Sitting of 27 March 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Litter
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of progress in respect of the litter problem under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I am in no doubt that the litter provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which represent the most comprehensive package of measures ever introduced by any British Government to deal with the problem of litter, will lead to a visible improvement in the standard of cleanliness of our streets and open spaces. We will monitor the effectiveness of the legislation when it is all in place, which should be in about three months' time. I welcome the Tidy Britain Group's initiative to hold a national spring clean from 19 to 28 April.
    Mr. Shepherd: I welcome warmly the initiative that my hon. Friend mentioned and I appreciate that money has been made available to the Tidy Britain Group to help the national spring clean week. May it go well. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that, despite the powers provided under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, we still have a profusion of supermarket trolleys littering residential areas, town centres and car parks? Will he knock some heads together among local authorities and supermarket operators so that we get sensible mechanisms for controlling this wretched nuisance?
    Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the further commercial that he has given to national spring clean week. I am anxious that everyone should play a part in helping us not only to clean up the country, but to ensure that it is kept clean. On his second point, the wanderlust of shopping trolleys is a feature of British life which has concerned me for a long time. We had lengthy debates during the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill and I sought to have it included in the Act. Section 99 allows local authorities to collect, store and dispose of abandoned shopping trolleys. As a result of that initiative and now that the law is in place, I am comforted
    940
    to see that more and more supermarkets are introducing new and ingenious technology to stop the trolleys wandering out of the perimeters of the land owned by the supermarket, although in recent months many of us have seen them end up in streams, waterways and motorways, though not in the fast lane. I am glad to say that the problem is slowly diminishing.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: We welcome the Tidy Britain Group week and hope that it will be a success. Will the Government admit that their 23-page code of practice, which introduces 11 category zones with three different types of road category, is a bureaucractic nightmare, made much worse for local authorities by desperate underfunding of all the provisions? The Government allowed about £50 million, but the metropolitan authorities alone reckon that they need £60 million to carry out their duties. Is not this another case of the Government setting desirable objectives, but failing lamentably in administration and finance to carry them out?
    Mr. Trippier: No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is obviously anxious to support the Tidy Britain Group's initiative of a national spring clean week and I welcome that. I remind him and the House that the code of practice, which has statutory backing, was put together not only by the Tidy Britain Group but by the local authority associations. Therefore, they had a hand in ensuring that the code was not a bureaucratic nightmare. The standards that I accept and for which I do not apologise are extremely high and can be met. On the hon. Gentleman's final point, it may be fairer for me to take the political sting out of the argument by comparing two Labour authorities in the north—Leeds, which is remarkably clean, and Manchester, whence I come, which is filthy. The question that the hon. Gentleman should address is how Leeds manages to keep its city clean while Manchester does not. As from next week, when the litter laws will bite, I can assure him that Manchester city will be more often in the dock than out.
    Mr. Speaker: May I ask for briefer answers as they seem to be taking a long time.

    Land Registers
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to consult the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors about the amount of public vacant and derelict land currently listed in the land registers.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): I am considering the RICS response to my Department's recent consultation paper as part of the Government's review of policy relating to vacant public land.
    Analysis of land use changes has shown that in the past few years 45 per cent. of all land developed for new housing has been vacant or recycled land in urban areas, and in the south-east the proportion is even higher: 57 per cent. in 1988. We must continue to see that the potential of vacant land in our cities is properly used, to help meet housing need and to stop the unnecessary use of green-field sites.

    941
    My officials are currently looking in detail at the Secretary of State's register for London and the south-east to see what potential the sites on it may have for housing use.
    Mr. Summerson: My hon. Friend will be aware that much of the impetus in tackling difficult sites comes from a partnership between the private and public sectors. When he next consults the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors will he take a fresh look at the proliferation of Government regulations that are threatening to inhibit the setting up of such partnerships? On that occasion, will he stress the utility of derelict land grant for realising the potential of difficult sites, even in districts of high land value?
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his two suggestions. Yes, we shall look at any bureaucratic problems that are in the way of the derelict land grant. The city action teams and task forces that operate in many of the districts involved are there precisely to overcome such problems. On my hon. Friend's second question, £88 million of derelict land grant will be available next year—a useful 20 per cent. increase on the amount available this year.
    Mr. Nellist: Just before Christmas the Land Registry opened its records to anyone who wants to inquire about ownership of land or property, subject to a small fee. Does not the Minister think, therefore, that it would be a good idea for his Department to encourage councils and provide the finance to assist them to approach the Land Registry to find out about derelict or unoccupied land or houses so that the hundreds, if not thousands, of houses in every town and city could be taken over by councils and used to ease the housing shortage?
    Sir George Young: As the private Member who introduced the Bill on opening up access to the Land Registry, I am grateful for the support that I had from the Opposition. Before the local authorities use the Land Registry for the purpose described by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), perhaps they should look at the empty properties already in their ownership. They should bring them back into use before persecuting people in the private sector.
    Mr. Steen: As the economy is picking up, it is clear that more housing will be needed and will be built on land throughout Britain. Does my hon. Friend agree that as there are still 88,000 acres of vacant, derelict, dormant and underused land on the Land Registry, the Government should introduce some private sector involvement to get rid of that land? They should direct developers to develop on that derelict and vacant land before building on green-field sites, particularly in the south and south-east where there is great pressure to destroy more and more of our green and pleasant countryside.
    Sir George Young: It is precisely for that reason that I have asked my officials to look specifically at land on the Land Registry in London and the south-east that might be used for housing to see whether we can make faster progress in meeting some of the housing demand in the south-east without impinging on the green fields to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) rightly gave priority.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to abolish the community charge by April 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I announced on 21 March the Government's intention to replace the community charge by a new local tax with two essential elements—the number of adults in a household and the value of the property—and that we shall consult on the basis that the new tax could be in place in 1993–94.
    Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have a Secretary of State who is dithering like the Prime Minister. I remember when he wrote on the back of that envelope about his objectives, but he has dithered and jithered and he has not got there. What I want to tell the Secretary of State is——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Ask him a question, please.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware—I will tell him this—that if he does not achieve his objective we shall do it after the next election?
    Mr. Heseltine: There is no need for the Opposition to wait that long—they can join us in consulting and help to take the matter forward now.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the labyrinthine proposals put forward by the Labour party in place of the community charge make his own look clear and simple, and that the Opposition's proposals would destroy the privacy and freedom of the individual with a mesh of state control?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes important points which I dare say will be amplified as the House moves to later business. However, she will be encouraged to know that the chairmen of the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils have today come out strongly in support of my announcement last week.
    Mr. Gould: Is the Secretary of State aware that speculation is reaching fever pitch about some of the fundamental aspects of his two-tax proposal? For instance, is the poll tax element to be a flat rate tax, is the property element to be based on capital values, and what is the balance to be struck between the two? I know that in the current state of confusion and disarray it is difficult for the Secretary of State to offer answers to those simple questions, but may I offer him the possibility of giving us his best answer on any one of them of his own choice?
    Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's curiosity. I shall have to ask him to wait for two weeks, but he has kept the country waiting for 10 years.

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken with regard to councils which award contracts to their direct service organisations tendering significantly in excess of tenders from outside private contractors.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Under the Local

    943
    Government Act 1988, the Secretary of State has sanction powers which he may use if he considers that an authority has failed to comply with the statutory requirements for competitive tendering, including the requirement to avoid anti-competitive behaviour. We have used those sanction powers in the case of 22 local authorities, including some which, in our opinion, have rejected lower-priced external tenders without sound reasons.
    Mr. Butler: Is not it disgraceful that a Labour council such as Warrington should award its refuse contract to its direct services organisation despite the fact that its tender was £100,000 in excess of a private tender, and that a Labour council in Halton should award its refuse contract to its direct services organisation despite the fact that its tender was £175,000 above the outside tender? Is not that financial incompetence ripping off the poll tax payer?
    Mr. Key: Yes, it is. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the diligence that he has shown on behalf of his constituents. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Lady Blatch, has recently considered the case and agreed that the Department of the Environment should send an official letter to Warrington council saying that the Secretary of State considers that its decision was anti-competitive and that he is minded to use the sanction powers after 1 August 1991.

    Council House Rents
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend to Knowsley borough council the same assistance as he has given to the London borough of Ealing to keep clown the level of increase of council house rents.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): Any application from Knowsley borough council or from any other authority for a special determination of subsidy would be considered on its own merits.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does the Minister agree that the housing subsidy system is ridiculously complex and in a mess, and that the Government's attempts to bring council rents into line with market values have failed dismally, so that in the case of a borough such as Knowsley, which has significantly high rents and a high take-up of housing benefit, the inclusion of the cost of benefits in the calculation for housing subsidy has the effect of increasing those rents?
    Mr. Yeo: On the contrary, the housing subsidy system is extraordinarily simple and any difficulties that arise in Knowsley have nothing to do with the Government and everything to do with the incompetence of Knowsley borough council, whose record of housing mismanagement is bad even by the appalling standards of Labour-controlled authorities. On 1 April last year, more than 5 per cent. of Knowsley's housing stock was empty—the seventh worst performance out of 366 housing authorities. Its record of collecting rents was not much better. Last year it was the 28th worst authority out of the 366. Filling those voids and collecting those rents would help its housing revenue account. Instead of criticising the Government, the hon. Gentleman should advise his
    944
    constituents to vote for a Conservative council on 2 May so that it can start cleaning up the mess, just as the newly elected Ealing Conservative council did last May.
    Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the answer. Is not the way to keep down the level of rents to make a determined effort to collect them in the first place?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Following our introduction of a ring-fenced housing revenue account last April, there is an enormous incentive for authorities to be efficient. I am glad to say that the vast majority of Conservative councils are responding extremely well.
    Mr. George Howarth: I think that the Minister should be aware that many of his successors in that job, of which there have indeed been many, met Knowsley workers and are well aware that, by agreement with the Department, the number of voids are high because they are being held for improvement. Without throwing any bricks at the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), if every authority in the country, irrespective of political control, had been subject to the same arrangements as the Conservative-controlled borough of Ealing, the level of increase in council house rents would have been far smaller throughout the country. The Minister cannot evade that fact. The Government are being highly selective about whom they help and whom they do not help. It will not buy them any votes—certainly not in Knowsley, or in Ealing.
    Mr. Yeo: I should explain to the House that my hon. Friend the Minister played no part in discussions held in the Department regarding Ealing borough council—discussions which, incidentally, led to our refusal of Ealing's request for additional subsidy. Ealing faced the problem of inheriting exceptionally difficult conditions from the Labour council in May last year—a projected housing revenue account deficit of £25 million. Even after we allowed the council to bring forward £5 million from 1992–93 into 1991–92—money which will have to be repaid in the following year—its rent increase exceeds the guideline rent increase by more than any other local authority in the country.
    Mr. John Marshall: As a former Ealing councillor, may I ask whether my hon. Friend finds it strange that the Labour Front Bench wants the increase to be even greater?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. If it were not for how highly we value his services in this place, I dare say that he would still be doing a valuable job on Ealing borough council.

    Irreversible Development
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider bringing forward proposals to make irreversible development, carried out without planning consent, a criminal offence.
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend considers that the concept of irreversible development, carried out unlawfully, is an unsatisfactory basis for a criminal offence.
    Mr. McAvoy: Surely the Minister accepts that this issue concerns both sides of the House, not least his hon. Friend

    945
    the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)? Does he accept that in the case of opencast mining, where the effects are disastrous it should be regarded as a criminal offence?
    Sir George Young: Opencast mining is not irreversible. It is relatively easy to infill and make good an area after opencast mining. The hon. Member has not chosen a very good example. We debated the matter at length on an amendment in Standing Committee and at the end of the debate on the amendment, it was withdrawn without a Division.
    Mr. Ground: Is it right that planning policy and the expediency of enforcing planning controls have hitherto been matters for local authorities and the Secretary of State, and not for the criminal courts? Do the Government wish to keep it that way?
    Sir George Young: My hon. and learned Friend puts the case very well. Those who are concerned with implementing planning legislation—the local government planning Bar and all the authorities concerned apart from district planning officers—agree with my hon. and learned Friend that criminalisation of planning matters is not the best way forward.

    House Repossessions
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Building Societies Association to discuss the level of house repossessions.
    Sir George Young: I have already discussed with the Building Societies Association and the Council of Mortgage Lenders ways in which repossession can be avoided, and will be meeting the CML again tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also be meeting the CML.
    Mr. McMaster: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Building Societies Association, will he apologise to him and, more importantly, to the millions who are struggling to pay their mortgages as a result of his policy of high interest rates and mortgage misery? What does he intend to do to help the people whom he encouraged to buy their homes, and who are now struggling to pay their mortgages? How will he help those whose homes are being repossessed? What will he do to help those whom he set up and whom he has now knocked down?
    Sir George Young: I am sure that all the people to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred will welcome the fall in interest rates, which will reduce the pressure on budgets. We should keep the matter in perspective—98·7 per cent. of those with mortgages are not six months or more behind with their payments.
    Mr. Hawkins: How would the Government react to building societies' participating in schemes to recycle repossessed properties into the private rented sector, making them available for letting to priority groups?
    Sir George Young: The Government would welcome any such initiative by building societies. I understand that one or two are considering taking such properties into their ownership and then putting them out to rent, perhaps to those in need.
    Mr. Soley: I do not think that the Minister intended to mislead the House, but the drop in interest rates will make no difference to most mortgage payers, as the Halifax building society itself pointed out recently.
    Mortgage repossession is the fastest-growing cause of homelessness in families. Will the Minister join me in pursuing an option advanced by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, together with certain housing associations and local authorities—the development of a mortgage rescue package designed to stop the dream of home ownership from turning into the nightmare of bed-and-breakfast accommodation paid for by the poll tax payer?
    Sir George Young: I think that most mortgage payers would take a slightly different view of the fall in interest rates from that advocated by the hon. Gentleman. His point about homelessness should also be seen in perspective: repossessions account for about 10 per cent. of homelessness—they are not a significant factor.
    As I have said, I will be meeting the Council of Mortgage Lenders tomorrow, and talking through with it some of its proposals to help families to avoid going into bed-and-breakfast accommodation after their homes have been repossessed.
    Mr. Latham: I have been a vice-president of the Building Societies Association for 10 years. When my hon. Friend meets the societies tomorrow, will he point out that some of them have been rather slow in bringing down their interest rates following the fall in wider interest rates? Is it not time that some of them responded rather more quickly to the needs of their mortgage payers?
    Sir George Young: I shall take a copy of today's Hansard to the meeting and show the societies my hon. Friend's question.

    BISF Houses
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any new proposals to assist BISF home owners.
    Mr. Yeo: No.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank the Minister for that useful reply.
    Does the Minister agree that there is widespread concern on both sides of the House about BISF and other defective housing, and the problems that it causes both for home owners and for those who rent? Does he agree that local authorities' maintenance budgets cannot cope with those problems, and will he assure the House that he will undertake a fresh examination of the designation of special defective houses?
    Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that I shall not do that. It is clear to us from the information now available that no case exists for designating BISF houses under the housing defects legislation. Any owner of a BISF house—or, indeed, any other house that is in poor condition—can apply for a mandatory renovation grant to bring his property up to standard, which may cover 100 per cent. of the cost. I do not think that any further reaction from the Government is called for.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Government's position on the poll tax.
    Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget a new grant to reduce community charges by £140 in 1991–92. I announced on 21 March that the community charge would be replaced at the earliest opportunity by a new local tax.
    Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside last night's debate, is the Secretary of State at all disappointed that surveys and polls have shown that the public—including members of the Conservative party—are no more enthusiastic about his proposed two-tax scheme, incorporating "son of poll tax", than they are about the existing poll tax scheme" As there seem to be as many proposals from the Conservative Benches for replacing the poll tax as there are Tory Members, why does the Secretary of State not admit frankly that the Tory party is hopelessly split on the issue and does not have a clue how to proceed?
    Mr. Heseltine: The one very clear message in the opinion polls is that the party to which I belong is eight points up on where it was three months ago. No wonder the Labour party is so worried.
    Mr. Fry: When my right hon. Friend introduces the new tax, will he abandon the very expensive register that has been such a heavy cost on local authorities, ignore the protests of the Labour party and have the courage to use the electoral register, setting it against the number of adults in a house?
    Mr. Heseltine: I must ask my hon. Friend to allow the consultation paper, which will cover these matters, to be published in the early part of April. Then we shall be able to examine both this and a number of other matters.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If and when the Secretary of State abolishes the poll tax and replaces it with his twin tax, what assurances will he be able to give to some of my constituents who live in a high-rated and high-value property in central London? The several adults who live in that property are either not earning or have minimal incomes. Will the new system be securely based on that household's ability to pay, not on other artificial criteria relating to property and the number of people, irrespective of income?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is wrong not to remember that we have announced clearly that the community charge will end by 1993 and that we shall replace it not with two taxes but with one. On his specific question, he can be very sure that we shall have those matters in mind.

    Humberside
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the final report from the Local Government Boundary Commission regarding the future of the county of Humberside.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I hope to receive the final report later this summer.
    Mr. Brown: If, when my hon. Friend receives that report, it should confirm the draft proposals that were announced last November to abolish the county of Humberside and at least transfer my constituency into the county of Lincolnshire, what will he do? If it says that Humberside county council should be kept, what will he do about that recommendation? Can he assure my constituents that, whatever happens, as a result of the statement made last Thursday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the sentence of death has been pronounced on the county of Humberside?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend tempts me to say things that would be very premature. Moreover, he has asked a series of leading hypothetical questions. I should like the Local Government Boundary Commission to publish its final report as soon as possible so that I can consider it as soon as possible.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister accept that what counts with many people in Humberside is the very high quality of the services provided by Humberside county council? Does he further accept that the original decision to review Humberside was political, since it was announced just before the Conservative local government conference? However, it gave them no political advantage, cost a great deal of money and caused much uncertainty. As there is now to be a national review, should not the local review be stopped so that an overall approach can be adopted? Surely that would be better than picking on one local authority.
    Mr. Portillo: Of course, I reject the idea that the origins of the inquiry were in any way political. It is perfectly clear to anyone who knows the area that the issue needs to be considered and that there have been strong expressions of public opinion on the matter. After all the work that has been done, it is important that the final report should be published so that my right hon. Friend and I can consider it.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Humberside report of the Local Government Boundary Commission is just one of several reports that are outstanding covering the Yorkshire area and other parts of the country? Given the announcement a few weeks ago that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission is about to start its next project, will my hon. Friend ensure that these local government reports are brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Portillo: That is desirable as a general principle. I do not believe that anything that my right hon. Friend has announced should inhibit the Local Government Boundary Commission in proceeding with its work speedily.

    Natural Environment (Eastern Europe)
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department is giving to east European nations' efforts to improve their natural environment.
    Mr. Trippier: My Department has provided advice and assistance to the Polish and Czech Environment Ministers and to officials from these and other east European countries during recent visits to the United Kingdom; we

    949
    have set up a new division with specific responsibility for environmental protection issues in Europe and have just completed a fact-finding mission to Poland; we are also working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a number of projects for Poland and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, funded by the know-how fund; and we are contributing to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's east European programme.
    Sir David Steel: What has happened to the register of pollution which the previous Secretary of State promised to the House last May? What steps have the Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry taken to ensure that, in the natural desire for industrial investment, we are not exporting environmentally substandard technology to eastern Europe?
    Mr. Trippier: We could not do that and I certainly give the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks on that point. I said in my substantive answer that we had had a number of official visits from some east European countries. I find it interesting and impressive that they choose to come to the United Kingdom to find out how we bring about environmental enhancement, principally through the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I hope that the register, which will be very elaborate in terms of the European Environmental Agency, will stretch far wider than the European Community and will incorporate central and eastern European countries, which will enable us all to do what we can to help with their problems.
    Sir John Stokes: In view of the forthcoming budget deficit, should not the Government consider carefully all overseas aid, however desirable?
    Mr. Trippier: What we are talking about on the substantive question is not necessarily supplying overseas aid to help with many projects, but ensuring that countries that need to enhance their environment are aware of the expertise that exists in western Europe. We have considerable expertise and we are happy to make it available to those countries when and if they need it.

    Waste (Landfill Sites)
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his policies to encourage local government to reduce the volume of waste deposited in landfill sites.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Our policies for encouraging waste minimalisation and recycling will help to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. In particular, the introduction of recycling credits under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will provide a market-based financial incentive to recycle domestic waste rather than send it for landfill.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he aware that if "This Common Inheritance", the huge tome published by a supposedly green Government, is to be little more than a waste of trees, he should be doing more to encourage capital expenditure on incineration and recycling plants which would materially reduce the amount of waste? If all waste were recycled, only 20 per
    950
    cent. would go into landfill. If that were to happen, it would help the residents of areas like Johnstown in my constituency, who are threatened with a huge site next to their homes. It would also affect the Pen-y-Bont works proposal which threatens the Dee, a water course serving the Wirral and the rest of Clwyd. Residents would be far better off and would be better served by recycling plants than by the threat of dumping.
    Mr. Baldry: We are making available £40 million of supplementary credits over the next three years for exactly the sort of projects that the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of potential landfill sites has been increased by quarries identified as a result of interim development orders designated between 1943 and 1948, even before sites of special scientific interest and other environmental designations existed? Will my hon. Friend bring forward the consultation paper on IDOs and ensure, as a result of the consultation, that environmental impact assessments are carried out on every IDO before development?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will have heard my hon. Friend's comments. I am sure that he will want to guarantee that the consultation process takes place efficiently and effectively and that the views of my hon. Friend are considered.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: When does the Secretary of State intend to publish a full timetable for the implementation of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990? Does he agree that, although many local authorities and voluntary bodies are co-operating and tackling problems extremely well, we need a national strategy for waste and that the Government are not providing that leadership?
    Mr. Baldry: We do have a national strategy for waste. It is set out in the Environmental Protection Act. But of course the final decision on the most appropriate facility for any area must lie with the waste disposal authority. I am sure that the hon. Lady would be the first to carp if we in Whitehall sought to take decisions that she thought would be far more appropriately taken by local authorities.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that it is absolute nonsense for waste, including industrial waste, to be transported 200 or 300 miles to be dumped in old quarries, as is proposed in north Wales? It is unacceptable to local communities to have other people's waste dumped on them. It is also unacceptable environmentally and because of the transport costs of carrying waste enormous distances. Surely a better answer can be found.
    Mr. Baldry: The higher standards and the higher costs that landfill sites will be required to meet under the Environmental Protection Act will also increase the competitiveness of other methods of waste disposal such as recycling. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that and I commend to him the paper on recycling credits published yesterday which makes that clear.

