order.
In the light of that response, it may be that those who have instructed us will wish to reconsider the position. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 125A:
Page 26, line 37, after ("10(2)") insert ("26, 29(4), 32(8)").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 125B and 125C. However, I wish to proceed in the way that is convenient to my noble and learned friend. He indicates that I continue. Perhaps he will stop me at any amendment which he is prepared to accept.
The Lord Chancellor: It may help my noble and learned friend if I say that I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 125B.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. In Amendment No. 125A there is a mistake which has already been referred to. Clause 29(4) should read Clause 29(7). I drew attention to it at the time that we discussed that clause. I sought advice on the way with which it should be dealt. I was advised that a convenient course would be to ask the Committee to treat it as a printer's error. However, I cannot do so without telling the Committee that the error arose through my failure to read my own handwriting in my notes. But if the Committee is
830
content, as my noble and learned friend is kind enough to indicate, I should like to proceed in that way with due apologies.
The amendments concern the upgrading of the negative resolution procedure to the positive affirmative resolution procedure. As the Committee knows, this is an important parliamentary point. Under the negative procedure there is the disadvantage that in another place orders are frequently not reached. When they are reached it is often generally at a very inconvenient hour. In both Houses the advantage of the affirmative resolution is that the Minister explains why he needs the order, and its purport; with the negative procedure he replies only at the end of the debate. It is universally accepted that the affirmative procedure affords far better parliamentary control. That was made clear by the Joint Select Committee on delegated legislation of the Session 1972–73. I imagine that it will not be controverted.
The criteria were set out by that committee. I shall read only the headings. The affirmative resolutions should relate, first, to powers substantially affecting the provisions of an Act or Acts of Parliament. The committee contrasted those with provisions of a trivial or tidying up character. The second heading related to the powers to impose financial charges or make other forms of financial provision. The third related to miscellaneous provisions involving considerations of special importance. I find it impossible to see on what principle the Bill proceeds to differentiate between the affirmative or the negative provision or to see any scheme in relation to the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee.
There is another way of looking at the issue. If it is a matter which Parliament is unlikely to wish to discuss, it is reasonable to dispense with any parliamentary control. Secondly, if it is possible that the regulations will be subject to discussion at the wish of Parliament, the negative resolution is suitable. But if it is probable that Parliament will want to discuss the matter, it should be subject to the affirmative resolution. Whether one applies the criteria of the Joint Select Committee or those that I have just suggested, in my respectful submission all these provisions identified in my amendment should be the subject of affirmative resolutions.
When I was dealing with the difficulty of finding either rhyme or reason we passed over an amendment tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate which drew attention to the extraordinary divergence of view between the draftsmen or officials—probably both—of the Scottish provision and the draftsmen or officials of English provision. Those referred to in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord which was not moved are exactly the same. However, the Scottish provision is rightly subject to the affirmative resolution, whereas exactly the same English provision is subject only to the negative procedure. That is consistent with the derogation from parliamentary control which is one of the marks of this Bill. Having said that, I shall turn to the specific

831
provisions. The first is as regards Clause 26—regulations as to deductions from earnings. Is that the one which the noble and learned Lord accepts?
The Lord Chancellor: It may help the noble and learned Lord if I tell him that I am willing to consider the application of the affirmative resolution procedure to the powers under Clauses 29(7) and 32(8). I am willing to accept it in respect of Clause 34(4), which the noble and learned Lord wishes to change to Clause 34. I am willing to accept Amendment No. 125B. Otherwise, I am inclined to leave matters as they stand.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. That should shorten matters. Clause 26 deals with regulations as to the deduction of earnings. Clearly, that falls within the mischief of the second head of the Select Committee's criteria. In my submission, it also clearly falls within the way I put the matter; namely, it is a matter which Parliament will probably wish to discuss. I do not know whether Members of the Committee wish me to go more closely into the provisions of Clause 26. I believe that the noble and learned Lord accepts my point as regards Clause 29(7) so I shall say no more about that.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall consider it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble and learned Lord accept my point in relation to Clause 32(8)?
The Lord Chancellor: I shall consider it in relation to Clauses 29(7) and 32(8).