    Community Charge
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to abolish the community charge; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: Yesterday we debated legislation to reduce by £140 the community charge in 1991£92.
    We shall introduce at the earliest opportunity legislation to replace the community charge by a new local tax with two essential elements: the number of adults in a household and the value of the property.
    Mr. McKelvey: If the basis of the poll tax element of the head-home hybrid is to be a three-person family, how will a two-person family claim a rebate and how will the additional money be collected from a four, five or six-person family?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman got the assumption with which he started his question.
    Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that one aspect of the community charge that all sensible people like is the fact that it promotes accountability and comparability between authorities? Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that any replacement for the community charge will have a wide base of people paying it so that we continue to have sensible accountability and central comparability and so that we can show the inefficient Labour councils for what they are—disasters compared with the efficient Conservative councils?
    Mr. Portillo: It is certainly true that the present system has shown that to be the case. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the local tax that we are proposing contains two elements: the number of adults and the value of the property.
    Mr. Clelland: Does the Minister agree that one good reason for abolishing the poll tax is the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) yesterday when he said that the way in which other local electors could achieve the zero rate of poll tax now achieved in Wandsworth would be to vote Conservative? Is not that, by implication, saying to the voters of Wandsworth that the only way to retain a zero rate of poll tax or a 100 per cent. Government grant is by continuing to vote Tory? Is not that a warning to the electors of Wandsworth that they must continue to vote Tory or be bribed to vote otherwise? Is not that a most vile and corrupt expression from a Government Minister and should not he resign, along with his partners in crime?
    Mr. Portillo: As was explained to the House yesterday, Wandsworth gets less grant than do a number of Labour authorities. Unfortunately, several of those Labour authorities set very high community charges. Wandsworth manages with its grant alone under the new reduction and therefore does not need to set a community charge.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend ensure that under the new tax, which I welcome warmly, people will not be penalised for making internal improvements to their properties?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend will have to wait for the publication of the consultation document. He will have seen that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said that he is concerned to ensure that people are not penalised because of the area in which they live, which might disproportionately affect the value of their property.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister consider a bargain? Since Scotland went first in the experiment last time, can England go first next time? Scotland will experiment with a local income tax, which would be much more administratively feasible.
    Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Wales and for Scotland intend that the legislation should have effect in all three places at the same time.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what latest representations he has received about his review of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: Many people have welcomed our decision to reduce headline community charges by £140 in 1991–92 and to introduce a new local tax.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware of representations made yesterday by a group of parents from Warwickshire—a Tory shire for almost an entire century—against the capping and underfunding of that Tory authority by a Tory Government? In the words of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), the authority risks serious reductions in education provision for under-fives, the closing of homes for the elderly and the closing of facilities for people with learning difficulties. How are the people in that Tory shire to deal with the Government's financial strictures? Who is to blame for this crisis and how will it be put right?
    Mr. Portillo: The criteria for capping will be applied equally to authorities of whatever colour. One thing that will affect the level of services in any place is the number of people who have been willing to pay the community charge, and the hon. Gentleman is on weak ground on that point.
    Mr. Gill: Will my hon. Friend accept that true economy and proper accountability in local government will be achieved only where local authorities are made responsible for raising £l locally for every 100p that they spend? If that means transferring major functions away from local authorities, so be it.
    Mr. Portillo: I understand my hon. Friend's point. which is a powerful one. However, it is difficult to imagine that we could ever get away from a system that took account of the different needs of different areas as we make our grants to those areas. It is difficult to escape from a grant mechanism that takes account of needs.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister intend to apologise to the House for bothching the figures that he gave during the debate on the poll tax the other day? Before the Budget statement last week, when the £4¼ billion was announced, were there discussions within his Department on the position of local authorities sending out bills that were subsequently to become invalid? Were there discussions and was the Department aware of what was happening?
    Mr. Portillo: Of course, and if the hon. Gentleman had read my speech, he would have seen that I explained why those decisions had to be announced in the Budget. When I gave the figure I said that if it was wrong, I would come to the House the next day with the right figure, and that I did.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the number of people who will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme compared to those who benefited from transitional relief.
    Mr. Key: The effect of our recent announcement is that all charge payers will benefit from a general reduction in their bills of £140. In addition, about 16 million charge payers in England will also benefit from further help from the community charge reduction scheme. This is about 9 million more than under transitional relief.
    Mrs. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of the generous announcement made last week, not one of my constituents will have to pay a penny over £275? In addition, several thousand already stand to benefit from the community charge reduction scheme. Is not it important, so that people can budget, that they should know as soon as possible how much they will pay? Can my hon. Friend give me a general idea of when they can expect to receive their bills?
    Mr. Key: We have decided that the balance of funding of local authority services between central Government and local government should be changed. That must be welcome. The exact figures for any individual authority cannot be announced until we know what claims the authorities put into the Department of the Environment for the scheme.
    Mr. Tony Banks: For the record, will the Minister make it absolutely clear that the reduction will not be £140 for all poll tax payers? Those people on income support, who pay 20 per cent., will receive only £28 and after they have spent £1,100 on VAT-charged goods and services, they will be paying for that £28. For the record, too, will the Minister tell us when the poll tax flagship turned into a Tory millstone?
    Mr. Key: It must be remembered that the people saving £28 are asked to pay only 20 per cent. in the first place. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, our intention is that people should not find this tax too heavy a burden.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that most people want a certain degree of stability and security for the future? The old rating system took no account of the anomaly of the single-person household, as distinct from a household accommodating several wage earners. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that, with the further change, we shall not need to retain anything like a poll tax register?
    Mr. Key: The first point that must be made absolutely clear is that we are going into consultation. My hon. Friend will have to wait a couple of weeks to discover exactly what is in our mind.
    Mr. Blunkett: May we explore a little further the statement made on Monday by the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities in the debate on the money resolution relating to the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill? On that occasion, the Minister announced that 8 million people would benefit from the community charge reduction scheme. Less than 24 hours later, he was contradicted by the Secretary of State, who said that he was pleased to take the House a stage further
    954
    by telling us that, as a result of the arrangements that the Government were making, 16 million, rather than 8 million, people would benefit. Was not he aware that, in January, it had been announced that 18 million people would benefit? Did not he know that the scheme that was approved overnight actually reduces the benefit that is available through the community charge reduction scheme, reduces the benefit that is available through the rebate scheme and transfers money from the poor to the rich through the VAT increase? People with second homes will receive £428, whereas those on supplementary benefit will get only £28. It is a disgrace that the rich get more and the poor get less.
    Mr. Key: The only disgrace is that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the arithmetic. The important point is that, whereas under the old scheme 8 million people were helped, the outturn figure is now 16 million. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be delighted with that. The net extra grant to local authorities will amount to about £4·3 billion and we plan to make savings of £1·3 billion on community charge benefit and other reliefs. That has allowed us to make a number of improvements. It is increasingly strange that, in recent days, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has been more interested in preserving the status quo and protecting the vested interest lobbies of local government than in helping the people of this country.
    Mr. Sayeed: Now that the abolitionists are clearly in the ascendant, will the Government turn their attention to abolition of the county council in Avon, which is the most unnatural and unloved of counties? Is my hon. Friend aware that Avon county council, on which the socialists are the largest party, has consistently increased its community charge at a rate much higher than the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Key: I was in Bristol quite recently and I sympathise with my hon. Friend. This will be a matter for the local government commission that my right hon. Friend hopes to set up.

    Housing Action Trusts
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to allow local authorities or housing associations to make use of underspending arising out of the failure to set up any of the planned housing action trusts.
    Mr. Heseltine: No, Sir. Tenants are currently voting in Hull—on a proposal supported by the city council—and a ballot is due in a few months in Waltham Forest.
    Mr. Dunnachie: I am disappointed in that reply in view of the current deplorable position of no housing action trusts having yet been formed. Money has been put aside, but has not been used. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and use that money to allow local authorities to build or renovate houses for the people of their areas?
    Mr. Heseltine: The moral of the story is that a housing action trust should come into existence and take advantage of the money that is available as quickly as possible.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the conclusions of his review of the poll tax.
    Mr. Heseltine: I have nothing to add at this stage to my statement to the House on 21 March.
    Mr. Beith: Would the Secretary of State like to have a shot at making another statement about the replacement of the poll tax? He did not make everybody happy with the first one and his hon. Friends might have a happier Easter if they were given a clearer picture of what his new tax will involve and whether it will be strictly related to the ability to pay, as would be the case with a local income tax. Or will it remain an arbitrary tax?
    Mr. Heseltine: The people who are unhappy about my statement are sitting on the Opposition Benches. They now realise that we have clear answers to our proposals while they have none.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who made representations to him about the review are delighted with his proposals and that the people who are unhappy are those who have been encouraging individuals not to pay? They now realise that we have proposed a scheme that will make it impossible for them to carry on with their campaign.
    Mr. Heseltine: I much appreciate my hon. Friend's observation. Our new local tax will be consistent with one bill for each household. Collection will therefore be easier and more certain.

    Council Homes, Bradford
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council homes have been built by Bradford metropolitan district council in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Yeo: Completions of new council dwellings reported by Bradford metropolitan district council were 42, 47 and nil in 1987, 1988 and 1989 respectively. Returns received for 1990 cover only the months up to August and these show no further completions of council housing.
    Mr. Madden: Do not those miserable figures represent a massive indictment of the Government's failure to respond to the housing crisis that has gripped Bradford for the past 12 years? Does the Minister recognise that that crisis is now so acute that the council is considering formally closing its housing waiting list on which there are 9,000 applicants? When will the Government pump into Bradford the necessary funds to enable the council to build homes for the thousands of families who urgently and desperately need them?
    Mr. Yeo: In addition to the local authority council housing completions to which I referred, almost 400 housing association dwellings have been completed in the same period. Substantial estate action support totalling almost £10 million over the past three years has also been pumped into Bradford. The question that the hon. Gentleman should really be addressing is why Bradford council has kept empty 700 houses that could be used for housing the homeless, about whom the hon. Gentleman purports to be so concerned.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people who want low-cost houses to rent in Bradford would do better if their local authority were to copy Ryedale district council in transferring its housing stock to a housing association? My hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Madden) shows that housing associations are now the proper route for the provision of homes to rent. As the people of Bradford once had the good sense to vote in a Conservative council, does my hon. Friend agree that if the council in Bradford were to consult the people of Bradford, as Ryedale district council consulted in Ryedale, it would receive a strong and positive answer to any request to do that?
    Mr. Yeo: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and take this opportunity of saying how much we welcome the transfer of Ryedale's council housing stock in its entirety to a housing association, which was approved only a week of two ago. The effect of that transfer is to bring in substantial funds from the private sector, some of which are available to Ryedale council for any other housing needs in its area. I commend the same process not only to Bradford, but to a great many other Labour-controlled authorities, because I have no doubt that the tenants in all those areas would benefit enormously if their councils were willing to follow the example that has been set by Ryedale.

    Local Authorities (Capital Receipts)
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he had any plans to relax the controls imposed on local authorities making use of capital receipts for housing purposes.
    Mr. Key: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that more than 800 families on the urgent waiting lists in my constituency desperately need new housing? If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely concerned about those social problems, would not he allow local authorities to use money which is being legitimately raised, under his instruction, to build new houses for those desperately in need?
    Mr. Key: I understand the hon. Lady's concern. Every hon. Member has housing problems in his constituency, but relaxing the debt redemption rules would not mean that more resources were available for housing. It would mean that resources were available in the wrong places—where receipts arise rather than where new investment is needed.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 22 APRIL
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe

  Dr. Keith Hampson

  Mrs. Alice Mahon.

  BILLS PRESENTED

    ESTABLISHED CHURCH
    Mr. Michael Latham presented a Bill to abolish the General Synod of the Church of England, on a date to be appointed; to provide for the creation of a Church of England Assembly, consisting of a house of all diocesan, suffragan and assistant bishops, and a joint house of clergy

    957
    and laity, to be directly elected by all Anglican clergy and lay persons on parochial electoral rolls; to empower the Assembly to decide on all appropriate matters, except those within the legal responsibilities of the Church Commissioners, without further reference to Parliament; to provide for the election of new bishops by members of the house of bishops, saving the right of final approval of the chosen candidate by the Crown; to abolish the Ecclesiastical Committee; to abolish the automatic places of bishops in the House of Lords; to permit ordained clergy of the Church of England, with the consent of a diocesan bishop, to seek election to the House of Commons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

    LEASEHOLD REFORM
    Mr. Terry Lewis, supported by Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, Mr. Ian McCartney, Ms. Dawn Primarolo and Mr. George Howarth, presented a Bill to amend the Leasehold Reform Acts 1967 and 1979; to prevent the establishment of further 999 year leasehold agreements; to establish new formulae for calculating the sale value of an existing lease to an occupier of long lease residential property; to remove from existing leaseholders the obligations to seek permission of the ground landlord when carrying out improvements to the property; to establish the right of long leaseholders to manage their property in a manner of their own choice; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and ordered to be printed. [Bill 127.]

Empty Homes
3.31 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable residential property, unoccupied for a specified period and not offered for sale or let, to be transferred from the ownership of public landlords to the ownership of housing associations; to amend the law to provide incentives to private landlords to let empty residential property; and for connected purposes.
There can be few hon. Members whose constituency work is untouched by the rising tide of homelessness. In my constituency experience, the number of people looking for accommodation from the local authority and from other public authorities has increased markedly in recent years.
It is easy to be judgmental and to seek to fix blame. but the honest answer is that the causes of the rise in the number of homeless families are many and it is not always easy to attach blame. Experience seems to confirm that marital breakdown and family break-up are the largest factors behind the increase in homeless applications to public sector housing bodies. It is easy to understand why. A married couple with two young children drift apart; automatically, one housing unit becomes two. The party with the children, usually the mother—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that hon. Members are waiting for the next debate, but they should listen to the submissions of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).
Mr. Burt: The party with the children, usually the mother, either remarries or finds another partner. All too often, sadly, there are problems between step-parents and children, and the children seek to leave as soon as they become old enough. The number of housing units represented by that one family becomes two, three, four or even more. Children—sometime barely 16 or 17—drift to larger cities, and the damage is done.
Whatever the causes of the breakdown and the pressure on those who seek to house the homeless, it is not merely enough to analyse or to lay blame—all that can be done must be done—and my Bill points a finger at something that may be responsible, empty properties.
The figures for the number of empty properties throughout this country are simply staggering. On the latest figures, this year 145,000 households were accepted as homeless. On 1 April 1990, there were 99,352 empty council properties, of which almost a quarter—23,000—had been empty for more than a year. Similar figures for housing associations suggest that more than 21,000 of their properties are vacant. Central Government have some 31,000 vacant properties that belong to the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. But the private sector has more than 500,000 properties vacant. In my area of the north-west, 83,245 properties of all types are vacant.
I do not doubt for a moment that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, whose personal commitment to housing the homeless cannot he questioned by anyone in the House, is making strenuous efforts to tackle the problem.
Recently a number of measures have been introduced by the Government that are likely to assist. Changes to the Rent Acts are designed to provide incentives for landlords in the private sector to rent more property. Those changes
960
have ended the fears that have been associated with private renting for too long. Specific grants have recently been made to local authorities and housing associations, particularly in London and the south-east. The Government also believe that the ending of ring fencing in housing revenue accounts and the introduction of performance indicators will improve the accountability of managements. However, I do not believe that those measures, good though they are, are good enough. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear hear."] I knew that that point was significant, but perhaps not that significant.
I believe that the measures that the Government have introduced, good though they are, could be further improved. The Bill seeks to introduce a number of other measures. First, on the public sector, the Bill proposes that housing associations should be empowered to take over empty properties from the public sector, either from local councils or the Government. Secondly, the Bill would require the compiling of a register of empty property in all areas, which is necessary to identify what is empty and why. Thirdly, the Bill proposes a mixture of penalties and incentives in relation to private property. On incentives, it is possible that some further changes in the tax regime would make private renting more attractive. I believe that it is possible for housing associations to do more on management to deal with some of the difficulties and hassles. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a submission to the House, but it is difficult even for me to hear what it is.
Mr. Burt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that it is also possible for housing associations to work more closely with private landlords to relieve them of some of the difficulties of management. There is also a large unexplored sector comprising of flats above shops that could be put to more use.
If those measures and the steps already taken by the Government were not enough, the Bill would also seek to give housing associations and possibly, in limited circumstances, local authorities a similar power to that in the public sector to take over empty private property for a time for use for housing. That step would be drastic and would have to be subject to extremely strict controls. The property would need to have been empty for some time and it would need to be proved before a court that the landlord had no further intention of bringing the property into use within a reasonable time. That provision might encourage a great deal more private property back into use without its powers being used.
Homelessness is not an easy problem to cure. The vast majority of people who work with the homeless—I am indebted to the empty property unit at Shelter for helping me to prepare the Bill—are stretched to the limit by circumstances beyond their control. All available means must be used to ensure that families, especially those including children, get the best possible chance of accommodation and move away from the hostels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation that absorb far too many financial resources and provide no living beyond existence for those forced to make use of them.
If we bring empty properties back into use, that will provide an excellent opportunity for the future. I wish the Government proposals that deal with the problem well,

961
but I urge the Government to consider some of the proposals advanced in the Bill, which I have pleasure to put before the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. David Sumberg.

Written Question 124
Mr. Alan Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request from the Prime Minister to answer written question 124 orally? It asks the Prime Minister
"whether he has any plans to assist former Prime Ministers with their office and secretarial expenses."
I feel that the House should be notified about the matter before the debate today begins. It might have been appropriate to question the Prime Minister on whether he has any such plans.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will read the answer when it is available.

Confidence in Her Majesty's Government
Mr. Speaker: Before we start the debate on the motion, I invite the House to look at the motion on the Order Paper today. As hon. Members will see, it is not a general no confidence motion. It relates specifically to the poll tax. The debate should go no wider than that.
I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper.
Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for delaying the House, but for weeks past—or days past—we have had promises from Opposition spokesmen that this no confidence debate—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear what the point of order is.
Sir Norman Fowler rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman sit down, please? I must hear what the point of order is.
Sir Norman Fowler: Opposition spokesmen promised that they intended to give the House an opportunity to debate a range of issues. With respect, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review the decision that you have just announced and allow issues other than the single one you mentioned to be debated?
Mr. Speaker: That is not within my discretion. We must debate the motion on the Order Paper.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you for some clarification? It has certainly been clear from all that we have heard from the Labour party recently and, indeed, in a radio discussion in which I participated with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) this morning—[Interruption.] I am coming to the point of order. The hon. Member for Copeland made it clear that the purpose of the debate this afternoon was to discuss a range of policies—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. How can I possibly hear what is being said if hon. Members bray in this manner?
Mr. MacGregor: From what the hon. Gentleman said this morning, it was clearly the Opposition's intention to range widely in the debate. Would it be in order to debate not only the community charge on its own but the issues of local government finance which are clearly relevant to the community charge and local government in general? That is important. As the Opposition have failed to frame the no confidence motion which they intended, is it not clear that they are unable not only to develop coherent and clear policies but to frame a motion of the sort that they wanted?
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows that under Standing Orders we have to debate the motions on the Order Paper. It will, of course, be in order to draw attention to the finances of local government within the context of the poll tax.
3.44 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to move,
That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government in the light of its inability to rectify the damage done to the British people by the poll tax.
You may be absolutely certain, Mr. Speaker, that I shall stick to the subject about which the Government wish to hear least—the poll tax. On future occasions, before the general election, doubtlessly due to the incompetence of the Government, there will be other reasons for tabling other motions of no confidence in the Government.
We have tabled the motion, first, because it is the Government who have got Britain into the poll tax mess, and, secondly, because it is now certain that the Government will never get Britain out of it. In his statement last Thursday, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that the Government proposed a tax with
"a single bill for each household comprising two essential elements, the number of adults living there and the value of the property … assessing values, on a capital or a rental basis".—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 404.]
As soon as he said that, it was clear that the poll tax was still alive—alive and kicking the British people.
From the Government who brought us the poll tax to replace the rates we have a new epic—the poll tax and the rates. The best that they have been able to suggest is a head tax combined in some way with a roof tax, topped up by 17·5 per cent. VAT and wrapped in the cotton wool of consultation. The reason for the device of consultation is the same reason as for putting forward the mixed poll tax and property tax. It is not to do with the defence or advance of the national interest; it is to try to keep the conflicting factions in the Conservative party and the Cabinet together with some appeasement for each of them.
In the Conservative party now, some want wholesale property tax, some want to keep the poll tax and some want to increase VAT to 20 per cent. or more and finance all of local government services from that. What they would do about accountability, God only knows. Therefore, the Government, faced with those factions, have tried to come up with something that will meet the needs and desires of every Tory fragment.
Apart from right hon. and hon. Members who applaud the Prime Minister now just as they applauded the introduction of the poll tax, who can be reassured when the final shape of the new tax mixture is so deliberately vague? In the Tory party and the country, who can be content that Conservative candidates will have to go into the local elections on 2 May with no knowledge of whether they are supporting a poll tax, a property tax or a mixed tax? It appears that they will have to fight those local elections on g manifesto entitled, "Wait and See" and under the slogan, "Don't ask us, we're only the Government".
In this whole tangle, there are assiduous attempts to blame the entire poll tax mess solely on the previous Prime Minister. Had the poll tax been introduced by a singular dictatorial flourish, it would be possible to give some credence to the idea that only the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was guilty, but it was not quite like that, was it? Everyone will have some understanding and sympathy with the irritation and resentment that the former Prime Minister must rightly feel when she hears
964
colleagues who sat with her around the Cabinet table or on Cabinet committees now trying to give the impression that they were against the poll tax all the time, really.
The present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He says that he was "bounced" into the poll tax. Frankly, that says rather more about the right hon. Gentleman's character than about the right hon. Lady. Others—the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Health and for Employment—were all local government Ministers serving their time introducing the poll tax.
The Secretary of State for Transport was the Scottish Secretary, the Home Secretary was the Environment Secretary, and the present chairman of the Conservative party was the Secretary of State for the Environment when the poll tax was inflicted on England and Wales.
We are at the first anniversary of the time when the right hon. Gentleman said:
"The Community Charge is here to stay … Maybe one day we'll have people breaking the law and painting on the sides of buildings 'Up with the Community Charge! Down with the rates'".
Does that sound like a man being bounced?
In April last year—we are just a week away from the first anniversary of this—the Prime Minister said that the poll tax would be "a very much fairer and more acceptable system"
I do not think that that sounds like someone in the Cabinet being dragged unwillingly and unwittingly into supporting the poll tax.
Some 12 months later, the British people can draw their own conclusions about those and other members of Her Majesty's Government. Either those Minister were all innocent but gullible and did not know the truth about the poll tax, or the more ugly conclusion can be drawn: they did know the truth but a mixture of deference and ambition made dishonest men of them. Either way—-gullible or guilty—they should not be sitting here now.
Miss Emma Nicholson (Totteridge and Devon, West): Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his proposal for the replacement of the community charge which involves the centralisation of computer records to allow the information on every citizen of the United Kingdom to be available is real dictatorship?
Mr. Kinnock: I shall send a copy of our proposals to the hon. Lady, who will see that they contain no proposition more centralising than that of the rates system that we intend to reintroduce.
The Government ploughed on with the poll tax despite the advice coming from hundreds of Tory councillors, ssmall businesses, a variety of independent sources and those supporting them that the poll tax was wrong and could never work. They got rid of the right hon. Member for Finchley. They had a review, and then a review of the review. They introduced the poll tax capping criteria that caught some Tory councils. The whole squandering sequence cost £400 million to set up, £300 million a year to maintain, £6 billion to try to mitigate and £1·5 billion a year because of revenue lost from the 7·5 million people who could not pay their poll tax. Now, on top of that, they are to spend £4·25 billion in VAT—and still the turmoil goes on.
Until Monday of this week, we were being told that 18 million people would benefit from the Government's

965
community charge reduction scheme, then the figure became 8 million—although it came from the Minister of State, who usually gets things wrong—and then it became 16 million. When there are such variations, it is obviously necessary for everyone to have a clear description of how their reductions are being worked out. Therefore, I was glad that this morning the Department of the Environment provided the public with an explanation, reported by Mr. Timmins of The Independent. According to the Department of the Environment, the calculation will be as follows:
"You take two times the reduced community charge, minus, in brackets, the old rateable value plus one £52 threshold for a couple, two for three people and so on. The result is divided by two, three or four, depending on the number of adults in the household. That gives you the amount of reduction each. That is taken away from the reduced community charge to work out what people actually pay."
The Independent also states:
"Those who have moved this financial year will now qualify—although not if they move again next year."
Nothing could be clearer than that! I am sure that, if the Department of the Environment has got anything wrong, the Prime Minister will rectify any errors when he speaks later.
Meanwhile, the costs of the poll tax system go on piling up—£18 million a day. We have a panic decision to scrap existing poll tax bills and issue revised ones. That of itself will cost the taxpayers of Britain another £200 million. After all that, what we have not got from all the cost and chaos of the poll tax system is a single additional home help. We have not got a single extra police officer, not an extra teacher, not an extra road repair—and that is not even taking into account the fact that the Government inflicted the community charge but they stopped community care. There is nothing better in any of the vital services as a consequence of having this preposterously expensive and unjust system.
Mr. Bill Walker: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that, during the period of the community charge in Scotland, there has been no increase in the number of local government employees? If so, it is not true.
Mr. Kinnock: Of course there has been a huge increase in local government employees—to run the poll tax.
Tragically, it is not just that the people have not got more as a consequence of paying the extra costs of the poll tax and the poll tax system: it is the fact that they have actually got less. Tory authorities all over the country are cutting education, social services and highways maintenance in an effort to avoid capping. Every other kind of local authority is having to do the same.
As today's figures show, crime is at the highest level in our history. But Mr. David Owen, the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, has to report that six major urban areas in Britain face the loss of 1,700 police officers—a result of the poll tax capping system. None of that will change with the £140 poll tax cut that some will get. In Tory authorities, Labour authorities and authorities with no overall control all across Britain, spending levels are still set at the same figures. The supply of essential services about which the Prime Minister professes to care so much recently will continue to shrink.
966
Even in the midst of their relief at the reduction of £140 that some will get in their poll tax bills, the British people know where the money is coming from. They know that it is coming from themselves. They know that they are being made to pay for the Government's errors and hypocrisies in the poll tax system. In their claim, as we have heard it over the last week since the Budget, to be using something called Government funds to mitigate the poll tax, the Government are acting like the bank robbers who return part of their loot to try to reduce their overdrafts.
But I suppose that, in imposing higher VAT, the Government are at least honouring one principle of the poll tax, the cardinal orthodoxy, the centrepiece of the whole edifice—the principle that everyone should pay something. Everyone certainly will. Every pensioner will pay over the counter for the Government's poll tax fiasco. Every family buying a pair of trainers for their teenage children will pay. Every washing machine repair, every car repair, every home improvement will carry the extra charge—the poll tax VAT surcharge.
Everyone must pay something, the Government say. We heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying it again to Mr. Walden on Sunday. He said:
"What we have maintained is the principle that everybody ought to contribute towards the cost of local government, the so-called principle of universality."
The Chancellor cannot have known that at the very time, Sunday lunchtime, that he was reasserting that fundamental immutable principle to Mr. Walden on television the Secretary of State for the Environment was telling Mr. Dimbleby on television, not that "everybody" should pay, but that "most" should pay. As The Times newspaper judged on Monday,
"The glaring contrast
between them
"shows the extent of the fudge which lay behind Mr. Heseltine's statement."
Sir Anthony Grant: The implication of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that, under his party's proposals, there would be a great improvement, and an increase in the services which, by implication, would be through an increase in the revenue support grant from his party. If so, will he tell us—I think that it would be reasonable for him to do so and I am sure that he has worked it out—what tax increases would achieve that?
Mr. Kinnock: For 12 years we have been telling, together with many others—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Kinnock: For 12 years, together with many others, we have been telling the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It was a very good question and I shall give a very good answer in my own way. We have been telling the Conservative party that it should not have been making the cuts that it has made in central Government funding for essential services. Conservative councillors have been telling them the same.
Last Tuesday, there was a deathbed repentance, and the Government reversed the policy of 12 years and started to make a provision. The answer to the question, "How much extra tax will we have to charge?" is, "Nothing at all." [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to calm down.
Mr. Kinnock: I think that Tory Members may be trying to make up for 12 years of past sin. We have no sins to make up for.
When the Secretary of State for the Environment says that most people should pay, in this subtle shift of the cardinal principle, it seems that "most" is very broad. When the Secretary of State for the Environment was asked whether nurses, students and others on low incomes will have to pay the new double tax, he said:
"the sort of coverage that we've got today will be carried into the new system. We intend the incidence of liability to remain where it is."
How will that "incidence of liability" be recorded? Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us this afternoon. After all, he did tell us—he told me last Tuesday—that "all" questions on the poll tax would be answered
"by the end of this week."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 158.]
That was last week. He did not keep that pledge, due, I am sure, to circumstances totally beyond his control. So let him now give the answers that he promised.
First, will there be a register in his new system? The Secretary of State said on Thursday evening, "We may not need a register." A little later he said:
"we shall not need a register. I have made that clear."
On the same evening, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
"Clearly, there will have to be some kind of register".—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 422, 474.]
Will the Prime Minister, as the supreme arbiter that we are told he is, answer the register question now?
Secondly, will the Prime Minister tell us what is to be the legal liability in the two-tax, one-bill system that the Government want to foist upon every household in the country? The Secretary of State for the Environment was asked:
"Is one person in a household going to be legally liable?"
He said: "It doesn't follow." If that is the case, may I ask the Prime Minister, will everyone in the household be legally liable? Surely someone has to be legally liable: who will it be? Surely the question of legal liability does not have to await consultation. It should be a basic matter of principle, and I am sure that the Prime Minister can tell us the answer this afternoon.
Thirdly, will the 20 per cent. rule remain? Surely the Prime Minister can answer that straightforward question. Will it remain, or will he follow Labour party policy again—act the magpie again—and get rid of the 20 per cent. rule as we shall do? Fourthly, what will be the balance between the poll tax element and the property tax element in the new tax scheme? In Southport last Saturday, the Prime Minister said that "the principles" of the new tax should be based
"First, on the number of people in each household. Second, on the value of the property people live in".
Will the Prime Minister tell us precisely where he stands in the full arc from the poll tax to the rates, in the spectrum of division in his party?
Mr. Tim Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kinnock: I shall give way in a moment.
A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said:
"I think I am clear in my own mind which way we are going on the Poll Tax".
Why does he not tell us what he thinks he is clear about, or even what he thinks that he thinks he is clear about? Will he be the father of the son of poll tax, or the father of
968
the daughter of the rates—or will he just sit there having twins?
Does the Prime Minister realise that, if he keeps a personal charge element in the two-tax system, it will be the poll tax in another form? Everyone else knows that, and the stain will never leave the Conservative party. The Secretary of State for the Environment says that these are matters of detail, and that no one should worry about the number of gainers and the number of losers. He told the Conservative Central Council in Southport last Friday:
"I think that this Party should raise its sights from the narrow focus of who gains what, when, and in what circumstances, and understand the excitement of what we are doing as a political party."
To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington, I do not know if it excites them, but it makes me ecstatic.
It may not matter to the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Prime Minister how many gainers and losers there are, but all over the country people are worried to distraction about how they will cope with their poll tax bills. To their credit, even a good many Conservative Members recognise that. The only way in which to relieve that anxiety is to do the sensible thing and scrap the poll tax now. The Secretary of State could do it by returning to a rating system made fairer by a proper system of rebates. That would save £300 million a year on operating costs alone.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the passage in "Fair Rates" which explains that, after going back to a rating system, a Labour Government would implement changes to help those hardest hit by the poll tax, but only as far as the situation that they had inherited permitted? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that only when fully implemented would such a system help seven out of 10 people?
Mr. Kinnock: That is directly explanatory. It is called being honest and prudent, not pretending to people that we can or will afford more than the country has at its disposal. The hon. Gentleman's question could only come from a party that can form an opinion but can never form a Government. I have given him an answer gratis and have not even charged him 7p in the pound local income tax.
If the Government went back to a system of rates—as they could do straight away with the assent and co-operation of the Opposition—it would mean not only a saving of £300 million in operating costs, but a system of local taxation in which 99 per cent. of the bills were paid, because it would be an efficient system and inexpensive to operate. It would also mean that people would pay their fair share—for instance, the members of the Cabinet, all of whom gained vastly from the move from rates to poll tax. Now, scandalously, they gain again from the flat rate subsidy of £140 off the poll tax, not just on one home but on both their homes. They ought to join me in volunteering that any gains that they make out of the £140 reduction will go to charity. That would be a generous thing for them to do. It is absolutely outrageous that the Government have ensured that to them that already have well over sufficiency there shall be given even more. Come on, chip in; then we shall all give something to charity as a result of what the Government are doing.
This is the Government who gave us the poll tax, with all its vast cost and all its injustices. This is the

969
Government who are not killing the poll tax but keeping it. They are in a mire of their own making; they will not tell us what is to come; they will not tell the British people what to expect. Their consultation is a camouflage that does not convince most of the country, or many of their own party. Ministers are self-contradictory in what they say and, as ever, they are self-serving in what they do. Everything for them is a matter of expediency; nothing is a matter of democracy, morality or economy.
We have no confidence in the Government, because they have no competence and no conscience. They have done terrible wrongs to this country with their poll tax. By their refusal to right those wrongs, the Government have destroyed any claims that they may have had to confidence or to trust. We have no confidence in Her Majesty's Government. If they want to consult the British people, they should do it through the ballot box, straight away.
Mr. Speaker: Due to the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to place a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.
4.12 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): It is always the right of the Opposition to test the confidence of this House in the Government. That is always their right and, in line with the conventions of the House, we shall always make time. What this debate will prove beyond all doubt is not lack of confidence in this Government but the Opposition's lack of competence—a lack of competence that even extended to putting down their motion, which they got wrong. I believe that the whole country—[Interruption.]
>Mr. Speaker: Order. There was nothing wrong with what the Prime Minister said.
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier you said that the motion was entirely in order. You are the person who is responsible for that. The Prime Minister said that the motion was wrong. Will you ask the Prime Minister to withdraw what he said?
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister said that he did not agree with the motion on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] Order.
Mr. Bell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please sit down? The whole House heard what I said. The motion that we are debating is the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Bell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman puts severely in jeopardy his chance of being called.
Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman said that the motion on the order paper was not in order. He said that it was wrong. Mr. Speaker, will you look in Hansard to see the words that he used, and ask him to withdraw?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has been on his feet for only about three minutes.
The Prime Minister: Millions of people this morning heard the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) say that the debate was to be about the whole range of Government policy. The motion does not permit that debate. The Opposition did not put down the motion that they wished to debate.
The whole country will also notice that, after all the Opposition said in the last day or so, last night they did not oppose our Bill to reduce the community charge. Nor, after all that the Leader of the Opposition said last week, did they vote against the increase in value added tax. When the shouting and the jeering were over, they followed where we led, because they knew that what we were doing was sensible, but they lacked the courage to admit it.
This must be the first recorded occasion on which a censure motion has been put down one week to be debated the next, and in the interim inflation has fallen, interest rates have fallen, the trade gap has narrowed and the exchange rate has risen against all the European currencies. If that is a precedent, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put down many more such motions.
Precisely because the right hon. Gentleman got his censure motion wrong to meet what he wished to debate, we have no opportunity to debate the record of the Government as a whole. We can debate local government of course, and many aspects of the Government of course, but we cannot debate other matters that the Opposition would not wish to debate, like defence and matters of that sort on which their policies are highly inadequate. The reality is—[Interruption.] I wonder whether those who may be watching the debate will note how the Opposition are behaving and how little they like what they hear.
I shall come in detail to local government reform, but in the week in which the House approved the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget by 110 votes, I shall start with the appropriate aspects of the Budget. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good hon. Members pointing at the Chair. We have yet to hear what the Prime Minister has to say. I hope that it will be in the context of the motion.
The Prime Minister: If Opposition Members had been listening rather than shouting, they would have heard me refer to the appropriate aspects of the Budget. As its centrepiece, my right hon. Friend reduced the burden of local taxation dramatically, with £140 off the headline community charge right across the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said, the headline community charge right across the country. That shift reversed the progressive rise in the local tax burden begun by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) 15 years ago. That shift is fundamental. Since the Labour party supported the Bill last night, presumably it will not reverse that shift—or will it?
Mr. Peter Shore: Does the Prime Minister not recall that the last three rate support grant settlements made by the Labour Government, with myself as Secretary of State, were all at 61 per cent. of local government current expenditure? Will he tell us what the percentage is now? Is it not below 40 per cent.?
The Prime Minister: I quite specifically said to the right hon. Gentleman that it has been falling consistently since 1976 when he set it. As the Opposition supported our Bill last night, presumably they are not going to reverse that

971
stand. Our Budget proposals reduce to just 14 per cent. the burden of local spending to be met from local tax, but yesterday the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that local taxpayers should pay not for 14 per cent. but for 20 per cent. That is a critical question for local taxpayers.
So which is it—our 14 per cent. or the hon. Gentleman's 20 per cent.? That is the first question for the Opposition. Do they accept the level of local taxation that we have set or will they raise it by more than one third from 14 to 20 per cent., as the hon. Member for Dagenham said? If they do, will they raise everyone's bills by more than one third as well? Will the hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the Opposition tell us? Do they know? Can local taxpayers look forward to local bills one third higher under a Labour Government than under us, irrespective of the levels of local spending? That is what the hon. Gentleman said. I am willing to give way to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The hon. Member for Dagenham, the Leader of the Opposition and even the hon. Member for Copeland seem disinclined to answer.
I have a second question of equal relevance.
Mr. David Blunkett rose——
The Prime Minister: I shall give way when the hon. Gentleman has answered my question.
My second question is how would they raise the money. Do they want to pay for lower local taxes which they want and we want by raising central taxes other than value added tax? In his Budget response, the Leader of the Opposition was indignant that the VAT proposals applied to children's sweets. Today's third question is, which party put VAT on children's sweets in the first place? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister: The silence on the Opposition Front Bench provides the answer to that—they did.
We already know that the right hon. Gentleman does not know whether he wants to increase local taxes, does not know how to fund the switch between central and local taxation and does not even know which party introduced VAT on children's sweets in the first place. In short, not only does the Leader of the Opposition not know where his policy is going,—he does not know where it has come from.
Let there be no doubt about the far-reaching nature of the Government's review of local government. We propose to simplify its structure, to assess its functions, to increase its accountability, to improve its efficiency and to reform its finance. It is the most radical review this century; the first to look at structure, functions and finance at one and the same time. We intend to give local government back to local people, so we need their help in deciding how local loyalties are best reflected in the structure of local authorities. We seek efficient delivery of local services to the local electorate, so we need to examine thoroughly how local councils can improve their management and whether some services now carried out by local authorities might be better delivered or funded directly through central Government.
The Labour party cries out for details. We could have arbitrarily decided how to proceed, but I believe that that would have been wrong. A review of this wide scope and nature demands consultation and people deserve
972
consultation. If we had not offered consultation, we would have been rightly and bitterly criticised, not least by Opposition Members. We will listen, we will take advice and we will consider. We will do it in that order, and then decide what we are finally going to do.
Mr. Dave Nellist: I do not wish to intrude on too much private grief between two ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer. On the review, can the Prime Minister tell us what justification there is, moral or financial, for telling pensioners and those on income support this week or next week that they should pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax and that 10.8 per cent. of their disposable income should go on VAT? Will that survive the review?
The Prime Minister: Whatever any community charge payer has to pay, it would be less if the hon. Gentleman paid his community charge.
I can spell out here and now the basis of our new deal for local tax payers. There are five main principles to the review. There will be a single local tax bill for every household. That will reflect the number of adults in the household and the value of their property. The new local tax will be low. In real terms, it will be lower than the old rates bills, thanks to the fundamental shift in local taxes announced in this year's Budget. The new local tax will reflect ability to pay. There will be rebates for those on low incomes and it will not place excessive burdens on those with larger properties or on higher-priced parts of the country such as the south-east. The new local tax will keep local councils accountable to the local electorate.
Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me; he has been asking for much of this information for some time. He might usefully listen to me.
As I have said, the new local tax will keep local councils accountable to the local electorate. The number of adults in a household will affect the size of the local tax bill. Unlike what happened under the old rates system, a single person living alone will not pay the same as larger households. Those who use local services will be required to help pay for them. The new local tax burden will be restrained. Local government will not he allowed to impose excessive taxes through over spending. We will maintain the capping regime.
Those are the fundamental basic principles of the tax system that we will introduce.
Mr. David Trimble rose——
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me?
There is more than one way of meeting those objectives and it is for that reason that we propose to set out the options in a document to be published and available to the House after the Easter recess. It will be a comprehensive document and I do not propose to be drawn on individual parts of it until its publication. It will be important for people to see all the proposals and how they interlock before we proceed. That is the sensible way to proceed.
Mr. Trimble: I am grateful for the Prime Minister's information about the document to be published shortly, which he says will be comprehensive. When he has

973
abolished the poll tax, will he proceed to abolish the last old rating system? Will the proposed new system apply to the whole country?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that, for the moment, we have no plans to change the system in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. There is great pressure from hon. Members to participate in the debate. Interventions take up time and will jeopardise those who wish to be called.
The Prime Minister: It is interesting that Opposition Members, after all that they have had to say in recent days, are so disinclined to listen.
I have offered the House five pledges about our plans. In return, we would settle today for answers to just two questions about Labour's own proposals. The Opposition's document says:
"These changes"—
that is, Labour's fair rates proposals—
"will mean that seven out of 10 families will gain."
That is a direct quote. The document says that that is shown by "independent research". I am very pleased to hear it. It is wise to consult and to carry out such research. The Leader of the Opposition is right to have done that, but if he has done it, he must have the calculations to back up what has been said. If he has the calculations, why has he not shared them with the House? Will he publish them? If his plans are in such a state of grace, will he lay those calculations in the Library so that we may all examine them? Surely the independent researchers, having carried out the calculations, will have given them to the Labour party
Where is this document? How many of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have actually seen it? [Interruption.] Hands up, those who have seen it. I see no hands. That is extremely interesting. No Opposition Member has seen the document—not even the hon. Member for Dagenham, who told us about it. I do not for a moment think that the hon. Member for Dagenham would mislead anyone, so I ask him in a perfectly straightforward fashion, so that the doubts of everyone may be put at rest, whether he will put that document in the House of Commons Library this afternoon. [Interruption.] I am willing to give way for a reply.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on with the debate.
The Prime Minister: In reply to my question, I get silence. Silence is not only golden; it is instructive.
The second question to which every taxpayer is entitled to an answer is, how will the Labour party stop local tax bills soaring? We have said perfectly clearly that we will cap spendthrift councils. The Opposition have said that they will not cap spendthrift councils, so how will they keep the bills down? Will they make business pick up the bills, or will they just let their fair rates rip? If so, how will that possibly be fair for the taxpayer?
Taxpayers can be reassured, however, because the hon. Member for Dagenham came galloping to the rescue today. He told the New Statesman and Society that he has
974
an answer; that he knows how he will stop all the over spending local councils. What he said was perfectly clear and very firm. It was:
"We would certainly do all we can to encourage councils to behave sensibly."
So there it is—there is the smack of firm opposition. This House——
Mr. Blunkett: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: This House is entitled——
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is not giving way.
The Prime Minister: The Opposition do not like it when they are on the receiving end, do they?
This House is entitled to ask why so many Labour councils deliberately choose to set community charge bills that are far higher than they need to be. The answer is that those councils resist any measure to reduce local spending overall. They put political priorities before local needs. They put the interests of the providers before those of the public. The Audit Commission report? They ignore it. Cost-saving suggestions? They reject them. When new ideas are proposed, they do not even begin to understand them.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose——
The Prime Minister: No.
Part of our reforms must be to make such councils truly accountable, and we shall do that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
The Prime Minister: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
The behaviour of Labour council after Labour council has brought the financing of local government into disrepute. The story has been the same across the country—money wasted, services neglected, and the concerns of local people ignored. Which are the councils with the largest number of empty properties? Labour councils. Which councils do not collect arrears to fund the rates fund? Labour councils. Which councils produce the worst education system? [Hon Members: "Labour councils."] Yes, Labour councils.
But there are some things—and I want to be strictly fair—
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
The Prime Minister: In a moment.
I want to be strictly fair and there are some things that Labour councils do better and of which they do more. They do more town twinning, they have more foreign visits by local councillors, more nuclear-free zones, and more campaigns on international causes that lie well beyond the interests of local government. The Labour party has one policy on local government—to force costs higher. Over the past few years, too many people in this country have, sadly, come to know through their rates and community charge bills the high and bitter cost of living under a Labour council.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the Prime Minister is so concerned about the waste of public moneys, why did he and the Secretary of State for the Environment sit back for