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am content with that. That is a dispensing power of a statutory provision such as James II claimed and was rejected firmly at the Glorious Revolution. I am sorry to see it creeping in again here. However, I shall contentedly leave the matter to the mature consideration of the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: I am content to consider Amendment No. 125C for the sake of brevity.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: That deals with regulations about incidental, supplemental and transitional powers. It is a Henry VIII clause but it falls well within the justification for Henry VIII clauses as pronounced by the noble and learned Lord on Tuesday. I believe that that may have met with the approbation of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is sufficient to say that, being a Henry VIII clause, it should certainly be subject to affirmative resolution. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I have indicated my position as regards these matters except in relation to Clauses 26 and 37. As regards Clause 26, very similar provisions are already contained in the Community Charges Administration and Enforcement Regulations which were made under the negative resolution procedure. I consider Clause 37 to be an incidental type of power, and the negative resolution procedure is appropriate.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In regard to the first powers referred to by my noble and learned friend, the mere fact that it escaped parliamentary vigilance once is no reason at all, and is contrary to parliamentary and constitutional procedure, why your Lordships should again condone the example. I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider the matter carefully.
With regard to Clause 37, it is sufficient to say that it is a Henry VIII clause; in other words, it gives ministerial power to legislate to supplement an Act of Parliament to arrogate powers that are normally vouchsafed, that ever since 1689 have been vouchsafed to Parliament. The very least that can be done, even if one said that that was a proper use of Henry VIII powers, is to proceed by way of affirmative resolution.
Having said that, I hope that I shall have some support before I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall be brief. I hope that I can speak in general to Clause 38, if that is convenient to the Committee. Clearly there has been considerable disquiet that the Bill relies so heavily on regulations in order to give it direction. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor anticipated the criticism when he presented the Bill to the Chamber some weeks ago, when he acknowledged that the Bill contained an unusually larger number of regulation-making powers. He advanced the usual defence that at this time the legislation is necessary to allow for adjustments to be made in the light of experience without needing to find the precious time for primary legislation.
We listened with considerable interest to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. There are at least two main difficulties with this kind of legislation. The committee on the preparation of legislation under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, drew attention to the first difficulty as far back as 1976, when he pointed out that despite the requirements of statutory instruments procedure, the control of Parliament over the detail of legislation is nevertheless diminished.
Distinction is drawn between the affirmative and negative resolution, but as I understand it, even with the affirmative resolution—subject to correction—the Chamber is not entitled to amend the subsequent regulations when they turn up; certainly we may reject them, but that would be contrary to the conventions of the Chamber.
Another difficulty is that we are all familiar with situations which seem at the outset to be matters of detail, or even minor detail, but which grow into major questions. At this stage of the Bill we are unable to say whether or not a matter which is deemed to be a matter of detail is a matter of detail. We have not seen the regulations even in draft form and therefore have no means of forming a valid judgment of whether or not the matter included in the regulations is a matter of principle which should be incorporated or inserted in the Bill.
Before passing the clause I thought it appropriate to remind ourselves of the inadequacy of the statutory

833
instruments procedure for mounting an effective challenge to subsequent regulations, short of throwing them out, and that is not our convention.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. This is a Bill of profound social importance and we are now on matters of high constitutional importance. It is nearly 11 o'clock. It is a parliamentary indecency that we should have to discuss these matters at this hour of night in an empty Chamber. With that objection, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 125B:
Page 26, line 37, leave out ("34(4)") and insert ("34").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125C not moved.]
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Financial Provisions]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 27, line 14, at end insert:
("(2) The Secretary of State shall make an annual report on expected costs and savings in the coming year and actual costs and savings in the past year.").
The noble Lord said: The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill states:
"The improved arrangements for the assessment and payment of maintenance which are provided by the Bill are expected to produce a reduction of an estimated £400 million per year in social security benefit expenditure from the Consolidated Fund".
That is a substantial sum and we know that that is what the Bill is all about. We feel that it is a high figure given the social aims of the legislation. The amendment will allow the review of both expenditure and savings expected in the coming year and the actual costs and savings in the past year. I am sure that the Government will wish to accept this amendment so that they can make clear whether the expected savings arrive. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is too brief for me—
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying a brief word in support of this amendment. One of the principal arguments for this Bill throughout has been the saving of public money which the Government imagine will arise from it. Many of us are a little doubtful whether it will be quite as large as they suppose. One of the big underlying differences in the whole of our debates has been about the degree of rationality which is assumed. Throughout the Government have assumed that the penalty will deter because that is the rational, economic way to behave. Curiously enough, that unwarranted assumption of rationality is something which Conservatives have often thrown against the other side of the House. This time it seems that the boot is on the other foot.
Since there is here a really major difference about human behaviour as well as about the effectiveness of
834
the Bill, it would be nice to know in due course which of us was right. That is why I am happy to support this amendment.