975
weeks twiddling their thumbs while local authorities spent tens of millions of pounds sending out invalid bills? Was not that the biggest squandering of public money ever known?
The Prime Minister: If it were the biggest squandering of money, many community charge payers would be happy, for far more has been lost by Labour councils' activities.
Several Hon. Members rose——
The Prime Minister: I have given way sufficiently.
The fundamental problem remains: Labour councils spend too much. That is why in this Budget we have made a fundamental shift from local to central tax and that is why we will reform the system to stop the burden ever being felt again.
The Labour party opposed us at every step and now Labour Members challenge us today—not just the high spenders but the non-spenders sitting on the Opposition Benches. The Leader of the Opposition is concerned about the damage allegedly done to this country by the community charge. What about the damage done to this country by Labour Members who incite others to break the law?
The Leader of the Opposition censures the Government, yet he does not have the courage to take action against those Labour Members sitting behind him who incite others. The Labour party has no plans to keep local bills down. Those bills would rise even further because Labour has no plans to keep inflation down either.
We are winning the battle against inflation. The Opposition—no, I draw a distinction: the Labour Opposition—have fought us at every step. Every time we have had to take a hard decision, they have gone for a soft option. Every interest rate increase has been opposed. Every cut has been derided as not enough. The Labour Opposition's standard incantation has been Monklands law—whatever the prevailing interest rate, call for a I per cent. cut. They would have been better employed calling for cuts in wasteful and unnecessary spending by local Labour councils.
The Budget strategy is central to our aims for local government, not only in a switch from local to central taxation but in our determination to get inflation down and keep it down. That is as important for local government and local government taxpayers as it is for central Government.
Inflation has now been falling for four successive months. The next six months—[Interruption.] Wait and see; hon. Gentlemen will see the relevance of this. The next six months will see dramatic reductions. I expect a sharp drop in the inflation rate within two months. That will greatly help to ease in the new system of local government finance. By the end of this year, inflation will be down to 4 per cent. and it will go on falling into 1992. If we are to move successfully from the community charge to the new system of local government finance, low inflation is essential. It is now well on the way to being achieved.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Prime Minister: I shall not.
Our inflation rate will be half its current level by December. That lower inflation is the route to lower
976
interest rates, lower bills for local taxpayers and a fairer system, which we will introduce, for local government finance.
We have had four days' debate on the Budget presented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, a substantial part of which was devoted to the reduction in community charge bills and, as is proper, we have debated that fully. We are now entitled to just a few answers from the Labour party about its shadow Budget and its impact on local taxation.
Labour says that it supports the switch from local to central taxation, but the Leader of the Opposition leapt to criticise the increase in VAT. Perhaps Labour would fund the switch out of VAT; perhaps it would not. Perhaps Labour has in mind raising income tax. In successive elections, Labour has pledged itself to raising the basic rate of income tax. Labour wants higher taxes, but these days it does not have the courage to admit how much higher taxes will need to be to fund its local government plans.
Local government finance is not the only place where Labour's numbers do not add up. As we saw, Labour's child benefit figures add up only if Labour claws back from the poorest in the land the money that it would give to others, whatever their income. Those on income support and family credit can expect no comfort from the Labour party, yet those are the very families that we have helped with £350 million a year extra in each of the past three years. Did Labour intend to hurt the poorest, or was the reason incompetence?
Can the Leader of the Opposition tell us what happened in Labour's shadow Budget to pensioners, Labour's highest commitment? They vanished completely from the shadow Budget—a very shifty position indeed.
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order or a point of frustration?
Mr. Howarth: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is very simple. At the beginning of the debate, you pointed out that the motion on the Order Paper was quite narrow and related specifically to the poll tax—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister has not referred to the poll tax.
Mr. Speaker: I have not yet heard anything out of order.
The Prime Minister: We do not even have to guess what a Labour Government would be like; we can see Labour in action in local government every day of the week. Labour has brought shame on the very name of local government. Labour has overtaxed and overspent on a scale that shows its unfitness to manage our national budget. Labour has left waste and chaos in its wake. No one could believe for a single moment that a party that has failed and failed again at local level could even begin to form a Government—Labour cannot even clear the rubbish properly at local level.
The motion of no confidence should be directed at the Labour party—no confidence in a party which will always be divided when it comes to standing up for Britain, no confidence in a party which would never accept the responsibilities that go with government. The House can have that confidence in the Conservative party today, tomorrow and for many years to come.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very unseemly behaviour. Members of the House of Commons should not show their feelings in that manner. Those hon. Members who are not remaining will please leave quietly.
4.48 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Anyone watching the House on television or from the Galleries for the past hour or so would have been pretty depressed by the speeches that we have just heard. The speakers spent about 90 per cent. of their time excoriating their opposition instead of elucidating their policies. Any poll tax payer watching the debate so far, or reading the record, who expects to receive any information about the effects of either of the two major parties' policies will be sadly disappointed. I am bound to say that the past hour or so has shown us nothing but the worst examples of what is wrong with this House.
Mr. John Battle: If the right hon. Gentleman does not like it, he should leave it.
Mr. Norman Hogg: So much cant.
Mr. Ashdown: It is about time that the House started to speak for the people of Britain instead of speaking for narrow, sectoral, party interests.
The Prime Minister broke from what I regarded as one of his strengths by making a speech that was dedicated to an interminable attack on the Opposition's policies instead of revealing his party's policies or their implications. He did that to avoid the necessity of explaining his own policies. The Leader of the Opposition did exactly the same.
Tonight we shall have a vote of no confidence in the Government and we shall vote in favour of that motion. We shall do so because it is impossible to have confidence in a Government who have presided over such a shambles as the poll tax.
The lessons of that miserable fiasco, however, go much wider and do not just rest on the fact that the poll tax has uncovered the failure of the Conservative Government after 12 years in power. The poll tax has also revealed the failure of the official Opposition. That was evident today, as it has been throughout this sad, sorry tale. More than that, however, the poll tax fiasco has uncovered the way in which the House of Commons has failed in its duty to the British citizen. But, above all, the fiasco has revealed the failure of the political system that allowed this to happen in the first place.
I wonder what the ordinary person, the poll tax payer, would say about the way in which we have conducted ourselves on this matter in the past four years? The poll tax is the biggest political blunder made in this half of the century. The other day, someone said that the groundnuts scheme may have been worse, but, to coin a phrase, that was peanuts in comparison.
It is not as though we did not know what would happen. We all knew the consequences, about which the Government were warned. Because of the arrogance that the Government had assumed in 12 long years, they simply were not prepared to listen.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way in a moment.
978
The Government were not prepared to listen to the repeated warnings that they received from their hon. Friends, their supporters in local government and all the experts. They decided to ram through the poll tax whatever. At the end of the day, they were made to listen by the people of Ribble Valley who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the ballot box. It is that which killed the poll tax. Let it be known that on that single night the people of Ribble Valley did what the Labour party had failed to do for four years—they killed the poll tax.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The people who did not pay killed the poll tax.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman says that it is the people who did not pay who killed the poll tax—what nonsense. It was killed at the ballot box, just as we said it would be. It was killed by the people of Ribble Valley, not by those who disobeyed the law or those who encouraged that disobedience. It was not killed by the riots in Trafalgar square and the non-payers—it was killed by people using their votes in the ballot box. At least that was how it should be.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am reluctant to intervene, but the right hon. Gentleman started his speech by condemning both Front-Bench spokesmen for making what he described as party political speeches. I hate to say it, but it seems just a teensy-weensy bit as though he is now making a party political speech. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could change the style of his speech and go back to consensus politics so that we could all respect him a bit more.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman will find that I shall explain precisely what we would put in place of the poll tax.
The poll tax will be removed from the statute book by the people of Ribble Valley.
I do not follow the Leader of the Opposition's somewhat way out figures on what has been spent on the poll tax, because I do not believe that they add up. The most conservative estimates of the cost of the administration of that tax, of the set-up charges and of non-payment comes to £4 billion. Such is the waste that the Government have instituted by pursuing that tax for the past four years. That sum is equivalent to £120 for every family, and it is twice the cost of the Gulf war.
What could the nation do with £4 billion to improve education and the health service and to solve the scourge of homelessness and the problems of poverty? That money has been wantonly squandered by the Government on a policy that they knew perfectly well would not succeed. They were warned of the evident miseries that accompanied it.
To solve the problem, the Government now tell us that they will put 2·5 per cent. on VAT. Never again should the Government say that they are the tax-cutting Government. By a single stroke, they have raised that tax by a full 16 per cent. It is now clear that the Government will not spend money on building Britain's future, but that they will spend any money on getting out of the hole into which they have dug themselves. The Government are now attempting to fill in that hole, but they are doing so with our money.
It does the Chancellor of the Exchequer no good to pretend that the Government have ridden to the rescue

979
with another £4·3 billion to lower people's poll tax bills. The people are paying to have that money knocked off their bills. The Government's calculation is apparently simple. They will knock £140 off the poll tax bills in May and, in their gratitude, the electorate will vote for them in the local elections that month. I do not believe that the British people are that gullible. They know what has happened. They have the poll tax on the never-never—the poll tax on hire purchase. People will receive a lower bill in May, but they will pay for it for the rest of the year in instalments every time they go to the shops.
Never again will the Government be able to tell us that they are the responsible managers of the nation's resources. Never again will they be able to lecture us that they are the Government who give value for money. In this instance, the Government have wasted money more fruitlessly and to a greater extent than any other Government since the second world war.
We have been told that the Government have now chosen an alternative to the poll tax, but we are in some doubt about what it will be. Revelations so far tell us that that alternative will consist of not one tax, but the very two taxes that the Government derided when suggested by the Labour party.
Mr. Skinner: It is three taxes.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon Gentleman is right, because one must add the VAT.
In effect, the Government have changed the most unpopular tax in Britain, but jumbled up with it the second most unpopular tax, the rates. We do not know the fiscal emphasis that will be placed on those two parts of the new tax. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) asked about that the other day. Will the emphasis lie on the personal charge, or on the property tax? Are we talking about the rates with the poll tax added, or the poll tax with the rates added? The Government tell us that all this will be the subject of consultation. Well and good. We welcome that. But it is not possible to have consultation in a vacuum. The Government must make it clear where they stand on the matter and what they propose.
The absence of any view leads everyone legitimately to question whether the Government's proposed tax is cobbled together not so much for the good of Britain as to cover up the wide and widening divisions in the Conservative party. We saw that clearly last weekend when, on one television programme, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the principles of the poll tax would be retained and, on another, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that the poll tax was about to be abolished. Which is it? The country is entitled to know.
Mr. Skinner: Both.
Mr. Ashdown: It may well be.
There is an alternative. It is an alternative which the Government had available to them but which they ignored. It was recommended by the Layfield committee. It was not cooked up in some fevered corner of a think tank in Downing street. It has been used and practised with full public support in the majority of other advanced nations to raise local government finance.
Mr. Skinner: It is site rating.
Mr. Ashdown: It is an alternative which is simple, efficient, just and related to the ability to pay. It is, of course, local income tax.
Mr. Skinner: Oh, it has changed. It is not site rating.
Mr. Ashdown: It is the solution which the Government have, wilfully or otherwise, deliberately ignored.
Dr. Keith Hampson: I am moved to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman because of the interventions from a sedentary position in front of him. I recall at a university of Bristol meeting, when I was a student there—[Interruption.] It is not that far back. I remember one of the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished predecessors, a splendid man, Jo Grimond, arguing for site value rating. He condemned local income tax on the basis that it would have produced too acute differentials between local authorities. Local income tax might be 4p in Eastbourne, but how would he justify a 20p local income tax in places such as Camden? How could young professional people cope with such an increase?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman expects me to delve back too far into history. In a moment he will hear me refer to some rather more recent comments by members of his party on the subject of rates. I hesitate to ask him, for example, what might have been the policy of Sir Alec Douglas Home on the matter.
Let me be clear. We have published our figures. Those figures are available. They have been available to the party of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) for some time. They show an average level of local income tax on average across the country of somewhere between 5·5p and 6·5p in the pound, depending on how it is calculated. I am happy to rest on that—or perhaps I am not. Perhaps I should quote one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends to him. I could do no better than quote the words of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is now a member of the Government, on the matter. In April 1988—not nearly as far back as Mr. Jo Grimond—the hon. Gentleman said:
"With a dismissive sweep of the arm, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State"—
the then Secretary of State for the Environment—
"said that any attempt to raise local revenue by a form of local income tax was inherently impossible—ignoring the fact that that is exactly how the vast majority of civilised countries fund local government and that not one civilised country funds local government in the way proposed by the Bill."—[Official Report, 18 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 608.]
He referred to the Bill which created the poll tax. I could not put the case for local income tax better than that. I am happy to leave it in the words of an hon. Member who is now a Minister.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: This is the last time that I shall give way.
Mr. Douglas: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he make it clear that what he is saying may not apply in direct terms to Scotland? He will be aware that the Scottish National party put before the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for the Environment a comprehensive view of local income tax for Scotland. Of course, the figures are somewhat altered now because of the shift in the balance of taxation. A local

981
income tax of between 3p and 4p in the pound could be introduced. Apart from that, I agree with the line that the right hon. Gentleman takes.
Mr. Ashdown: What the hon. Gentleman says is accurate, but he omits one fact. I believe that it would be necessary to maintain the increased level of VAT in order to introduce a local income tax of 3p or 4p.
Sir Peter Hordern: I have been following the right hon. Gentleman's argument closely. As he says that he has carried out investigations and that the figures are well known to him, can he tell the House what the local income tax would be in Liverpool?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman asks me a detailed question—[Interruption.] Let me answer. Those figures are available. I can show him the document which contains the figures for Liverpool. I shall be happy to put it in the Library for the House to peruse. Unlike the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), I shall do it this afternoon, if the House requires, so that it is available to the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and any other hon. Gentlemen who may be interested.
We have no confidence in the Government on this matter. They have shown themselves to be a Government who are no longer fit to govern our country by the way in which they have handled this important matter and brought misery to many. Nor do we have confidence in the official Opposition for the way in which they have handled the matter. The House has never had a better example of the negative politics which dominates our country than on the issue of the poll tax.
The Government and the Opposition borrow not only each other's policies but each other's insults. When looking into the matter, my mind was drawn to the words of the Secretary of State for Wales in 1990, when he was the Minister in charge of the poll tax. He said:
"Labour are all over the house, taxing bits of it. What next—a room tax? Window tax? bookshelf tax? three piece suite tax? What other bizarre ways will the Labour Party come up with to tax people in arbitrary, unfair and unworkable fashion?"
Lo and behold, what did we hear from the Leader of the Opposition on 12 March 1991 in an attack on the Prime Minister? He said:
"Does he want the floor tax or the roof tax, the bed-and-breakfast tax or the bedroom tax, the capital value tax or the extension tax? Does he want one tax or two?"—[Official Report, 12 March 1991; Vol.187, c. 803.]
The two parties simply indulge in banter and argue between themselves. They both say one thing one day and do exactly the opposite the next.[Interruption.]Yes, on this matter we have been a model of absolute consistency.
The present Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities said in October 1990, again commenting on Labour:
"Taxes on people's homes are unfair. Property values bear little relation to people's ability to pay. Capital value rating—which lies at the heart of Labour's proposals—would throw a tremendous burden on millions of households, particularly those in the south east whose house prices are high…It took two years to complete the revaluation of around 1·8 million business properties for our new business rate. How much time and effort do you think it would take to revalue 21·5 million domestic properties?"
For Conservative Members, here is how he ends:
"Rates were about as rational and fair as Russian roulette. No one with a conscience, no one who really cares, could possibly advocate such a system."
982
That then, this now. For that is precisely what the Government now advocate. It is exactly what was criticised in those terms less than a year ago.
We have heard constant complaints from the Labour party that the Government's proposals do not assist the poor over rebates and so on. But in its own proposals, the Labour party makes it clear that its rebates would not be automatic and would be paid only at the moment when the scheme was introduced——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot understand what is happening in the Chamber. We were all collectively accused before you by the right hon. Gentleman of acting unreasonably in not addressing ourselves to the debate. He then rises and proceeds to do precisely that. Is it not just blatant hypocrisy?
Mr. Ashdown: I have explained in detail my party's proposals. Nobody who is listening to this speech or reads it subsequently can be in any doubt about the details of our proposals. We have provided them. They are published and available.
To return to the politics of the past year, today the Leader of the Opposition said that consultation was a "device". Earlier this year the Labour party was offered the opportunity of consultation with the Government, but rejected it. The Labour party refused to take part. It stood outside the process. Indeed, today the Labour leader said that to consult was evidence of indecision. You might imagine from that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Labour party was opposed to consultation, yet at the end of its document it states:
"The Labour party intends to consult widely on the basis of the proposals set out in the Paper. There is no reason why Labour should fall in the same trap as the Conservatives in announcing an immovable and predetermined policy irrespective of expert and political opinion or regardless of constructive observation."
That is the Labour party's commitment, yet from the start it has daily denied that in its approach to this matter. Today the leader of the Labour party denied it in his speech criticising the Prime Minister.
This is a serious matter which the House should have approached with more seriousness than has been evident today. We have no confidence in the Government or in the official Opposition, who have put their desire to oppose before their desire to represent the national interest.
Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: No, I shall not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I shall not give way again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
Mr. Ashdown: I should like to consider for a moment how the House has handled the matter. What purpose does the House have, if it is not to protect the ordinary citizen from arbitrary and unjust laws such as the poll tax? Yet the House has not been doing that. The House has failed in its duties to protect the ordinary citizen. What can the average person, considering what has happened in the past year, think about the fact that, when the legislation was debated last year, Conservative Members trooped through the Lobby in Division after Division to vote through the poll tax? Now they will presumably troop

983
through the Lobby in Division after Division to get rid of the poll tax. What judgment can be made about their judgment and interest in putting our citizens first?
Above all, the poll tax fiasco points out the failure of our political system. People are entitled to ask how we got into this mess in the first place. How could a Government of intelligent people served by a civil service which is reputed to be one of the best in the world produce the poll tax? The Government were warned. They knew perfectly well the consequences of their action.
In 1976 the Layfield committee considered the poll tax and said that it was unworkable. In 1981 the Government's Green Paper on the alternative to domestic rates considered the poll tax and said that it was unworkable. In 1982 the Select Committee on the Environment considered the poll tax and said that it was unworkable. In 1983 the Government's White Paper on rates considered the poll tax and said that it was unworkable. Not one local authority association, not even the Association of County Councils when under Conservative control, supported the Government's proposal. Nevertheless, the Government went ahead. The truth is that the proper process of government has been broken.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: No. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.
At the end of 12 years in power, the Government believe that they have——
Mr. Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: We have a Government now——
Mr. Holt: Coward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me whether the use of the word "coward" in the Chamber reflects on the character of an hon. Member? If it does, perhaps the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who uttered that expression, will take the opportunity of withdrawing it now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was not sure whether the House heard the word. Confirmation has now been received and I think that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will withdraw it.
Mr. Holt: You and I know each other well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you know that I would not wish to cast a slur on any right hon. or hon. Gentleman. However, when we are having a debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: This is disgraceful.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker repeatedly reminds the House that we are all honourable here. We do not reflect adversely on the character of other right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh should courteously and without qualification withdraw the remark that he made.
Mr. Holt: Of course, I shall bow to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and unreservedly apologise to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I look forward to him giving way to me.
Mr. Ashdown: Despite all those warnings and opposition from all quarters, the Government went ahead with the poll tax. They have inevitably reaped the fruits of their folly.
The Government have broken the natural process of government. They believe that they have a monopoly of the truth, and, therefore, that they had a right to force through the legislation, whatever the damage to our country and, in the end, to their reputation. It was government by ideological fiat from the previous Prime Minister. In so far as the present Prime Minister seeks to change that attitude of the Government, I welcome and support it.
Mr. Holt rose——
Mr. Ashdown: The real question is: how did the Government get the power to introduce the poll tax in the first place, when six out of 10 people at the general election voted against the party that had the poll tax as a policy in its manifesto?
Mr. Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: The Government sought to impose this and other damaging policies on Britain, having received a minority of the votes.
Let us be absolutely clear. If we had fair votes, we would not have the poll tax. What is much more important is that, if we had fair votes, we would not have had any need of the poll tax. The poll tax was introduced to curb extreme left-wing councils. We heard the Prime Minister say so today. He said that he was continuing to curb extreme left-wing councils. Not one of those extreme left-wing councils would be in power if we had a fair voting system. Still the Government intend to blunder on. As a solution to this problem they will not give local councils a fair voting system. Essentially they will concentrate and centralise even more power in their own hands. They are using this as a cover for destroying much of what is left of our local government system.
Reform is necessary for the proper process of our government, nationally and locally. We know that reform will come only through the Liberal Democrats. It will not come from the Labour party, which intends not to change the system, simply to inherit it. I do not know whether the Government's difficulties are temporary or terminal. I do not know whether their difficulties are to do with the new Prime Minister going through a period of passing disarray or whether the noise that we hear and the sight we see are those of a great political juggernaut breaking up.
I do know, however, that more and more people will see the poll tax fiasco as a reason not just to change the Government, but to change the system of government. More and more people will recognise that the poll tax is yet another reason why the great programme of reform, which must be instituted on government, is now necessary both to the system of government and to the process of voting. As that movement gathers pace, the Tory and Labour parties will, as usual, be at the back trying to hold it up, and the Liberal Democrats will be at the front leading it forward.
5.19 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: As I was fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye recently in the debate on the War Crimes Bill, I am particularly grateful for the further opportunity today to intervene. I shall make my speech as brief as possible.
I listened with great interest to what was said by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I am sorry if he goes away sad about today's debate. My own impression is that we have thoroughly enjoyed ourselves and both the major parties will go away happily to enjoy Easter—I cannot answer for the right hon. Gentleman's party. The only difference is that Conservative Members will go away still strongly grasping power and the Opposition will go away still vainly seizing power. That is what happens after a vote of no confidence.
One thought came into my mind during the right hon. Gentleman's speech. When I listened to his scathing denunciation of both the Government and the Opposition, I began to wonder whether his recent public commitment to a happy participation in a coalition Government with either side was really quite as valuable as I thought it was to begin with. I am dismayed.
The main reason I want to speak, however briefly, is to give the fullest possible support to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has embarked on an enormous task and faces formidable problems. I am sad if what I say disappoints all those Opposition Members who have so strongly and loudly supported me during the past 15 difficult years, but I am now in a position to say these few words. I believe that what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is doing is absolutely right—perhaps I say so the more strongly because I was one of those who previously said that the Government were absolutely wrong. In the debate during the passage of the Local Government Finance Bill on 17 December 1987, I summed up:
"The poll tax is unfair and unworkable. It does not increase accountability and will be immensely damaging to the Conservative party."—[Official Report, 17 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1263.]
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is now limiting the damage and leading the Conservative party to recover from that damage.
The size of the problems with which we are confronted is enormous. Those of us who were in the House during the royal commission at the end of the 1960s and were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the local government Acts in the 1970s, recognise exactly how big the problem is. We were then dealing with Government structure. This time, we are told, we shall deal with all aspects of local government—structure, purposes and finances. It may well be that they are interlocking—of course they are. But the task of dealing with all three aspects of local government is simply enormous, and I see no reason why the matter should be rushed.
One of the lessons we should learn is that the poll tax was introduced without proper consultation or examination. As a result, the Prime Minister faces the problems he does today. Any change now requires the utmost detailed consideration. The same applies to the structure of local government. There are many different aspects of structure. What happened in the early 1970s—in 1974—was that we introduced a new structure for local government.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise to the House of Commons for the mistakes that he made in the 1974 reorganisation?
Mr. Heath: It was before 1974.
Mr. Skinner: It was the Local Government Act 1972.
Mr. Heath: Yes, it was the Local Government Act 1972, long before 1974. One of the purposes of that Act was to adapt local government to the requirements of a modern society and moderntechnology——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It ignored the people.
Mr. Heath: It does not take very much to annoy my hon. Friend.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the reorganisation that we endured during his term of office was disastrous and proved to be so? It totally destroyed local loyalties, which we are now seeking to restore.
Mr. Heath: It did nothing of the sort. It established local authorities of a certain size for purposes that are required of them today. Where those changes have taken place in the past decade, they have done so largely because of bias and bile against local authorities. I do not want to go into detail, but if we take the case of London, there is now no structure for dealing overall with the problems of one of the great cities of the world. Ours is the only country not to have that. That was done through sheer bile against an authority which, at the time, did not happen to be Conservative. When we examine the issue of the number of tiers in local government, we must give the matter the utmost consideration.
We said that the poll tax would not be acceptable, and it proved not to be acceptable. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not blame the Labour party for that, or those people who said that they would not pay it. The fact is, the poll tax was not acceptable to the public opinion of this country. If we try to put forward proposals that are not acceptable to the great majority of the public, we must remember that we shall get into difficulty again. That is a problem facing us in our examination of new taxes.
The problem with the poll tax was that it was based on a fundamental fallacy, which was the result of dogma. That was perfectly expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who said that, in local government, the duke should pay the same as the dustman. That doctrine is not held anywhere else in the world except, I am told, on one small Pacific island. If we accept that dogma and introduce the poll tax, however many variations we try to make in it, it is bound to be a failure. The 1974 Conservative party election memorandum stated that any change must be in accordance with people's ability to pay. That is the essential principle for the whole basis of future taxation of local government.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil talked about local income tax. I hope that that option will not be dismissed too lightly by those examining the issue. It was recommended at the end of the 1960s by the Layfield committee and it is too easily dismissed. I believe that one

987
reason for our present problems is that the rating system was too easily dismissed with bogus arguments-I admit that, at times, I used them myself.
We asked how it could be fair to have a retired couple living in a semi-detached house and next door a couple with the husband and two sons at work, with both households paying the same rates. That would not be fair, but the fact is that that can be adjusted for fairness by a rebate system. That led us into part of the trouble which brought about the poll tax.
A local income tax was looked at seriously by the Treasury in the early 1970s. We now have complete computerisation and up-to-date technology, so it is possible, with great economy of manpower, to deal with both a national and a local income tax. The two can be clearly separated, if necessary by having one in the spring and one in the autumn. A local income tax can be implemented without any breach of confidence, because the revenue authorities have both the working and home addresses of everybody who is involved. Therefore, we could produce a simple system and people could see exactly how much was going into local spending and how much was going into national spending.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: How does the right hon. Gentleman overcome the problem that was mentioned earlier—that the yield per person in Eastbourne would be greater than the yield per person in Liverpool? This is a geographical flaw.
Mr. Heath: That problem arises on every form of local government finance which has yet been thought of or practised. It is tackled by the adjustment of local government benefits from central Government. It always has been done in that way and it will still have to be done in that way.
Very well, we may have to accept capping of extravagant local authorities, but if local authorities are extravagant, it must be largely the responsibility of local people to deal with those local authorities.
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford): We have a London authority called Lambeth with massive rate, rent and charge arrrears, yet its people still vote solidly Labour. Can my right hon. Friend explain that?
Mr. Heath: If they like to go on voting Labour and paying those enormous rates—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do not"] They were paying much higher rates than anyone when they were paying rates, put it that way, and if local authorities like to do that, that is up to them. People who live in Westminster do not have the same problem.
I see the deputy Leader of the Opposition in his place. I am puzzled why the Opposition particularly asked that this vote of no confidence should be concerned only with the poll tax. I cannot recollect any other occasion in the House in the past 40 years when a vote of no confidence has been limited to one particular subject.
I can understand one reason, which is that on previous votes of no confidence the Leader of the Opposition has, sadly for him, failed in his attack. He roamed far and wide and got into great difficulties, and he lost his party's support. I suppose that, if one sticks to one thing., that reduces the chances of the Leader of the Opposition messing up yet another vote of no confidence.
That is one explanation. The other is that the Opposition are just not prepared, on an occasion when
988
they are testing a whole Government, wanting to overthrow them, to discuss all the other issues today in modern affairs. Do the Opposition not realise that by doing that they are reducing the value of their own motion of no confidence? The country realises that clearly.
Why were they not prepared to give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister all the credit for what he has done in restoring our situation in Europe? He has changed the whole position. Why were the Opposition not prepared to discuss the part that he played in the crisis in the Gulf? Why were the Opposition not prepared to discuss the dramatic step that he took in saying, within a month of taking office, that haemophiliacs will of course receive proper compensation for being infected with AIDS as a result of bad blood transfusions, something which had been argued about in a petty way for years? My right hon. Friend dealt immediately with all that, so why will not the Opposition give him credit for it?
I just do not understand, except that they are not prepared to acknowledge the good things that have been done in the past 100 days. I am, and I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues on that.
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman has just received a handout as an ex-Prime Minister.
Mr. Heath: I wish to give my right hon. Friend the utmost support. Of course, I immediately acknowledge my particular interest as a former Prime Minister.
Mr. Skinner: How much is it?
Mr. Heath: I do not know. It is not something to which the hon. Gentleman will ever aspire.
5.35 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I do not think that I have ever heard so much nonsense in all my life. The attack that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has just made on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was nonsense. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should have changed his attitude so radically. From condemning his Government, as he has been doing all these years, he has now turned into an enthusiastic supporter.
A measure of the right hon. Gentleman's failure to appreciate the significance of this debate on the poll tax is his criticism of the Labour party for refusing to widen the debate. If we were to widen the debate, it would allow Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister and others, to escape the consequences of what is really a political disaster for the Government. Therefore, it is our intention today to focus narrowly on the poll tax. There is no question of reducing the value of the motion, as the right hon. Gentleman said. We are increasing the value of the motion by ensuring that we debate the poll tax and its effect. It is significant that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) should start the debate by objecting to its terms. The fact that he too wanted to widen it is a measure of how worried members of the Government are about the House debating the poll tax today.
One thing surprised me about the defence of the poll tax by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. He said that he did not want to disappoint the Opposition with his support for the Government. I was not so much

989
disappointed as amazed that he knew what was happening, because every Minister has a different point of view. Every speech and every broadcast reveals an entirely different kind of poll tax, an entirely different kind of impost. How the right hon. Gentleman can be so enthusiastic beats me. The real clue to his speech was when he said that he commends the exercise in damage limitation. That is what the Prime Minister's speech today was all about. It was an attempt at damage limitation.
Let me tell the House what the nub of the Government's problem is. The poll tax is wholly unacceptable to the general public but Tory party activists want to retain the poll tax. That is the Government's problem. They are anxious to ditch the poll tax if they can, but their own activists will not allow them to do so. That is the reason for all the wriggling and manoeuvring, all their strange words and all their problems.
But I wish to concentrate on the effect of the poll tax on disabled people, most of whom are on low incomes. They have a low income and, as a consequence of Government policy, disabled people will have to pay more VAT. That is a serious attack on disabled people in view of their low incomes. Also, they will have to pay a percentage of the poll tax. As the Prime Minister told us this afternoon that that matter is still the subject of discussion, I do not yet know how much, but they will have to pay something. Therefore, they will pay increased VAT and some percentage of the poll tax, yet they will get no benefit from the £140 that has been offered. Disabled people are losing heavily, in all ways.
I remind the House that the average increase in male earnings in manufacturing industry in the past 10 years has been 20 per cent. The average increase in disabled people's benefit has been 1 per cent. There is no escaping those figures. Disabled people are living in great poverty, and this impost of the poll tax and increased VAT will hit them very hard indeed. It is easy for some of us to pay the poll tax—the well-off and Members of Parliament can manage it, but disabled people cannot bear this sort of burden, which is very heavy indeed.
The set of circumstances that I have outlined about increased VAT and having to pay a percentage of the poll tax will hit disabled people because they do not receive any benefit from the concession that is being given to most people. I do not understand how that anomaly can be defended.
The second major effect on disabled people is the impact on social services: the money that has been allocated to local authorities has been reduced and county councils are in chaos and do not know whether they are coming or going. Social services are absolutely vital for disabled people. They are crucial.
I am glad that the Government are seeking to remove mentally handicapped people from long-stay institutions. I commend that policy, but there is no financial provision for it. There is a shortage of beds in hospitals and in long-stay institutions and no proper provision in the community, and disabled people are caught—trapped in a vice. They have neither adequate provision in institutions and hospitals nor provision outside in the community.
Government policy towards local authorities is disastrous for the people who are least able to bear it. It is
990
significant that the Government have deferred implementation of their proposals to improve community care and it is potentially disastrous to the people concerned
Yesterday or the day before I received a letter from a Minister saying that the Government did not intend to implement certain vital provisions—I think, sections 1, 2 and 3—of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, what we call the Tom Clarke Act. That means that the Government are backing off from vital aspects of advocacy and assessment for disabled people.
I conclude with this plea. If the problems of disabled people have been overlooked by the Government, as I believe they have been, I should like my short speech to draw attention to them and the Government to think again. I must confess that I am disappointed with the Prime Minister because, as a former Minister for the Disabled, he was active in seeking to help disabled people. He did not do as much as I thought he would. In my view, as Minister for the Disabled he certainly failed to pursue the interests of the disabled as actively as I would have wished, and I hoped that as Prime Minister he would pay special attention to their problems. However, with this controversial poll tax policy he has not done so. Tonight, I make a plea that disabled people should be given special consideration because if they are not, they will suffer even more than they are suffering at the moment.
Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber wish to take part in this debate. Earlier this afternoon Mr. Speaker ruled that between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock the 10-minutes rule would apply. Do you have any capacity to rule now, informally, that all speeches should be limited to 10 minutes, so that those of us who sit here until the end of the debate may have a chance of giving our point of view on this important vote of no confidence?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not have power to add to what Mr. Speaker has already ruled, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will have regard to the matter that has just been raised and will try to reduce their speeches, which may otherwise go on at length.
5.45 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: I shall try to follow the example set by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and keep my remarks short.
First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a quite outstanding speech, which both devastated his critics and substantially added to his reputation in the House and in the country. May I also congratulate the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), on his remarks. I agree entirely with his observation that it is extraordinary that this censure motion has been drawn up in such a way as to confine us to one subject. As far as I know, that is almost unprecedented. The only conclusion to which one can come is that the Opposition are afraid to expose to debate the other subjects in question.
Of course, it is true that month after month the community charge has dominated the political debate. There is no question about that—the debate has gone on

991
and on. What has been the effect on the political standing of the relative leaders? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been found by the opinion polls to be the most popular Prime Minister since Churchill. When Gallup asked this month, "Who would make the best Prime Minister?", 13 per cent. thought the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), 23 per cent. thought the Leader of the Opposition and 56 per cent. thought my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be the best equipped. If these are the bad days, I cannot wait to get to the good days.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made as impressive a start to his premiership as it is possible to make. I concede that we have a secret weapon—the Leader of the Opposition. The smack of firm opposition will live with him for a long time. In effect, the Leader of the Opposition is our universal comforter—the parliamentary equivalent of worry beads for the Conservative party. There is no row yet invented that he cannot get us out of Westland, the leadership, the list goes on. He is at the service of successive Conservative Governments.
Mr. Dalyell: Now that there has been a change of leadership, and since he was a senior Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the truth about Westland?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not tell us anything about Westland today.
Sir Norman Fowler: I am greatly tempted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the book.
I am not persuaded by those politicians and newspapers that argue that the old domestic rates system was the best and fairest system of local taxation known to man. That is not the view of the public, and we know it. In the 1974 and other general elections, that was a serious issue on the doorstep and the public wanted an attempt at reform. There is no question of that.
There is no doubt that the public deserve some protection from high-spending local councils. I live in two council areas, both, as it happens, controlled by Labour. In Birmingham, I live under a council that has squandered the £70 safety net in this year's settlement; in London, I live under a council that has lost some £100 million by gambling on the futures market, and whose only defence is that its action was unlawful. The public want to be defended against such activities, and it is surely entirely justifiable for the Government to act to that end.
I make no apology for my membership for a Government who sought to reform the position. Had I disagreed with their policy, my proper course would have been to resign: that is the only right and sensible course for a Cabinet Minister who feels so strongly about a subject. I am not sure that such people should have the luxury of coming back several years later and saying, "The policy may have gone wrong, but you may be encouraged to know that I was secretly against it all the time."
Nor am I over-impressed by the arguments of some of my former colleagues about what should be done now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) talks darkly about the Ides of March; my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby quotes Mendes France. Mendes France said that to govern was to choose, but when it came to action the tale was slightly different. The big issue that Mendes France
992
tackled in Government was the European Defence Community and the rearmament of West Germany. For that he allowed a free vote, and the Government abstained. That does not strike me as quite the kind of leadership—a leadership of firm decisions—that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby probably had in mind.
We memoir writers must stick together. The purpose of memoirs is to guide present and future actions. I am not attracted by standing pat on the community charge and pretending that nothing has happened. I am even less persuaded that we should raise all the money centrally; that would recreate the finance system of the health service. Devoted as I am to health professionals, I have never regarded the financial system and the management structure of the health service as the way forward for the 21st century. Such a change would entirely alter, and risk destroying the basis of good local authorities.
Nor am I attracted by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby of putting 5 per cent. VAT on food, books, newspapers and children's clothing. Unlike him, I shall be standing at the next election, which may explain my caution. I fear that my right hon. Friend is getting a little demob-happy. It is not so much the Ides of March as the September song of a politician who has his eyes on a sunset seat in another place.
The actions taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are correct. Whatever our views on the community charge may have been, the issue is here and now: what do we do about the present position? I support his proposal, and I applaud the local government review. It is right to consider structure, functions and finance together. That is sensible, and I welcome the consultative document that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced. I believe that local councils should be accountable to the local electorate; I welcome the fact that people living alone will not pay as much, and I believe in controlling the overspending of some councils.
The Opposition say that under their plans seven out of 10 people will gain. I repeat what the Prime Minister said: before the public believe that claim, we must be given the figures on which it is based. Like one or two of my hon. Friends, including the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), I remember the social security review only too well. I remember the response to the proposals that I put to the House, which was that we should provide the illustrative figures. We did so, and that is now what we require of the Opposition. They must provide the figures.
I strongly support my right hon. Friend's approach. It is a good rule to proceed with a sensible amount of consultation. Governments who do not do that often find themselves in difficulties. What has impressed me about the first months of my right hon. Friend's premiership has been his handling of some of the important decisions that he now faces. At times, the Opposition's real concern seems to be not the decision-making process, but the difficulty of challenging the decisions made by my right hon. Friend. That applies to a range of subjects; child benefit is just one example.
The Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) introduced many impressive reforms, and the country owes her a debt. My right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister was part of that revolution, and he is now taking it on. He has made an outstanding start. Let me make one prediction: his policies and his style will enable him to win the next general

993
election. It is equally certain that those qualities will keep the Labour party in opposition—and looking for a new leader.
5.56 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: The speech by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) may have led the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to reflect that at least his Cabinet was rather more dignified and restrained in its utterances than the Thatcher Administration have proved to be. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has come back to the fold, having left that Administration when he saw the clouds gathering; the House will know how to assess his speech.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, however, is not only a former Prime Minister but a former Chief Whip. I suspect that that is why his speech supported the complaint made earlier that the content of the motion was too narrow. Such an important subject merits the concentration of minds. As former Chief Whip, the right hon. Gentleman will know that a broader debate would have allowed Conservative Members to be dragged in to talk about everything except the flagship that the poll tax was once said to be.
Lest the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup should believe that his Administration deserved great respect, let me tell him that the Opposition are entirely justified in claiming that over the past two decades the Conservative party has continually demonstrated its utter unfitness to have any responsibility for local government. The reorganisation of 1973 was probably the most inflationary exercise that the country has ever experienced.
At that time, we witnessed an example of duplicity. In his announcement of the rate support grant settlement immediately before the 1974 election, the then Secretary of State promised the House that the average rate increase would be 3 per cent., and that nowhere would the increase exceed 9 per cent. In many parts of the country, the increase amounted to more than 100 per cent. In March 1974, an incoming Labour Government had to sort out an appalling muddle; I suspect that, in 1991–92, an incoming Labour Government will be faced with exactly the same task—a task made unavoidable by the demonstrable incompetence displayed by the Conservative party. That statement can be justified, and I propose to justify it.
Local government reorganisation led to a substantial explosion in local government expenditure. The Labour Government were criticised for failing to control it. In March 1974, I went into the Department of the Environment as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Tony Crosland who set up the consultative body on local government finance. Local finance was very much under control between 1976 and 1981. That was due to a consistency and decency of treatment that led my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) to intervene during the Prime Minister's speech and point out that during the last three years of the Labour Government's life they provided 61 per cent. of local government finance.
Then the Thatcher Administration took office. No Conservative Member can deny that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said that the burden
994
must be shifted from the backs of the taxpayer to the backs of the ratepayer, with the result that the Treasury now provides 43 per cent. instead of 61 per cent. of local government finance, which more than doubled, in real terms, the burden placed on the domestic ratepayer.
Then came the problem. Having doubled the domestic ratepayer's burden, the former Prime Minister then complained about the rates explosion and promised to abolish domestic rates. Despite all the warnings, which have been listed in the debate, not one of the right hon. Members who were part of both the last and the present Administration was prepared to stand up and tell the Prime Minister that there was something in that advice and that it would be stupid to embark upon a tax that would be as unacceptable as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup described it. He said that it was unfair to tax the dustman and the duke in exactly the same way, but the fact remains that the north country dustman was probably paying twice as much as the south country duke. Whatever may be the other faults of the poll tax, one of the major causes of its unpopularity is the degree of corruption inherent in it.
Some hon. Members will have heard me provide on a previous occasion a detailed comparison of the treatment of the city of Westminster and the metropolitan borough of Rotherham. The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is well aware of the figures, because he has heard them from me before. In 1990–91, we found that, under the Government's inexplicable and corrupt determination, Rotherham was treated as one of the most prosperous and least deprived areas in the country. I have the largest area of dereliction and, in parts of my constituency, perhaps the highest unemployment to be found anywhere in the country, but Rotherham was regarded as more prosperous than anywhere in the affluent counties of Surrey, Kent, Hampshire and Sussex.
The result of Rotherham being told that it was prosperous was that that metropolitan borough, which has no reputation for extravagance or irresponsibility, received per head a very much smaller sum in grant than most other areas. By comparison, the city of Westminster, with a smaller proportion of children in its schools and a smaller number of old people needing care—a more compact area with a smaller population and with all the advantages that accrue to an area that enjoys the double poll tax revenue that many hon. Members, and others, had to pay—received last year 455 per cent. more per head than the metropolitan borough of Rotherham.
Despite all our protestations and the clear evidence that we provided of the problems that face the borough, in 1991–92 the proportion of support would have risen to the extent that the people of Westminster would have received 475 per cent. more per head than the people in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham.
Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman puts his case with his usual force, robustness and clarity, but we are debating present policies rather than what happened in the last few years. A motion such as this focuses attention not only on the policies of the Government of the day but on the policies of the Labour party. Is the hon. Gentleman convinced by the statement made by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen that seven out of 10 households will benefit from the Labour party's proposals, and has he seen the documentation and figure work that led them to that conclusion?
Mr. Hardy: I must confess that I cannot say that I am absolutely informed of all the details of my party's policy. However, I intend to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. I had intended to do so, anyway, because it would have been utterly unproductive and unprofitable to sit down without referring to the alternatives. No Opposition Member can refrain, however, from uttering critical comment about that most appalling, wasteful and foolish exercise in British politcal history, the poll tax It is an example of complete lack of wisdom and complete absence of judgment. It was an exercise which was cynical in its approach. It inflicted on the country and on the world of local government in particular an arrangement for the determination of support that was insanely and impossibly inexplicable.
The fact remains that a return to a property-based tax such as the rates has a great deal to commend it. It is economic. Vast sums of money have been spent during the last two years and will be spent during the next two years, whatever the outcome of the consultations. Therefore, I ask myself what could have been done with that money.
Despite the fact that my local education authority is responsible and good, as the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) will recall from his days in the Department of Education and Science, I find when I visit primary schools in my constituency that this year they can afford to buy only one paperback book for every 25 children. Then the Secretary of State for Education and Science has the gall to talk about standards. While such glaring needs exist, money has been thrown away on the poll tax. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield left the Cabinet, but the whole lot should have gone; now they cling to office and will also cling to the son of poll tax with the enthusiasm that they displayed for its father.
The Conservative party claims to have an interest in and a knowledge of local government. That claim has been exploded during the last 12 months. It claims to represent the rural shires of our islands. Only the other da y, I received a letter—the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) may find this interesting—from Wentworth parish council—not a hotbed of socialist belief—asking me to speak and lobby fiercely in its interests and those of other parish councils. They appear completely and utterly to have escaped the attention of the Department of the Environment during the last three years.
I hope that at some stage—whether at the end of this debate or later—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), or his more senior colleagues will relieve the anxieties of those who are deeply offended and disappointed by the Conservative Government's attitude towards the leaders of our rural communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I shall seek to put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest right away. I believe strongly that there is an important role for parish councils. However, we must remember that only 50 per cent. of this country has parish councils, that there are community councils in some parts of the rest of it, while in other parts there are not. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said in his statement that he is looking at the parishes. When we publish our consultation paper in the near future, we hope to listen to the voice of the parishes which represent not only rural but urban England.
Mr. Hardy: But the Government have not listened to them so far. When the last local government reorganisation took place, the Government said that they were prepared to establish successor parish councils in urban districts, especially in those with a population of between 10,000 and 20,000. What they did, in effect, was to grant successor parish council status to every Tory urban district, especially if it was above or below the parameters that they had established, but they refused to give successor parish council status to Labour urban districts that did fit in with the Government's criteria. I could go on at length about that, as I did at the time.
The Government's approach to and handling of local government have been deplorable. They should learn to co-operate with local government because there is no more efficient way of administering services. They must resist the temptation to follow the advice of hon. Members like the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) who would centralise education. Centralisation is extravagant, inefficient and wasteful. It is probably too late for the Government to begin to work with local government in the way the Labour Government did between 1974 and 1979, when control was exercised without a large stick, through consultation and through good faith.
The sooner the Government put behind them the appalling record of Boadicea, who is not with us today—of all hon. Members, the right hon. Member for Finchley should have been present—the better local government will be. After the experience of recent months I have no faith that those who occupy the Treasury Bench, who were servilely obedient to the right hon. Lady and who bear the responsibility that she conferred upon them, are fit for office. The motion is entirely justified.
6.11 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: I shall follow your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that of Mr. Speaker to speak briefly, if for no other reason than that I thought the motion was one of no confidence in the Government and I had prepared a wider speech.
I wonder why the Opposition have chosen to restrict the debate simply to the community charge. I do not know what the process of thinking and discussion was during consideration by the shadow Cabinet, but I can imagine the right hon.and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) saying to the Leader of the Opposition, "Whatever you do, Neil, do not get tangled up with figures." That is no doubt one reason why the subject has been narrowed to the community charge.
Sir Timothy Raison: The plot thickens the more one looks at it. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman who will be replying to the debate on behalf of the Opposition has nothing to do with the portfolio of Environment, but is the deputy Leader of the Opposition, whose concern is Home Affairs. Of course, that puts him in the happy position of not being expected to know anything about what Labour would do.
Sir Peter Hordern: My right hon. Friend has elucidated something for me and helped the whole House. I had no idea that that was the case. I had not regarded the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) as a repository of knowledge about the community charge; no doubt we shall learn a great deal when the time comes.

997
There was confusion about the subject for debate. I am not surprised when we realise that we have just had the best trade figures for many years and when we have seen the rate of inflation falling. We know that it will fall much more and that interest rates will come tumbling down during the year as well. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Opposition chose to narrow the debate to a single subject.
We are debating a motion of no confidence in the Government, and the Opposition want to defeat the Government by voting us out. It is a forlorn task. If they had chosen a general vote of no confidence, and if the Leader of the Opposition had made such a hash of it as he did on the last occasion, would not the party have tried to get rid of him?
It occurred tome that there might be difficulty about that, given the leadership rules of the Labour party. I do not know whether my right hon. and hon. Friends have had an opportunity to peruse those rules, but I have. It is extraordinarily difficult to get rid of the leader of the Labour party, not just because the trade unions have the largest block vote and the leadership can be changed only during a party conference. If the leader is changed, he has to be replaced by the deputy leader, none other than the hon. Member for Sparkbrook. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is to reply to the debate, I immediately thought that the reason must be that the Labour party is going to get rid of the Leader of the Opposition and is preparing the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to take his place.
Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the motion, but that is for the Chair to decide; I was about to raise it on a point of order. The hon. Gentleman mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). If the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) reads the history of my right hon. Friend and of his family, he will realise that they have been in local government all their lives, and that my right hon. Friend's mother was a great lady on Sheffield city council for many years.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Both hon. Gentlemen are out of order. Perhaps they would do the House the courtesy of returning to the motion.
Sir Peter Hordern: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I should have expected the Opposition spokesman on environmental matters to reply to a debate which is confined to the poll tax.
I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition, and I distinctly heard him say that no more money would be necessary to pay for the Opposition's policy and that there would certainly be no poll tax. He said that there would be no increase in taxes. I do not know how a Labour Government would get more money, unless they borrowed it. That is a perennial problem for the Opposition. They are keen on spending, but they say that they would not cap local councils if they spent more than they should. Therefore, they would be driven to increase taxation or to borrow. That has always been the case with Labour Governments in the past.
998
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) rightly claim in an intervention that in his time the rate support grant was 61 per cent. I also recollect that that proportion was reached by a drastic reduction imposed by the International Monetary Fund through Dr. Johannes Witteveen's letter—that admirable letter of intent-when he drove the Labour party to make slashing cuts in expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman was forced to reduce the rate support grant from 65 per cent. to 61 per cent. almost straight away.
Mr. Shore: There was a reduction from a high of 66 per cent. to 61 per cent., but the impression that it was the long-term policy of the Labour Government to reduce the proportion of Government funding is not right. The 61 per cent. was held for three years. I have discovered that, according to a written reply last year, the Government's rate support grant equivalent was reduced to 38 per cent. from 61 per cent. No wonder the Government are in trouble and will not get out of it easily.
Sir Peter Hordern: The right hon. Gentleman talks about a reduction which was not in his mind. It was Hobson's choice because the Labour Government were compelled to make the cut by the International Monetary Fund. If the Leader of the Opposition were ever to become Prime Minister, a Labour Government would undoubtedly fall into the same trap again. They would spend more, borrow more and fall into the hands of the International Monetary Fund. I am encouraged by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) nodding his head in agreement.
Mr. Dunn: In the lifetime of the Labour Government, the overall percentage might have come down for the reasons just mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), but is it not also the case that within the figures there was a bias towards metropolitan authorities and against the shire counties which distorted the figures? Some inner-city authorities got considerably more grant from the centre, and many shire counties got considerably less. The results are still felt today.
Sir Peter Hordern: Under the Government, the county of West Sussex has always done extremely badly by the rate support grant. I fail to distinguish between Labour and Conservative Governments in my disrespect for the rate support grant, which has never been very good for shire counties.
We have had endless debates about the nature of the community charge and about rates before it. What was endemically at fault in both systems was simply that the degree of Government support available was far too low and the bills to households were far too high. That will remain endemic so long as major services such as education are run by local authorities. Teachers' salaries have risen and are bound to rise faster than the rate of inflation. There is no party point in this. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney knows, the proportion of the rate support grant fell under his Government as it has under the present Government. We are belatedly realising that the level of grant to local authorities must be raised, and that is what we are doing now. I wholly commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on having the initiative to do that.