Lord Henley: I was about to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that he was too brief if he wished me to accept this amendment to which my noble kinsman added a few extra words. As this amendment suggests, we recognise the importance of an annual report detailing accounts of the agency. I can give the assurances that I gave as regards another amendment last Tuesday, or possibly last Thursday, to reassure the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will require the chief executive of the agency to submit and publish an annual report and accounts.
My right honourable friend will also ensure that such information is available through the annual departmental report which replaced the department's contribution to the public expenditure White Paper; or it will also be available in the business plan and report of the chief executive of the child support agency. These will be published. In the light of those assurances I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I was brief because the amendment was so sensible. I was extremely pleased to get that answer from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No.127 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should just like to say what a useful mode of drafting this kind of provision is. We had it in the Road Traffic Bill of this Session. It seems to be a great improvement and a great simplification in the way of interpretation.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Meaning of"child"]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I wish to ask one or two questions. I do not want to suggest far fetched situations which could cause the draftsman to go to elaborate provisions to cover them. However, I find some difficulty with the definition in subsection (2) of "child" or, rather, who is not a child.
Under subsection (1) an infant may in certain circumstances still be a statutory child up to the age of 19, but he is not a child, nevertheless, under subsection (2) if he is or has been married. The age of consent for marriage in England, and I think Scotland, is 16. I do not know why someone marrying between the ages of 16 and 19 should be taken out of the benefit of this Bill.
Perhaps my point on paragraph (b) is more remote. The paragraph states,
"has celebrated a marriage which is void".
I do not know how frequent it is—I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, will know—for

835
marriages of those under 16 to be celebrated. They would be void, and I cannot at the moment see why a young person who celebrates a marriage under the age of 16 which is void should again be deprived of the benefits of the Bill. There is also the case of people who are married under the age of 16 in countries where marriage under the age of 16 is valid or are domiciled in countries where marriage under the age of 16 is valid. There are many countries where marriage is valid over the age of 12 or 14, as it was under Canon Law and as is the case in some civil law countries. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend can help about those instances.
The Lord Chancellor: The principle behind the exclusion is that those who are or have been married are no longer to be regarded as dependent on their parents for the purposes of this Bill, having regard to the scope of the Bill and the formula. The idea is that, on marriage, they come out of the family of their parents and may thereby accept mutual responsibilities with their spouse. The situation is a different one from that of a child dependent on his or her parents.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I say that he told me what I knew; namely, that people who marry over the age of 16 and under the age of 19 are taken out of the provisions of the Bill. That is exactly what the subsection states. I ventured to ask why that was so, and particularly why, if they go through a void marriage at the age of 15, they should be deprived of the benefits of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that my noble and learned friend misheard me. I said that the theory behind the exclusion is that when someone gets married he or she is no longer to be regarded as being dependent upon their parents with an automatic right of support under the formula arrangement. Of course the fact that the marriage turns out to be void does not damage that principle: they have departed from being in the family unit with their parents. That is the principle behind this exclusion.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 36, line 34, at end insert:
("The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (c.37)
. In section 4 (amount of aliment) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, at the end there shall be added—
"(4) Where a court makes an award of aliment in an action brought by or on behalf of a child under the age of 16 years, it may include in that award such provision as it considers to be in all the circumstances reasonable in respect of the expenses mentioned in subsection (5) below.
(5) The expenses mentioned in subsection (4) above are any expenses incurred wholly or partly by the person having care of the child for the purpose of caring for the child. " ").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment provides that when making an award of maintenance to the child under Section 4 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 the court may, if it considers it to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, include an clement for the expenses incurred by the person having care of the child in caring for that child. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Shard Bridge Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes before eleven o'clock.

  PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES DETECTION:ICAO CONVENTION
  PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES DETECTION:ICAO CONVENTION
  MONTSERRAT: AID
  MONTSERRAT: AID
  PEERS LOBBY: CEILING
  PEERS LOBBY: CEILING
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 18th MARCH
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 18th MARCH
  SCHOOL STANDARD ASSESSMENTS: TIMING ESTIMATE
  SCHOOL STANDARD ASSESSMENTS: TIMING ESTIMATE
  SCHOOL STANDARD ASSESSMENTS: MATHS AND SCIENCE
  SCHOOL STANDARD ASSESSMENTS: MATHS AND SCIENCE
  SCHOOL STANDARD ASSESSMENTS: COST ESTIMATES
  SCHOOL STANDARD ASSESSMENTS: COST ESTIMATES
  CONTINENCE SERVICES: POLICY REVIEW
  CONTINENCE SERVICES: POLICY REVIEW
  ST. THOMAS' HOSPITAL
  ST. THOMAS' HOSPITAL