999
I am in favour of consultation. It is an important matter of courtesy and good manners. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government, as I think that they are going exactly the right way. However, if there is to be a high level of Government spending in support of local authorities, the Government must have greater control over the expenditure of local authorities, particularly in major services. That is what leads me to think that it RS now necessary to review carefully the role of education which is run by local authorities at present. I say that not just because of the severe financial aspects of the problem but because of the totally unacceptable variation in standards between one part of the country and another. It is a disgrace that in certain parts of the country it is not possible for young people to get a good education because of the nature of their local education authority. For that reason, I wholly applaud what I understand to be the Government's policy of devolving responsibility upon the schools themselves. It is also necessary to revise and review the role of inspectors and to tighten up the curriculum. My right hon. Friends are already doing that.
Far from today's debate being a matter of censure, it is an opportunity for me and other Conservative Members to applaud what is being done, the range of consultation taking place and the fact that it has now been recognised that support grant to local authorities has not been sufficiently high and is now being properly addressed. I wholly support the Government's policy, not only in this respect but right across the field, and I wish my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues every success.
6.22 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: I support the no confidence motion, and I should like to explain why it has been related solely to the poll tax. The Government labelled the community charge their flagship, so now that they are in such a mess over the poll tax, the Opposition have every right to table a motion of no confidence.
I represent an area which has been capped under the poll tax legislation not once but twice. As I have said in previous debates, my local authority is not high-spending or profligate. It is a responsible local authority which faced immense difficulties in trying to implement budgets because the grant it received was insufficient to meet local needs.
The administration and implementation of the poll tax has been a complete disaster and billions of pounds have been wasted on collecting the poll tax and compiling a register which put the electoral register in jeopardy as people believed that the electoral register and the poll tax register were one and the same thing. There was also the cost of the shortfall in collection. I should point out that my local authority has already collected 96 or 97 per cent. of its poll tax, unlike some authorities that have been mentioned.
The poll tax was based on two principles—accountability and universality, in that everyone contributed something. Those principles have now disappeared. The idea of accountability was removed last year, when poll tax capping was introduced. No capped authority has been allowed to test its spending or its budget at the polls. In Barnsley the poll tax was set at £320. It was then capped for something like £270. Yet even with a poll tax of £320, one third of local authority seats were uncontested Labour
1000
victories at the May elections. There was no accountability but simply the Government's intention to cut local government expenditure by capping budgets.
Time and again in the House, my hon. Friends and I have attacked the credibility of standard spending assessments upon which budgets were based. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) pointed out the difference between the local authority in Rotherham and Westminster council and the difference in the amount of money that a local authority is allowed to spend to provide a standard level of service. The SSAs have been a complete fiction. The points raised by Opposition Members about SSAs have never really been answered. Standard spending assessments bear no relation to the particular needs of an area and take no account of levels of unemployment, deprivation or anything else. They are based on out-of-date and irrelevant information. As I have pointed out previously, the SSAs for my area are based on the 1981 census information and are absolute rubbish.
This year the Government laid down percentages by which budgets could be increased to avoid capping. The figure for my local authority was 7 per cent. There was absolutely no accountability; simply more management from the centre. As the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) pointed out, if there is to be more centralisation why not simply abolish local government altogether and go one way or the other instead of hanging about in the middle?
The hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) mentioned the revenue support grant and its reduction from 60 to about 40 per cent. It is interesting that the revenue support grant this year has increased by 1.9 per cent. External finance has increased by something like 19 per cent. The burden is on business rates and poll tax and not on the revenue support grant from the Government.
The Prime Minister referred to profligate councils and high-spending authorities. Councils are simply not allowed to spend profligately, particularly those in my area which have been capped. On the subject of profligacy, perhaps someone should say something about Westminster council selling off cemeteries at 5p a time and the rest of that lunacy.
The second principle was that everyone should contribute. Even people without any income were required to contribute 20 per cent. That could never be fair. Even now, because of the £140 reduction, the people in Wandsworth will pay nothing for local goverment services, yet my authority's budget is capped yet again. We simply do not have the grant that we need to maintain our services. So what price the principle that everyone contributes if people under one authority will pay absolutely nothing this year?
The idea that everybody should pay is linked to the idea of joint and several bills. Under the rating system both members of a joint household would have been responsible for the bills. It was a fiction for the Government to believe that only one person in a household was responsible for paying the rates bill, while everyone else in the household over the age of 18 was allowed to vote for whatever council they chose. Obviously, other members of a household would contribute jointly to its management and there is nothing wrong with allowing the head of the household to be responsible.
As I have said, my local authority has been earmarked for capping for a second time, despite following to the

1001
letter the Department of the Environment's guidelines. It followed the guideline of a 7 per cent. budget increase. It also followed the guideline issued as the result of an announcement in December 1990 by the Minister for Public Transport that money would be available for the Sheffield light rapid railway transit system—supertram. Because of the removal of South Yorkshire county council, my authority, together with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth, have jointly to fund that project with Rotherham and Doncaster.
On a visit to the area, the Minister for Public Transport said that the money would be available. Yet, because my authority took the Minister at his word and thought or hoped that £387,000 would be provided in respect of our contribution for the supertram, we were marked down for capping because the budget was £387,000 above the Department of the Environment's limits. My authority was misled by the Minister in December. The authority was led to believe that the money would be in addition to the budget, yet my authority now has to cut its provision for child care in order to fund the public transport system for another area.
Mr. Key: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to respond to his accusation that Ministers have misled him. That is not the case. That is a complicated problem. I have spoken to local authority leaders in the Dearne valley and corresponded with them, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are trying to get to the bottom of the problem and to be as helpful as we can.
Mr. Illsley: My authority met last week to take £387,000 out of the budget that had been put aside for child care because it has to fund the supertram. Unless someone says, "Okay, put that back in your budget," that is what will happen. I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's offer of help, but it should have been made a little sooner.
Mr. Allan McKay: We shall be placing on the Table the evidence that the Minister has just described. The letter from the Department of the Environment can be read two ways. The statement from the Department of Transport can be read only one way. The statement published in the local press from a speech by the Secretary of State for Transport can be read only one way. He said openly that costs will not fall upon the community charge payer but will be entirely tax-borne.
Mr. Illsley: It would be helpful if, in the near future, the Minister were to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth together with members of the authority to sort out the proposals.
Mr. Key: I acknowledge the contribution made to the important debate on the supertram by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). I shall pass on that request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Illsley: I am grateful for that. Unless some action is taken about the problem facing my authority and Rotherham and Doncaster, the future of that transport
1002
system will be in jeopardy. My authority will not be willing to fund it by using money that would have been spent on other provisions.
That is an example of the problems of capping brought about by the introduction of the poll tax. The Secretary of State said last year that there would be a parade of bleeding stumps when we informed him of the cuts that authorities had made. Already, the fire service and police provisions in my area are below Home Office recommended levels. This year the Secretary of State boasted about a newspaper produced by the National and Local Government Officers Association which refuted cuts that had taken place in local authorities around my area.
In my area, we have sacked teachers and closed a music teaching centre, and charges have been increased or introduced for all social services provision. The light rail transit system is now in jeopardy and the funding for the passenger transport authority has put in jeopardy other projects, one of which is the reorganisation of my local authority's town centre passenger interchange. Those are real cuts in service provision for the people in my area.
This is a halfway house—a bed-and-breakfast tax added to a property tax. The Secretary of State asked the Labour party to take part in the review of local government finance, presumably because he wanted to adopt some of the proposals in the fair rates document. The Government are between two stools—abolishing the poll tax and returning to the old rates.
Of course, there is the £140 reduction, but that will only be for the better-off. People on low incomes in receipt of community charge benefit will not qualify for the payment because it comes off the headline rate. They are the hardest hit, but they will receive no reduction as a result of the increase in VAT. If it is right for everybody to contribute to the poll tax, is it not also right that everybody should receive a rebate when they are allocated? Value added tax is a regressive tax and the increase in VAT will be detrimental to people on lower incomes.
What is to happen in future years? The poll tax is not going away. Legislation to introduce the new system will take time and people will have to face the fact that the poll tax is here for another year and perhaps a further year after that.
The Prime Minister said that people deserve consultation. I agree entirely. They deserve consultation through the ballot box, and the sooner the Government call an election, the better off we will all be.
6.37 pm
Mr. John Biffen: It is always an experience to listen to the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He is such a persuasive exponent of the politics of certainty. His speech today was no exception. Of all subjects, the tangled issues of local government should inspire the most circumspection rather than the most easy-going certainty. I say that in the context of the House grappling with the situation where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) observed, what is desired is the synchronised reform of the structure, powers and financing of local authorities. A synchronised reform would be the most logical and comprehensive, yet we know from the experience of post-war politics that that is a holy grail with very little likelihood of success.

1003
My right hon. and hon. Friends have been confronted with an attempt to fashion local government on a medium-term basis that will pay regard to structure, powers and finance, but not necessarily on a comprehensive basis. It is my view that, on any judgment, they have made a commendable start to that task, and I shall enthusiastically offer my support in the Lobby.
I shall race through my speech under the exigencies of time. However, I should like to judge the proposal by six immediate criteria. First, there is the necessity of increasing central Government's finance of local authority activity. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is no longer in the Chamber, but he was confronted with the fact that he had increased the local content of local authority financing. He looked rather shamefaced about the parentage, but those are the facts. I am much more brazen.
I went into office in 1979. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). who at that time was in charge of the Treasury team, consigned my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and myself to the job of securing a higher local authority contribution. I remember the experience well. Confronted with this request, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who was then Secretary of State for Education and Science, appealed to my heart, as, clearly, my judgment had been concreted over by Treasury officials. It was quite simple. My right hon. and learned Friend said, "Don't you know that people pay their taxes in sorrow but their rates in anger?" He was absolutely right.
We have now lived with the consequences. We have placed upon the local content of local authority finance a burden that simply cannot be borne politically. The tangled events of the last couple of years have demonstrated that. Let there be no misapprehension: we experimented with the community charge because the rates could not bear politically what was demanded of them. That being the case, the value added tax decision was crucial. Everything else that I say is in the context of the financing of local authority spending. To my mind, this was the most important single judgment.
Secondly, it was right to preserve the uniform business rate as a Whitehall determinant in local authority finance, and not to expose it to local authority determination. That very important decision might be said to amount to nationalising the structure of local authority finance. I am certain that, if we are to protect business from high-spending local authorities, which would use business rates as a way out, it is quite right that this type of protection should be preferred. It would be nice to know that it was underwritten by the Opposition.
Thirdly, it is quite wise to be modest and evolutionary about the recasting of local authority responsibilities. Inevitably, authority will follow money. If this House is to use central taxation increasingly as a means of providing local authority services, the functions of local services will inevitably be recast. I welcome the decision in respect of further education. It is the beginning of a debate that will continue.
We must be quite undogmatic in our approach to the question of single-tier local authorities. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in his place. For once, the Liberals are aligning themselves with the more progressive House of Commons elements, whose Members sit on the Government side, in
1004
Saying that that is an objective. We must have a rigorous system of capping. It is not possible for central Government simply to walk away from the total activities of local authorities. These will continue to represent a major sector of the economy, even if on an attenuated basis.
The most crucial element in this debate is the local authority tax that is to be established. I take no strong view on this matter. I am sad to part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) in accepting that property will be an element of that tax system. When I consider how property is taken into account in the overall system of taxation in this country, I cannot say that it is treated unfairly.
I do not start by resiling from the principle that there must be a property element, but I quite understand that, in terms of equity, there should be some adjustment to take account of occupancy. That will not be an easy task, and I guarantee that the outcome will not be popular. Unpopularity is inherent in the system. In respect of this matter, I do not travel with the politics of certainty; I travel with the politics of nervous hope.
All of which I have said should be underpinned by a certain philosophy—insistence that the United Kingdom is a unitary state, and that we do not see a situation in which powerful disaggregated elements can challenge the authority of Government. I do not want to raise the temperature unnecessarily, but I have to say that this principle will be even more important when there is a developing relationship between the institutions of the European Community and this country. In particular, the Commission will be looking for points of reference within this country that leap over national government and find other ways of fulfilling and extending Community influence and Community finance. We shall be no less good Europeans if we wish to maintain the structure of a unitary authority, and we have that clearly in mind as we proceed with the reforms that are now in hand.
I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby that I would make a reference to his contribution to the Budget debate. That contribution was dramatic, and it certainly embellished the debate. I have shared office, including office in the Treasury, with my right hon. Friend, and I have warm recollections of those times. He was a good colleague, who has made a very powerful contribution to the fortunes of this Government and of the Conservative party. However, I should like to make a slightly dissenting observation about his speech this week.
In any political situation, I am the statutory vegetarian, whereas my right hon. Friend is carnivorous by temperament. It was in that sense—although it may have led to undue indigestion—that he approached the reforms that he had in mind. It is very easy to talk about the elimination of all local government. Would that mean all authority being attached to the money, or would some authority be subcontracted to be free of the money?
Mr. David Harris: That is what the Liberals believe.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend should not incite me. I am merely saying what the questions are. There is no point in strutting in here, making headline remarks, and thinking that people will not bother with the footnotes.
My right hon.Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has referred to the financial implications of

1005
changes in value added tax. A change from zero rating to 5 per cent. would result in a charge on books and newspapers, talking books for the blind and the handicapped, wireless sets for the blind, fuel and power, construction, transport and, above all, food. Let us not think that a Chancellor can breeze into the House on a Tuesday afternoon with an imaginative Budget and produce these increases for starters. Government is not quite like that.
I suggest that government should be government by explanation, government by trying patiently to guide, especially in this instance, when the Government have in mind a major switch in taxation policy. I am not saying that there should not be a switch. Indeed, the Liberal party, at one stage, enthusiastically endorsed the idea of a major switch towards extension of value added tax. This is a legitimate area for public debate, but it is not something that should simply be asserted from the Dispatch Box. That might be good for the Government, but it is thoroughly bad for the House of Commons. Consultation has been our tradition. Corporation tax, capital transfer tax and nearly all other major fiscal changes have been subjects of consultation.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby was immensely unfair in respect of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. However, as usually happens in no confidence debates, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has emerged in no particular need of friends or allies. We have had the debate. Inevitably, the Opposition will believe that their best bet for the next election is this relatively narrow issue. They are almost latter-day Disraelis—Disraeli having had such great faith in sanitation as a political issue. This is the ground on which the Opposition have chosen to mount their attack. We have watched the debate, and heard the argument. The Prime Minister will lead, and we shall proudly follow.
6.49 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and to imagine him in Cabinet with the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), and with the present Prime Minister. What a Cabinet that was. Even with hindsight they cannot get it right. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield paid a great compliment to his right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, and the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North made another attack on him. What must they have said to each other in Cabinet? Can one imagine the harmony that reigned in all those years in office.?
When the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North began his speech, he seemed to be saying, "Yes, local government finance is complicated and difficult and, yes, local government needs finance," but he was really telling the House that it is a mess. Who has created that mess? Who has been in government all these years? Who reduced central Government's contribution to local government finance from 61 to 38 per cent.? It was the Tory Government.
I was a member of Newcastle city council when the Government began all this. The education committee had to consider where to start making cuts. We began with
1006
buildings and moved on to school books. Over the years, we saw how things unravelled and how arithmetic, reading and writing were affected. A succession of Secretaries of State for Education and Science have tried to explain that away. The Tories are now talking about taking the education budget away from local government. They are saying that it is all the fault of local government.
If central Government squeezed local authorities over education spending, how much more did they squeeze them on housing? The housing investment programmes were cut, and what happened? The number of homeless increased. When the Government then came along with their doctrine about selling council houses, we found that the councils were not allowed to spend the money that the sales generated and that they had to put it all on deposit, apart from only 20 per cent. That was what happened when the Government began to squeeze local government's money.
However, the Government have not only squeezed local government on money; they have added to the burdens of local government. On 1 April the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will come into force. The provisions of the Children Act 1989 also have to be implemented. Who is to finance those new Acts of Parliament or the new duties that they impose? To implement even part of the Environmental Protection Act would cost £3 per head on top of the old poll tax figures. Implementing it fully would cost £12 per head. Who will finance that?
We have heard a lot from the Government about community care. They have said that care should take place in the community, not the national health service—what a fine concept. We have heard about how we should liberate hospital beds and look after the house-bound. All that is fine policy, but where are the resources? Where is the money? Will the Government find the money for that? Will they tell us today where that money will come from? No, they have no idea. They simply pass the responsibility to local government and, like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands of it. Former Cabinet Minister after former Cabinet Minister has attacked our motion of no confidence, but seek to wash their hands of all the rest.
Mr. Key: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's entertaining flow, but if his thesis is correct, can he explain why local government expenditure has increased by 25 per cent. in two years? He knows very well that the factors that he has mentioned, including the new legislation, are included every year in the standard spending assessment arithmetic.
Mr. Bell: The standard spending assessment was well dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who pointed out that the figures that are used go back to 1971——
Mr. Key: No, it is 1981.
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend said 1971, but the year may well be 1981.
I remember the regression analysis that was used in 1977. All the figures were poured into a computer. It churned around the arithmetic and mathematics, and out came the standard spending assessment. Middlesbrough was given a standard spending assessment and we tried to comply with it, notwithstanding all the additional obligations that had been placed on our council. We are

1007
still short and will probably be faced with community charge-capping. The Government and the poll tax are confusion confounded. Not only do we not know whether there will be a poll tax after the review or whether the poll tax will be based upon rental or capital values, but we in Middlesbrough still do not know today whether we will be community charge-capped at the end of the month.
Mr. Hardy: The Minister will have overlooked the fact that in the 1990–91 determination of the standard spending assessment, Yorkshire and Humberside region lost about £500 million in central support while an equivalent sum went to the south-east, the richest area in the land. I suspect that my hon. Friend's area was a net loser in that exercise—as well as Yorkshire and Humberside.
Mr. Bell: Not only are we a net loser in that exercise, but the people of Middlesbrough and my constituents wonder why they should pay more in VAT to subsidise the people of Wandsworth. Why should the people of Wandsworth not pay any poll tax and the people of Middlesbrough pay an extra 15 per cent. in VAT to subsidise them? Where is the accountability principle about which we have heard year after year when the cry of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was "Make your local council accountable"? I may have missed out the right hon. Gentleman in my litany of Cabinet Ministers sitting around the green baize table in Downing street all those years ago. But what has happened to accountability? It has completely disappeared.
When I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about accountability in Wandsworth last week, he said that there was still accountability, but how can there be accountability if no money is being paid to the local treasury? What about all the services to which the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North referred, such as books that have to be translated into braille for the blind? Where is the accountability for services if no one is paying the poll tax? How can it be? The answer is that it cannot be. All that we get from the Government is the confusion and obfuscation that we have heard tonight.
One good thing that has come out of our debates in the past few days has been the reference to Pierre Mendes France, the French socialist leader. I never thought that he would be so popular among Tory Members, Cabinet Ministers and the like. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred earlier today to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby, and the phrase "To govern is to choose". He said that there had been a free vote on German re-armament in 1954. However, he did not tell the House that Pierre Mendes France was the Prime Minister of the time who extricated France from its involvement in Indo-China, which was the most important and significant event of the post-war years.
I remember Pierre Mendes France for saying that people are not tools, and that they cannot be used as tools or disposed of as tools. The Conservative Government, however, have used people as tools for more years than we can remember and are indifferent to their plight. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that about £4 million has been spent sending out poll tax bills that will have to be torn up. That is using people as tools and being indifferent to them.
We all know that the House is living theatre. We come into the Chamber every day to see the play acting. Today,
1008
we saw a former Cabinet Minister raising points of order before the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We saw flag-waving when the Prime Minister sat down. I kept looking at the monitor but it said "The Prime Minister". I had begun to wonder because I thought I was listening to a speech from a Leader of the Opposition
I thought that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was getting some practice. He is obviously going to have a long time to practise in the future. It was knock-about stuff, but he said nothing that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment did not say the other day. I have read the Hansard report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and know that the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box today and almost quoted, word for word, the speech made the other day by his right hon. Friend. He did not answer any of the questions that were asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, such as who in a household is to be legally liable for the poll tax bill and will the 20 per cent. rule still apply? We may know in due course whether the rental or capital values will be used. But it is not surprising that there is confusion in the country about whether the poll tax is to stay or to go, the status of the new tax and who will be responsible for it, because, having listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon, I suggest that he is really the Leader of the Opposition and should be referred to as such in the House.
I was reminded that Stanley Baldwin ran an entire election campaign on "Safety first". If the Prime Minister continues in his present vein, he will say, "Wait and see"—wait and see on the poll tax, capital values, rent values, implementation, legal liability and the 20 per cent. The waiting must stop soon. Then the voting will begin, and we will see the Prime Minister as the veritable Leader of the Opposition.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that hon. Members speaking between now and 9 o'clock should limit their speeches to 10 minutes.
7 pm
Mr. Derek Conway: It is always interesting and enjoyable to listen to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), but I do not believe that his heart was in his speech. Those who listened to the Leader of the Opposition move the motion realised that we were listening to a void. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough has been a Member long enough and was in politics long enough before then to know that the electorate is not that gullible and that the Labour party will not be able to dance around the issue much longer.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced last Thursday that Cabinet had decided in principle to embrace a property tax, I wished to have the opportunity to speak out and in due course to vote against that proposal. I therefore tendered my resignation. I should like to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, who gave me the opportunity to serve as Parliamentary Private Secretary from 1988. He is a man of infinite patience and kindness, as is recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If I had been able to garner some of his wisdom, perhaps I would not be in my present position.

1009
My experience as parliamentary private Secretary was interesting At first, I found Welsh Members, particularly Labour Members, particularly Labour Members, slightly intimidating, but I came to know them as a rather good crowd I confess that I was a bit terrified by my first Welsh Grant Committee and the working over I was given by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), whose bark turned out to be worse than his bite and who subsequently discovered that I, a Member representing an English seat, was required many times to keep the quorum in that Committee
Many of us have observed the procedures of the House which, rightly, give Privy Councillors priority, but I had not realised that it would be such an educative experience. Perhaps its purpose is to enable former Cabinet Ministers to snap at one another. Over the past few days, I have found that a less than edifying experience. It was regrettable. We cannot deny, and will not be able to fool the electorate, that we are in something of a mess on this issue. Many of those at senior level who have contributed to this debate must carry the blame. So, too, must those of us who tamely voted for them as they led us.
As the Local Government Finance Bill was moving through its 188 hours of debate in this place, several of us issued warnings. I remember sitting around a table in the office of the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and arguing that we had to have a rates revaluation to make a community charge acceptable and that it was essential that we limited the base budgets of councils in the year of transition, or they would screw our backs to the wall, as ultimately they did.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen) knows, Shropshire left the rating system spending £140 million and now, under the community charge, spends £246 million. That is not the Government's policy; it is the action of the Labour Liberal-supported controlling group of Shropshire county council.
At meetings with Ministers, I argued constantly for single-tier councils. I do not believe that any of us who argued for that wanted the abolition of parish councils—far from it. Either the district system or the county system must go, and I should prefer the county tier to go. Whatever is left must be subject to rotating annual elections. My right hon. and hon. Friends cannot avoid the fact that we must abolish the community charge. When we introduced it, we were scared to go the whole hog, and we are now paying the price.
During the past few days, several of my hon. Friends have urged me to be quiet and not to rock the boat. Sadly, many of our earlier warnings went unheeded. Members representing northern seats know the famous Geordie saying, "Catch me once, shame on you. Catch me twice, shame on me." I hope that some of us will have the courage not to be caught twice.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his defence of consultation, is right to take that attitude and not be bounced quickly on this issue. Sadly, Cabinet endorsed the property tax. Regrettably, it may yet be called a "Heseltax" and haunt him. It will not work. Environment Ministers have put on record many words explaining why a property tax will not work. There is a proposal to calculate a percentage discount for occupancy. As no more
1010
money will come from central Government, we have yet to find out where the balance will come from for local government. Presumably, the jam will have to be spread even more thickly over existing property taxpayers.
The House cannot escape the conclusion that local government is spending £66 billion this year. With only £7 billion of that raised locally, according to the Red Book, and an administration cost of £750 million to obtain that minor sum, is it worth the bother for the sake of 10 per cent.?
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, in a typically powerful speech and in the entertaining way in which he always addresses the Chamber, rightly related pay to accountability. What is "accountability" at 10 per cent.? Is it worth having? Perhaps we should accept that in this country Parliament has democratic control. We live in a parliamentary democracy, and we are proving this to local government by rushing through in the past 24 hours and the next a Bill to change the way in which they operate. That is proof positive of the power of this House over local government.
Yes, abolish the community charge, but raise the entire cost of local government through income tax, VAT and excise duties. Spread the burden and ease the pain. The no confidence motion will fail, because people know that the economy is on the right track. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is undoubtedly the best Prime Minister for which this country could wish. He pointed the way ahead in his speech on Friday, and I am sure that many of us will support his approach. But his suggestions are too good to risk. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House in the Budget that the art was to pluck the goose without it hissing. I warn Ministers that if they do not grip the neck of local government finance once and for all, the goose will not only hiss but bite.
I still have no difficulty in voting for the Government. Although they are wrong about the property tax, this is a good and able Government. I suspect that their curse will be the property tax.
Shrewsbury has a long Tory tradition. This year, on 29 June, we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Disraeli's election as Member of Parliament for the town in 1841. I accept that the standard of Member has declined somewhat—[HON. MEMBERS; "No."] My hon. Friends are too kind. Fortunately, the standard of its people has not declined. It is a decent place and the majority are good, hard-working folk. Those who know me best in the House know that I do not regard Shrewsbury as a ticket to the House of Commons. It is a town where my youngest son and daughter were born and where my family, home and closest friends are. This bond has caused me to conclude that, if the choice is between ambition for office and serving what I sincerely hold to be the best interests of Shrewsbury, I cannot and will not deny them.
7.9 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), having watched him in the Welsh Grand Committee abiding by his oath of silence and suffering those long hours. I am sure that he values his freedom now.
I congratulate everyone who campaigned against the poll tax, often at considerable expense to themselves. Good riddance to it. This debate is a bit of a shambles and

1011
somewhat unreal. Local government finance is certainly in a shambles, but that is not altogether unwelcome, because that has been caused by the Government's attempt to disembowel the poll tax, which is to be welcomed heartily.
I welcome the £140 reduction in most bills—I should like to see the bills for those on lower incomes disappear. I am glad that we now see the end of the poll tax. I have some difficulty in understanding why the Labour party has confined its no confidence motion to the poll tax. To some extent we are at a burial service because the poll tax and the problems it has caused to our constituents are finished. There is no question about that. Many more pressing issues, however, will come on to the agenda.
Mr. Terry Lewis (Worley): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wigley: I should like to, but time is pressing as we are bound by the 10-minute limit on speeches.
There are many more pressing items that will come onto the agenda in the coming months including housing, regional policy, the failure to implement the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, cuts in railway services, the astronomical water rates—a near relation of the poll tax—the disastrous high interest rates and the high level of unemployment. They are worthy subjects of a no confidence motion, but I shall confine my remarks to the motion before us as it is the only one that we have.
I accept that no one should have any confidence in a Government who introduces as vicious a tax as the poll tax. For that reason, I shall support the motion. It is worth noting that the present chaos has arisen from the axing of the poll tax—I welcome its demise.
The lack of confidence in the present Government arises from the appalling 12-year-record of the Thatcher Government. The present Government are only just starting to emerge in their own right, but I suspect that they stand condemned by virtue of their complicity in previous policies, including the poll tax, which caused so much anguish in Wales and elsewhere. I doubt whether the present Government will be able to strike an independent profile this side of a general election. The sooner we have that election the better, because all parties will then have to spell out their detailed policies. Sadly, those details have not been revealed in today's debate.
I accept what the Secretary of State for the Environment said in December about the need to know the future functions and structures of local government in order to work out its future financing. Failure to do so has been a common mistake in the past and it is right that we should grasp that problem now.
In Wales all four parties support the idea of a unified, all-purpose local authority. Given that consensus I hope that we shall be able to move towards that aim rapidly. There is also a growing consensus on the need to have an elected democratic forum for Wales. It is interesting to note that the Conservative Members for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) have advocated that recently. The need for such a tier of democracy in Wales has been recognised.
I regret that the Labour party, in its paper on Wales, has advocated such a level of democracy only as part of local government. I am not willing to accept that proposal, as it implies the centralisation of local government, while we want to decentralise central Government. I suppose
1012
that we do not have to worry, because the Labour party has said that that would not happen in its first five years of government, whenever that may start.
The principle that we should accept in terms of the structure of government is that laid down in the European context—subsidiarity. Decisions should be taken as close as possible to the communities that they affect. We should have an all-purpose tier of local authorities with the power to take all decisions—those decisions that could not be taken on a local level should go to the all-Wales tier, and then be passed to Westminster or Europe.
The Government talk about the need for answerability. The government of Wales is represented by the Welsh Office, which spends £5,000 million. The three Ministers at the Welsh Office are not directly answerable to the people of Wales, and that vacuum in the decision-making process must be addressed.
The poll tax was not introduced because of problems associated with local government in Wales. Successive Secretaries of State have acknowledged that the record of local government in Wales is not one of gross overspending. There has even been close co-operation between Conservative Secretaries of State and Labour-controlled authorities in Wales. There has been a willingness to reach solutions that are not doctrinaire.
The poll tax has been unfair to those on low incomes, disabled people, students and nurses. I informed the Welsh Office of one case—the Secretary of State for the Environment may also be aware of it—of a man with a disabled wife who earned £102 a week gross, £93 net. He lived seven miles from his job. There was no bus service and he had to have a car to get to work. That couple were charged the two full poll taxes. That man either had to do away with his car, and therefore give up his work, or pay his car licence and not the poll tax. That case was indefensible and it was wrong that the poll tax should hit people in such circumstances. The poll tax had to be abolished.
About four weeks ago, I went to the court in Caernarfon, which was a sad occasion. About 1,000 non-payment cases came before the court and only about 50 people turned up to defend themselves. We were aware of the difficult circumstances of many in the court that day.
I am sad to note that the unified business rate has not been abandoned, as the problems associated with that must be addressed.
My party wants a local income tax, and that was the policy we advocated to the Layfield commission in the 1970s. That tax could be collected through the Inland Revnue system. It could use the same personal allowances as the income tax and it could be pitched at a level of 4p in the pound. Side by side with that tax, businesses that are not incorporated would pay local income tax on their profits. There could also be a surcharge on corporation tax for local purposes for those businesses that are incorporated. The local income tax is used in many other European countries—predominantly in the Scandinavian countries. We could use such a tax. Who knows, we may yet have to reconsider it.
My party has advocated a structure of uniform authorities, but we also need democratic control of functions connected with health, transport and water. In Wales the water rates will become as hot a political issue as the poll tax once was. Water rates are now about £200 per household—perhaps occupied by one person. No

1013
rebate or help is offered. That is an iniquitious situation and the Government must address it. We must have a rebate system to help those faced with such bills.
The Labour party's alternative to the poll tax has many problems. Unfortunately, those problems have not been spelt out in the detail that I require. It would also take time to introduce the Labour party's alternative. It is interesting to consider what is said in the Labour party document:
"The costly shambles of the poll tax provides a salutary reminder of the need to undertake the most thorough and exhaustive testing before introducing significant changes in a local taxation system. We would, in any event, wish to consult widely on any proposals.
By contrast with the Tories, the advantage of the step-by-step approach which we propose is that it gives us adequate time after our return to government for consultation and for testing any new scheme before it is introduced."
Presumably we shall not get the full benefit of the Labour party system at once. One wonders how long it will take to get that system implemented.
I regret to say that the Labour party's performance on the poll tax has been appalling. I recall its lack of policy in the early days when the issue was considered in Standing Committee and the answers were not forthcoming. The performance of local Labour councils in Wales has also been appalling as they have rushed to implement the poll tax and to take people to court at the drop of a hat. Meryl Davies of the Rhondda was taken to court at 11 o'clock in the morning, and by 3 o'clock in the afternoon the bailiff was at her house. In another case in the Rhymney valley, a pregnant woman found the bailiffs landing at her door before she was given any attempt to explain her circumstances.
Yes, we have a lack of confidence in any Government who introduced a poll tax, but we also have a lack of confidence in the official Opposition who do not have any coherent alternative to it.
7.19 pm
Mr. Paul Channon: I agreed with a surprising amount of what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said. I shall deal with some of his points later. In an interesting intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) referred to his predecessor, Mr. Disraeli. The debate today has shown clearly the truth of what Disraeli said. He said how much easier it was to be critical than to be correct. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government are trying to be correct.
As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, it is astonishing that we are having a debate on a motion of no confidence in the Government on one issue. It is admittedly an important issue, but there are many other great issues around. Perhaps the Labour party has no criticism of the Government except on that one issue. It is an astonishing admission that they have to confine themselves——
Mr. Giles Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Channon: I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes. Otherwise, I would give way to the hon. Gentleman.
A motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government can seldom have been less justified. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have been in office since
1014
November. They are already being challenged with a motion of no confidence, after a short period during which they have played a distinguished part in winning a war and have faced challenges which few Governments have had to face. They have introduced a radical Budget which will meet a great deal of acceptance.
We are having a debate on a motion of no confidence in the Government on one item—the community charge or poll tax—at a time when the trade figures are improving, inflation is coming down, interest rates are falling and the economy is clearly improving. It is an astonishing time at which to table a motion of no confidence.
Of course I understand the anxieties of those who are worried about the reform of local government and local government finance. It is an important issue, which we must tackle better than it has been tackled in the past. But it is absurd to expect the Government to produce final solutions to all those problems. If they had done so, they would rightly have been criticised for not giving themselves time to think out the essential answers to the questions of structure and taxation.
Everyone in the House knows that most of our constituents dislike the present structure of local government. It would be ridiculous arbitrarily to change it without obtaining other people's views. We would risk yet another local government reorganisation which would turn out to be disastrous. It must be right to spend time considering the matter and consulting.
A wholly satisfactory solution to raising local government finance has never been available. England hates local taxation. I suspect that Wales and Scotland do, too. Perhaps the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will tell us about Scotland, if he is called. Local taxation arouses more anger than any other form of taxation. The idea that the period when the rates were in operation was some golden period when we were all blissfully happy with the system of local government taxation is historically not true.
There was more feeling about the rates in my constituency and probably in many other constituencies than on any other topic of domestic concern. That is why the Government of the day decided to change the system. The rates were extremely unfair, especially for people who lived alone, such as a widow who had perhaps been left by her husband a house which was too large for her but in which she had lived for many years and from which she did not wish to move. The rates caused great distress.
I cannot tell from the Labour party's proposals what they would do to help people such as the widows whom I mentioned.
Mr. Allen McKay: We would provide rebates.
Mr. Channon: There are rebates now, and there were rebates under the rating system, but they did not meet the point adequately.
Of course, the community charge was unpopular, too. In the first instance, it was right to cut the proportion of expenditure financed by central Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) admitted that it was right to make that change. It was the total sums demanded which made the tax so unpopular and unfair. Everyone must be pleased that the bills have been reduced by £140 a year.
The leader of the Liberal party spoke about local government finance. As someone who has had the

1015
misfortune to have a constituency controlled by the Liberal party from time to time, I can tell the House that, when the Liberals left office last May, they were proposing a community charge of £420. Thanks to the Government's activities, it will now be about £208. So the Liberal party cannot be acquitted of extravagance either.
Of course, we must get the new tax or charge right. What is there to criticise in the principles of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment? He wants the balance of funding to remain the same, so that the bills can be much lower. He wants protection during the transitional period. He wants—this is important—to make sure that there are no disproportionately high bills in high-priced areas in the south-east, where naturally there is great anxiety among many constituents, who believe that a return to the rating system would adversely affect them. That has to be arranged.
As the hon. Member for Bransley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) said a few moments ago, there must be proper rebate arrangements. There must be no excessive bills caused by overspending of local councils. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already promised that in his consultation document. He became Secretary of State only four months ago. If he had produced a consultation document earlier, it would have been inadequate, and sufficient thought could not have been put into it.
We are promised legislation next Session, either just before or just after the next general election. I am sure that we shall have a highly constructive document showing us the way forward after Easter. There will be differences among all parties in the House about the details of local government taxation, but I see no reason to assume that we shall not make proposals that are acceptable to the Conservative party and to the country at a general election.
Of course the Opposition can tease us about the community charge, but it was entirely right that the Government should reconsider the matter. The level of the charge made it much more unpopular than anyone imagined. The level was far higher than anyone had any right to expect when the Government began on that course a few years ago.
We are asked to vote that we have no confidence in the Government. I do not know what other hon. Members think, but I am brimful of confidence in the Government. The record on the community charge and many other issues makes me fully confident of the result of the next general election and that our leaders and our party have the right ideas for the next Parliament and throughout the 1990s.
We have heard little today from the Opposition of the detail of their proposals. I shall be interested to see whether the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) gives us details when he replies to the debate. I suspect that he may not, but let us see what happens. We look forward to hearing him later. We have not heard the figures. The proposals do not stand up. We still do not know how much the Opposition would raise in local taxes or, indeed, the detail of their so-called fair rating system.
Today's motion of no confidence was spurious. It has backfired, and I am sure that my right hon. Friends and, later, the country, will reject it with enthusiasm.
7.26 pm
Mr. Allen McKay: People have short memories. All the Conservative Members who have spoken tonight voted at least nine times for the poll tax. I remember the conference at which the poll tax started. The previous Prime Minister shot from the hip and said that the Government would get rid of the rates. Therefore, they had to do so. They had to do it so quickly that they made a holy mess of it. That is why the motion of no confidence has been tabled. The Government will make another mess of it if they are not careful.
It is no use Conservative Members saying that the poll tax has gone. It has not. The Government propose two taxes—one on property and one on the number of people who live in it. Therefore, it is a poll tax, because it is based on the number of people. If that is not a poll tax, what is? When people talk about the rates, they forget that the rates are 600 years old. For 600 years, local government or whatever system was in operation levied a rate on property. The rates stood the test of time.
We acknowledge that there were many anomalies in the rating system, but the Government threw the baby out with the bath water. They needed only to deal with the anomalies and get rid of them. They did not need to get rid of the rating system, which had operated for 600 years. They should not have done so until there was something better to put in its place. I spent 20 years in local government looking for an alternative to the rates. There had to be one. No one came up with one. No one brought in a system of taxation that was easy to collect, less easy to evade and fair up to a certain point.
When Tory Members talk about the little old lady who lives alone in a big house, they must remember that they introduced a Housing Bill which turned her out of her home if she wanted to receive housing benefit. They said that, if the house was too big for her, she should not be in it, and if it was too big, she would not qualify for benefit. They should not shut out that little old lady when she is not convenient and pray her in aid when she is.
When the poll tax came on the scene, the Secretary of State for the Environment refused to take it through the House. He knew then and has known since what problems it would cause. The then Prime Minister looked for someone who would do the job, and it had to be the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who was fool enough to do it. As I shall remind hon. Members time and time again, on the first day of the Committee, we said to the Government, "For heaven's sake, take the Bill away. Let us get down to looking for an alternative. Let us shove those alternatives through any machinery you like and come up with a system of local government taxation that will stand the test of time, as the rates have stood that test for 600 years."
But no, the arrogance of the Government at that time was like the arrogance of the Government now in introducing this new system. They did not want to know or talk about it. The legislation was their flagship. When it was introduced in the House, Tory Members all waved their Order Papers. They thought, "Great, we've got something. Eureka." They did have something and it was eureka, but it was not based on the ability to pay or on fairness. It was easy to evade and hard to collect—by God, it was expensive to collect.

1017
The rating system cost my local authority £972,000. The first year of the poll tax cost it £1,900,000, and the second year £1,900,000. It cost £1·3 million to install the software to run the poll tax system. Now the authority has a revenue problem of £900,000 from installing the system. That is as much as it cost to collect the rates. That is why we have tabled a censure motion. The Government are running into exactly the same problem again.
We do not know what the system will be, but we know what system we should like—one based on the ability to pay. I shall again be the first to say that everybody who can afford it should help to pay for local government. Yet, what is happening in Wandsworth? Who is paying there? If my local authority got the same grant as Wandsworth, it would be giving £10 to everybody. Not only would everybody in the authority not have to pay, but it would give them £10.
A new system is to be introduced, and the censure motion is tabled because areas such as Wandsworth will live off the backs of others. Wandsworth intends to provide schools and all the other local authority services free of charge. The money must come from somewhere. My old dad had a saying that nobody gets nowt for nowt, but Wandsworth is getting summat and somebody else is paying for it. Sadly, that is what is happening.
The 20 per cent. is ridiculous. It costs more to collect it than it is worth. Why should local authorities have to collect it? When we asked the Minister of State, he said that, if the 20 per cent. was not collected, it would be up to the auditor. What a foreign thing for him to say. In effect, he was saying that if it costs too much to collect, and we use our common sense and do not collect it, but the auditor says that it should be collected, the authority will be surcharged. Yet that is the guidance that came from the Government. They cannot argue that local government must co-operate with and obey central Government, if the Government do not say what local government should be doing except when it suits them.
We have tabled the censure motion because the Government have ruined local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) spelled out a great many matters and I shall spell out one or two more. People liked the old rating system because it was easy to collect and less easy to evade, and everybody paid because it was based on property which does not move up and down. The problem with the poll tax is that authorities cannot keep a check of the people on the register. If the register were different, it would still be as bad and as costly.
Another problem is that local authorities can no longer provide their services. In Barnsley, under the rating system, physically and partly mentally handicapped people had a job provided by the local authority. Their produce was sold and at the end of the week they got their £4 wage packet, so they felt that they had a place in society. Now the authority must charge them £1·50 a day to go to work because of the poll tax. Without the poll tax, the charge would be nil.
I have no argument with any Government, whatever their political persuasion, for saying how much money they will supply to local authorities, but thereafter local authorities should be accountable to their electors for the services that they provide with the rest of the money.
1018
Where is accountability now, and all that was rammed down our throat in Committee? The Government said that they were introducing the tax to increase accountability. There was no accountability. It was all a whitewash. The Government introduced the poll tax because they thought that the local authorities would be blamed. The Government are in a mess because local authorities and many other people realise that the blame lies with the Government Front Bench. That is why the Government are having to change the system.
If the Secretary of State wants to see how a good local authority is run, he should come and see ours. The books are open and the system is available. Every year, a third of the council is elected. The councillors hold surgeries every Saturday. The local populace are consulted before an increase in rates. That is the way to run a local authority.
The Secretary of State and the Government have killed that system because of their hatred of local authorities. We know why they started on it and why they brought in the poll tax. It has nothing to do with local authority inefficiency: it was because they could not run local authorities exactly as they wanted. The Government talk about consultation, but consultation should have come first, not as a second thought.
7.36 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). In his strong commitment to the rating system, he should recall that revaluation is crucial to its efficiency and success. Revaluation was last done by the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Under the Governments of Lord Wilson and Lord Callaghan, no revaluation took place, and we know why. None has taken place since. It is because of the consequences on the market value of housing and the poundage of the rates in a high inflationary period. Tonnage and poundage was a happy little tax in its day, but rateage without poundage is not too easy to tax either.
We are discussing a motion of no confidence, yet there are not many Labour Members present on the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.] This is supposed to be the big setpiece debate before we go on our Easter holidays, yet there does not seem to be much support for the motion. [Interruption.] There has been much criticism of the motion, but I do not hold with it. It is rather a good one. It states:
"That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government in the light of its inability to rectify the damage done to the British people by the poll tax."
About the one thing that can be said is that from day one of my right hon. Friend becoming leader of the party and Prime Minister, action was taken on the poll tax. From day one, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) joined the Government—I am delighted to see him return to the Department of the Environment—the problem of the poll tax was addressed.
In the 100 days of dealing with the problems associated with the replacement of that tax, several things immediately happened. First, a new scheme for the community charge reduction was immediately introduced at double the scale of expenditure involved in the previous transitional scheme, so that one out of every two charge payers would be able to benefit. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made major efforts to deal

1019
with the existing tax and a proposed successor tax. Thirdly, he it was who said early on that it was impossible to deal with the individual matter of local government finance without, at the same time, looking at local government structure and functions.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment have agreed on what should be done about those three issues. They agreed that there should be consultation. For some reason that I do not understand, consultation has become almost a dirty word among some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was upset about it. He is not present this evening, which is entirely my fault because I did not let him know that I was going to address the House—otherwise he would be here. I was surprised that he was against consultation. I thought that he was now officially engaged as a consultant to a major bank, Barclays. It sounds as though his consultation may not get far if he does not believe in it, but that bank is not the listening bank.
There are other problems associated with consultation. There would be absolutely no reason in proceeding to refine local government structure, financing and functions without thorough consultation with those who matter a great deal, not just the public, but those who run local government. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be setting about that shortly after the Easter break. The publication of what is required will be laid before the public to give them a chance to comment on the options, refine the system and, in the light of consultation, definite decisions will be taken.
That seems a far preferable way to go about the process. It reflects the widespread feeling of hon. Members who have spoken tonight that the Government cannot afford to ride roughshod over public opinion with a new and unproven system and enter it in the list as a successor to the community charge.
We must refine the alternative, and take it carefully. I should be happy if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed to take it slowly. There is no need to rush the issue because we know, and the House knows, that the community charge has to be in place for at least two years before new legislation to introduce a new system can become effective. That is why, in the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced a massive shift of £4·25 billion into local authority financing—there have been no complaints about that from any hon. Members.
That action has ensured that the reduction in' the community charge of £140 for the coming two years will be in place. If that is not a response, in the terms of the Opposition motion,
"to rectify the damage done",
I do not know what is. The motion is a non-starter, because action has already been taken to finance the tax, and matters are in train to determine the future system that will be necessary.
The Opposition chose the motion for another reason, as has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends. On other issues—the wider parameters of government and what has happened in the 100 days that the Government have been in power—there has been a remarkable series of successes. After only 100 days in office, the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been shown to be a fantastic success. That is true in terms of his handling of the Gulf crisis and the completely new system of European
1020
relations that has been established, in particular the relationships with the German republic—which are now on a level where speaking and listening are part and parcel of the membership of the Community. In addition, he has developed relationships with Moscow and President Bush and travelled to Moscow, the Gulf and in the west. All that has been done in 100 days. He has also made major shifts in policy in relation to child benefit and other social expenditure matters such as dealing with haemophiliacs.
My right hon. Friend faces his first vote of no confidence as Prime Minister, but it is absolutely no contest. My right hon. Friend has demonstrated his capacity to lead and to succeed. The Conservative party certainly takes for certain both his leadership and his ultimate victory at the election.
7.45 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: In the past, confidence motions have been tabled because Governments lack majorities, as in 1979, or because they have made appalling messes throughout their term of office, or on single issues, as in 1940 over the failure of the campaign in Norway. It is not a new idea to have a no confidence vote on a single issue.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: It is the first time in living memory that a no confidence motion has been tabled in such narrow terms.
Mr. Radice: I have not looked at the 1940 motion, but I have certainly looked at the debate, which was on the Norwegian campaign.
However, most hon. Members agree that the introduction of the poll tax was a blunder. Most of them also agree—I have been talking to quite a few Conservative Members during the past few weeks—that the way that the Government are handling the disposal of the poll tax is also pretty disastrous. In the short time available, I shall devote my speech to considering what their handling of the poll tax reveals about the Conservative Government. We are perfectly entitled to table a no confidence motion, because the Government's handling of the poll tax reveals that they are no longer fit to govern.
I shall consider the Government's handling of the issue under separate headings. The first is what it reveals about their competence. They must be extremely incompetent to introduce such a foolish tax, one which is now recognised, even by Conservatives, to be pretty disastrous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted before the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service that it was a regressive tax. Certainly Ministers were not saying that a year or so ago, but they are admitting it now.
Secondly, the tax has been extraordinarily difficult to collect. It is not a matter of the persuasive power of one or two hon. Members or the anti-poll tax campaign. Hon. Members know well—the Prime Minister has admitted as much in the secrecy of the Cabinet—that many people could not afford to pay the poll tax. That was the problem with it, which was why it was difficult to collect.
Thirdly, it was administratively very expensive. It was twice as expensive to collect as the rates. If we look at all the new buildings that had to be built in every local authority to cope with the collection of the poll tax, we can see why.

1021
It was incompetent to introduce such a foolish tax and incompetent to persist with it when it became clear what a foolish tax it was and how widespread hostility to it was, as shown by public opinion polls and successive by-elections. Ribble Valley was not the first by-election to be fought on the tax. The Mid-Staffordshire by-election was a poll tax by-election that was won decisively by the Labour party. But the Government persisted in the poll tax and then tried to mitigate its effects by throwing money at it.
That was a disastrous failure. If they had spent some of that money on improving services rather than trying to buy popularity for the poll tax, we would be in a better state today.
I also submit that the Government are incompetent because they have not completely abolished the poll tax. Instead, they are producing this fudged compromise—even Conservative Members know very well that it is a fudged compromise—between two different types of tax, a property tax and "son of poll tax," as the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) called it a few days ago. As the Government have proved themselves incompetent on that scale, I submit that they are not fit to govern.
The Government are also divided. We have had plenty of evidence of that. In a sense, the battles of the Thatcher Cabinet are being fought out publicly. The right hon. Member for Blaby said that he was against the poll tax and had argued against it in Cabinet. He thought that it was a bad idea. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) told us in The Times today what an excellent tax it was. If only the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been prepared to give him a bit of money, it would have been successful.
But there is also a division within the Cabinet. Let us be honest about that. We know perfectly well that the Secretary of State for the Environment is in favour of a property tax. He does not believe in a poll tax element. As a faithful member of the Conservative party, he will argue faithfully for it, but he does not believe in it. He has to do that in order to reconcile other elements in the Cabinet, such as the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who still believe that there should be a poll tax element. I believe that the Chancellor thinks that as well.
That division reflects a wider division in the Conservative party in the House of Commons, between those who want completely to abolish the poll tax, some of whom I can see here, and those who want to retain an element of the poll tax. Therefore, the Conservative party is very much a quarrelling, factional party. Many groups with strange titles are now cropping up. I am reminded of the Labour party in the early 1980s. Some Conservative Members feel so strongly about issues such as the poll tax that they do not even want the Conservative party to win the general election. That is the state that they have got themselves into. Because they are divided in that way, they are not fit to govern.
Finally, I want to consider what the poll tax reveals about the leadership of the Conservative party. It shows that the Prime Minister is not prepared to take decisions. He was elected primarily by right-wing Members of Parliament; that is why he beat the right hon. Member for
1022
Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He had their support and he owes them some favours. He has to appease them. The majority of the people who elected him still want a poll tax element.
Rather than produce an effective system of local taxation, the Prime Minister has chosen to appease the right-wing Members who elected him, and is trying to obtain the lowest common denominator of agreement inside his Cabinet. That is why we have this fudged compromise, which does not satisfy anybody in the Conservative party, will not be a runner in the country and will not provide a lasting tax for local government.
We do not even know the details of the new tax. We do not know what element will be a property tax and what element will be the poll tax, as the right hon. Member for Blaby justly pointed out. There is an electoral reason for our not being given such details. The Conservative party is worried about the winners and losers, so it wants to keep the details quiet until after the next general election. That is clear, so let us not have too much high-minded talk about consultation. There are some rather low-minded reasons for the silence as well. I therefore submit that the handling of the poll tax reveals some pretty weak leadership at the top of the Conservative party.
We are entirely right to move a motion of no confidence, not just because the poll tax is a bad tax, not just because it looks as though what will succeed it will also be a bad tax, but because of what it reveals about the Government—their incompetence and division, and the fact that they remain extremely weakly led.
The Opposition were right to table a motion of no confidence, and I shall be delighted to support it in the Lobby tonight. I hope that soon we will be able to go to the country and test people's confidence in the Government as well.
7.54 pm
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has done his best to make our flesh creep with his gloomy forebodings about what damage is being done to the Conservative party, but I can assure him that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends see this afternoon's events very differently.
It needs to be said at the outset that the Opposition's motion of no confidence has been great fun and has given my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a great debating triumph. I for one would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for making it possible.
Mr. John P. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should wait until he sees the television coverage.
Mr. Aitken: I shall come to that in a moment.
As I listened to the opening of the debate, I remembered a little-known fact about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In his school days he was an avid and devoted fan of the literary works of Mr. Frank Richards, the creator of Billy Bunter. That otherwise irrelevant piece of information struck me because, as I listened to the Leader of the Opposition, I realised that this was not a serious parliamentary occasion at all, let alone a great one. We were back in the atmosphere of Greyfriars school with old Carrot Top, his close friend the fat boy and all the other rotters of the lower sixth. They were trying to organise a good old pillow fight in the dorm the night before the school broke up for the Easter hols. That was the spirit of this allegedly serious no confidence debate.

1023
But that pillow fight strategy badly misfired. Connoisseurs of the Leader of the Opposition's performances on these occasions know that he defies the law of averages. His censure motions always misfire. Those who remember the Westland debate and other no confidence motions know that he is a tonic for the Conservative party. He always sends us off more invigorated and united than we were before he tabled his no confidence motion.
This debate has been more helpful than all the others. This must be the first censure motion in the history of Parliament ever to be tabled against the Government because they are abolishing an unpopular tax entirely in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. I was amazed by the Opposition's tactics. They moved a censure motion today, but did not even dare vote against the measure that we debated last night which shovelled £140 off the poll tax for every citizen in the country.
The Government's actions have been commendable. They have followed the philosophical and principled advice of the great Tory democrat, Lord Randolph Churchill, who used to say:
"Listen to the people. Trust the people. That is the watchword of Tory democracy."
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown commendable courage after only four months at No. 10 Downing street in listening to the people and trusting the people in abolishing the much-disliked poll tax. He should be praised, not censured.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) seemed to gain some comfort from the television coverage of the debate. It is true that the BBC is calling this afternoon's debate a draw. Most ordinary mortals would translate that BBC English into the knowledge that it must have been a great triumph for Her Majesty's Government.
But perhaps the verb "to draw" is relevant in one sense. The debate will have drawn the sting of this great poll tax controversy. I suspect that we have reached the climax of poll tax fever with this debate. I have sensed for some weeks now that there has been a certain artificiality in the last few deathbed scenes of the poll tax drama. The Ribble Valley by-election was a one-off freak, in that there are a large number of low-rated houses in that constituency.
That is a situation which I understand well, because the principal town in my constituency, Ramsgate, is rather like a north-east town transplanted to south-east England and it has a large number of low-income people, with low-rated houses, who have thoroughly disliked the poll tax. They like what the Government have been doing about this issue in recent weeks. They certainly liked the community charge reduction scheme, which was to cut their poll tax bills by approximately 20 per cent. They liked the Budget, which will take £140 off their poll tax bills. They liked the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that the poll tax will be completely abolished.
My constituents understand perfectly well that a new local tax will require some further consultation before details and precise figures are announced. That is common sense. All that the man or woman living in a terraced house in Ramsgate cares about is how much they are going to have to pay—what their bill will be. Some of my hon. Friends have been getting a little too ideological recently. Provided that the answer to the question, "Is the price right?" is right, some of the arcane arguments about standard spending assessments and property evaluations
1024
seem somewhat academic. I have confidence that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will get right that vital question of getting the price right.
Conservative Members cannot help it if, when the Opposition are given an opportunity to choose their weapons, they pick boomerangs. I predict that this debate will boomerang back on the Labour party. I suspect that one passage in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition will come back to haunt him and that is that fascinating snippet—I cannot wait to read it in Hansard—when he said that the voters will have to pay "nothing". I cannot wait for the small print of that to be sent round to every constituent in Britain.
After the Government have gone through this consultation exercise—an admittedly difficult period—and have not been able to answer every question about details of the proposals during that time, and after they have published specific proposals and figures for the new local tax, the searchlight of democracy will turn on to the Opposition. People will ask where the Labour party's proposals and precise figures are. If the Labour party's answers are as vague, unconvincing and evasive as they have been this afternoon, the Opposition will pay a heavy price in the vote that really matters—not this pillow fight vote tonight, although that will be won decisively, but the vote of the electorate on polling day.
When the electorate get round to deciding who will govern Britain for the next five years, I do not think that they will make that choice on the basis of a single issue—the poll tax. We were forced to debate on that narrow, artificial ground by the terms of the motion, but whatever happens in the hothouse atmosphere of Westminster, with cleverly crafted motions, the leadership of a great nation will not change hands at a general election on the basis of quibbles and squabbles over local municipal finance. A rather unsuccessful Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, was once cruelly described by Winston Churchill:
"The trouble with Neville is that he always looked at politics through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe."
Too many Opposition Members have been looking at politics through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe and concentrating exclusively on the poll tax. When we come to an election, we will raise our sights—the electorate will raise them—and we shall remember other issues that we have not been able to debate today, such as the confident and experienced performances of the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Operation Desert Storm, which was the most successful military action since world war two.
Especially when it comes to paying for local government, the electorate will remember how Britain became a high-growth, low-inflation country during eight of the 11 years of Conservative Government, conditions of prosperity which will apply again to the British economy in 1992, as a result of the wise Budget introduced last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Above all, I believe that, especially after today's debating triumph, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be seen as the leader with the vision, character and political views who is right to lead Britain into the 21st century.
8.3 pm
Mr. John Battle: It is absolutely right that this no confidence motion should be precisely focused on the poll tax, because that was proclaimed as the flagship of the Tory party and it epitomises Conservative manifesto commitments, policy and approach during their present term of office, which is coming to a close.
It is appropriate that this is a motion of no confidence because I submit that the Government have lost the trust of the people of Britain. People have no faith in this Administration. The fiscal fiasco that Britain now faces, which stretches from national through to local government, is entirely due to Government attempts to introduce the poll tax and then to step back from it. They have shattered any image of competence and any idea that they are holding the country together, that they are holding their party together and, more importantly, that they are capable of addressing issues such as the increasing division between the wealthy and the poor.
I said "image of competence" rather than competence because it seems to me that it does not really matter to Conservative Members if people misunderstand, if matters are deliberately misread or if people are misled when it comes to the poll tax. The truth has been sacrificed to presentation. Surviving in the short term—the politics of the next television news bulletin—is all that matters to the Government.
Even in economic matters, the Government are prepared to devour the economic seed corn of the future and to sacrifice the future for present political survival. Survival is all.
I submit that that image of confidence is now irrevocably shattered, especially when the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes on one television channel announcing that everyone must pay the poll tax and that the principle is still intact, while the Secretary of State for the Environment is conceding on another channel that most people should make a contribution and that not everyone will have to pay as was originally intended.
It is no good Conservative Members using language such as the "enhanced rebate system". When the Government moved from rates to poll tax, they reduced the rebate system, ensuring that every person in Britain had to pay that 20 per cent. without any rebate. That is the core of the injustice of the poll tax—it is not related to the ability to pay.
The Government should not pretend that every person paying the poll tax will get £140 back as a result of the measure introduced last night, because millions of people will be disappointed. I am prepared for the fact that many pensioners and people on low incomes will turn up at our surgeries, working out the amounts on small pieces of paper and asking what has gone wrong because the Government again promised them a rebate but it has not been delivered.
People are now seeing through the image of competence. I asked my local authority to check the figures for Leeds. Before last week's statement, a gross poll tax would have been set at £409. Transitional relief might have been £56 and estimated benefits £64. Therefore, the amount payable was £289. However, if we consider the figures—such as they were—that were given to us in the statement yesterday, can we assume that the gross poll tax will be down by £140 to £269? Transitional relief will be £18 and the estimated benefit will be £45. Therefore, the
1026
amount payable will be £206. In my estimation, that is a reduction of only £83. People will not get £140 back and Conservative Members should not play headline politics by suggesting that they will.
The only people who will benefit by the full £140 reduction will be those who did not qualify for any transitional relief, for the community charge reduction scheme or for housing benefit. In other words, the better-off will gain from the £140, which does nothing to tackle the monstrous injustice of the poll tax which ensures that the poor pay disproportionately. People who are worse off and have to pay 20 per cent. of the bill will benefit by only 20 per cent. of £140, which is £28. That is the reality.
Perhaps a local economic miracle is happening in Wandsworth, because their services can now be provided free, but I suggest that that will prove to be a mirage, too, as that coucil continues its policy of shutting welfare advice centres and is unable to give back-up to people who need to claim their rights.
In the time that I have left, I wish to refer to a matter which is at the root of local government. Tackling poverty was the issue at the heart of the debate when local government was set up. Some years ago, under the chairmanship of Mr. David Widdicombe, the Government commissioned a full inquiry, entitled "The Conduct of Local Authority Business."
The section entitled "The Value of Local Government" contains subsections dealing with pluralism, participation and responsiveness. Under the heading "Pluralism", we read:
"The case for pluralism is that power should not be concentrated in one organ of state but should be dispersed, thereby providing political checks and balances, and a restraint on arbitrary government and absolutism. This is not an argument for fragmentation of the state, nor for divided sovereignty, but rather for increasing the cohesiveness and stability of the state by making it less brittle and allowing within it some safety valve for the expression of contrary views."
The report goes on to suggest that in the 19th century—when modern local government was introduced, along with the local popular franchise, and Lord Salisbury's 1886–92 Administration set up the county councils—the two phenomena were intrinsically linked. It states:
"Salisbury's proposals for local government were based on a fear not of centralising monarchs but of the centralising tendencies of a popular franchise. In his view, the enfranchisement of the working class would make welfare politics the central electoral issue, and lead inexorably to the rise of a powerful administrative state. This could be avoided only by the creation of new local authorities whose value as counterweights would be realised 'by diminishing the excessive and exaggerated powers' of central government."
That is precisely where we are now. When local government was first established, the aim was to take the poor out of the central Government budget, because the pressure of poverty in the growing towns was focusing attention on that budget and decisions were being pushed back from London to local areas. Now the poor are having to pay the price of the poll tax because of the Government's refusal to take account of ability to pay.
The Prime Minister's problem is that he is forced to choose, but each time he makes a decision he divides his own party, fragmenting it into conflicting factions. The new measures to deal with the poll tax will not buy votes for the Conservative party, although they may buy off Tory Back Benchers when it comes to dealing with background cabals. The Government's problem is that the

1027
pocket-lining approach so dear to the hearts of Conservative Members is not the sole interest of the people. They are not interested only in the price tag; nor are they as stupid, as mathematically illiterate or as uninterested as some Conservative Members seem to assume. They do not care only about one-off rebates or transitional reliefs. They want good government—government in which they can believe and which they can trust. They do not want a Government who chop and change with such fervour and violence.
Like all the Government's previous rebates, the poll tax rebate will prove a short-changing sleight of hand. It is the most unjust tax that has ever been introduced in the House of Commons. Not only does it epitomise the present Government's style; it now demonstrates that they have lost the confidence of the people.
The Prime Minister cannot tell the people to wait and see for ever. A deadline is approaching—the last possible date for the general election. Opposition Members are confident that the people will give their vote of no confidence to the Conservatives in that general election, and will return a Labour Government as soon as they have the opportunity to do so.
8.13 pm
Mr. William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on this rather curious motion, and on the extraordinary speech with which the Leader of the Opposition launched it on its way.
I find the motion curious because it links the House's confidence in Her Majesty's Government to a single issue. As a junior Member, I am reassured to note that others who have been here several decades longer also consider that strange. The Government are responsible for a wide range of matters, and the House's confidence in any Government depends on that Government's ability to deal with them. In a general election, the electorate will judge a Government on that basis. The Opposition, however, have ordained that the House's confidence should rest on a single policy.
One would imagine that, if the Opposition consider that policy to be of such overriding importance—an importance that dwarfs that of all other policies—they would at least be able to present their own carefully documented and detailed alternative. The extraordinary feature of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, however, was that, although he spoke for more than half an hour, the time that he devoted to presenting an alternative to the House and the country could be counted in seconds.
No one listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech would think that his was the party that had twisted and turned, ducked and weaved, backtracked, deviated, prevaricated and delayed on the issue for several years. No one would think that his was the party that at one point had one policy north of the Scottish border and no policy south of it. Still less would anyone think that it was the party that, after three years of frantic head-scratching and hand-wringing, could only come up with the old discredited system that it had been committed to replacing for a good two years. Even now, the Labour party can hardly claim to be the proud possessor of a clear alternative with numbers attached. If it has such an
1028
alternative, which it is waiting to reveal, there was certainly no sign today that the Leader of the Opposition was privy to the details.
Given the strident language of the right hon. Gentleman's attack on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, no one would imagine that the public had so little confidence in the former compared with their confidence in the latter. That comparison is apparent to anyone who studies an opinion poll, reads the mail in his postbag or simply walks down the street and talks to half a dozen people. My right hon. Friend has that support because of the impressive way in which he has dealt with such a wide range of matters during his first 110 days in office.
There are many reasons for having confidence in Her Majesty's Government that the Opposition do not want us to discuss tonight. There is, for example, our confidence that the nation's defences will be secure rather than neglected; that the incentive to work will be maintained rather than stamped on; that choice in education will be enhanced rather than removed; and that unions will he kept within the law rather than released from some of its restraints. All those are reasons for expressing confidence in the Government rather than in the alternative presented by the Opposition. The Opposition, however, have chosen—perhaps wisely—to attempt not to discuss them today.
Mr. Simon Burns: They are frit.
Mr. Hague: They are frit, as my hon. Friend so eloquently says.
Nevertheless, it can also be risky for the Opposition to concentrate on the issue of local government finance. The right to be so critical of the change in Government policy would normally be associated with the responsibility to present a detailed policy of one's own.
The Opposition have criticised the Government for taking time to reach their final conclusions. Which policy will be finished first, the Government's or the Opposition's? Which will be presented in the most detail in the next few months? When the Secretary of State for the Environment has completed his consultations about the new local charge, or tax, and published the details of his proposals, will the Opposition undertake to publish theirs in the same detail? Will they undertake now to be as specific as my right hon. Friend will be, and as clear about the financial consequences for households in different circumstances? I very much doubt it. But, if they are to be the critics of consultation, the Opposition should have the courage to give such a commitment now.
Mr. John P. Smith: May I take up the hon. Gentleman's reference to consultation? The principles of the so-called alternative tax have already been laid down: it is to be a property tax combined with another poll tax. That resulted from what was presumably a lengthy review. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to list the individuals and organisations responsible for proposing that hybrid tax during the review period? He will be lucky to name one.
Mr. Hague: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that one of the purposes of the consultation period is to enable a long list of individuals and organisations to give their views, and to assist in the development of our policy. I see no reason for the Opposition to object to that. The country is still in the dark about the details of their

1029
proposals, and, indeed, about whether they agree or disagree with the proposal to transfer part of local revenue raising to VAT. Judging by all appearances, so are they. They huffed and puffed about it last week, with much noise and indignation, but when it came to the vote on Monday night they abstained—or most did; some voted against.
What did the Opposition do when they voted last night on the £140 reduction in community charge bills? They raised no objection on either Second Reading or Third Reading—again after much huffing and puffing before the vote. At least on that occasion they all managed to do the same, but what clarity of leadership and what remarkable decision-making powers the Opposition displayed. What would the Opposition do if they were in office? Would they maintain the rate of value added tax, or increase local taxes, or increase income tax? The country will want to know before they reach their verdict on the Opposition.
The motion refers to the damage done to the country, but we do not require any lectures from the Opposition about damage to local government. Labour councillors throughout the country have shown a persistent inability to control local authority spending. If the Opposition want to talk about damage, they ought to reflect on what Labour councils, under the rating system, did to former prosperous urban areas, or ponder upon the damage done to the rule of law when one in seven of their elected Members of Parliament decided not to pay a tax that had been approved by the House, a tax that their constituents have had to pay for them.
The Opposition appear to be saying that the time taken for consultations is doing the damage. That is a bit rich from a party that has already spent three years in consultation, albeit only with itself. How much damage, though, would have been caused if at least a few weeks had not been spent upon consultations, and how foolish it would have been not to provide time for local authorities and other bodies to have their say before fixing the final details. One can imagine what the Opposition would have said. They would have used words such as "hasty", "dictatorial" and "inadequate consultation". The Government ought to finalise these matters according to their own timetable, not according to a timetable wished upon them by Opposition spokesmen who would oppose the result whatever it might be.
Some good has come out of the community charge experience, if we can call it that. It would be wise of the Opposition to recognise that fact. First, the public have understood for the first time the extent of the cost of local government and the importance of efficiency in providing its services. Secondly, the wide disparity in the efficiency with which councils run their services has been revealed. Thirdly, the difficulty of improving accountability while retaining the existing local government structure has been demonstrated. The review of the local government structure that is now under way provides us with a great opportunity to improve the effectiveness and comprehensibility of local government and to make its scale in each area more appropriate to the needs and wishes of local people. The scope for debate and ideas that the review creates ought to be welcomed by the Opposition, not attacked as indecision.
We know why the Opposition tabled the motion. They are worried that the new system will prove acceptable and
1030
will be seen as a perfectly proper way to raise money. They are horrified by the popularity that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's performance during the past few months has attracted. They are dismayed by the stream of sensible decisions that have emerged from No. 10 Downing street during that time. A year ago, the Opposition were 28 points ahead in the opinion polls. Today they are level pegging with the Conservative party. The awful news for them is that, if they were to lose one quarter of the ground over the next year that they have lost during the last year, their future would be very bleak. So it should be after their performance today. The House ought to reject their motion.
8.23 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Unlike the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who is just about to leave the Chamber, I am not used to pillow fights before the hols. I do not really understand them. I do not believe this debate to be a pillow fight before the hols. I believe that it is a very important debate. I have sat through most of it. Almost without exception, Conservative Members have defended what has been done on two counts. Their argument is that the poll tax was not a sufficiently important issue for the Opposition to move a motion of no confidence in the Government. Secondly, they seem to want to get the boot into Blaby. That is what most Conservative Members have done in this debate.
The poll tax has created great hardship for people. It was one of the worst measures that ever passed into law. Can any Conservative Member still say that he supports the poll tax? A few of them, such as the right hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will stick to their guns, but few Conservative Members now have a kind word to say about the poll tax. It is not all that long ago that they appeared unanimously to agree that it was excellent. A few of them kicked up a bit of a fuss, but the vast majority of Conservative Members went through the Lobby only a few months ago to pass the measure. That legislation led finally to a crisis within the Conservative party and to the overthrow of the former Prime Minister. The person who first opposed the Prime Minister, the present Secretary of State for the Environment, used the poll tax as one of the main planks in his campaign.
The Government are trying to make us believe that the poll tax is to be abolished, but they know in their hearts that it will not be abolished. It created, and it will continue to create during the next two years, great hardship for the British people. The Government will eventually pay the penalty for this stupid legislation. The £140 reduction in the poll tax is acceptable to all concerned, but it is a panic measure. What will it achieve? Will it assist local authorities such as mine in West Yorkshire? Will it assist the police and fire services in West Yorkshire? Recently, the police service had to fix its budget in accordance with the standard spending assessment guidelines. The result is that the chief constable of the West Yorkshire police has had to admit that, during the next financial year, there will be 500 fewer police officers on the beat. Moreover, last week the authority decided that it could not fill the vacant post of assistant chief constable, yet that police authority saw a 27 per cent. increase in crime last year.
It does not stop at that. The same can be said of the fire authority. Up to 150 jobs and nine special appliances that

1031
are needed for emergencies on motorways and chemical works and coal mine explosions had to be withdrawn from service because of the fear of poll tax capping. What will the £140 poll tax reduction do to solve that problem? The House knows full well that it will do nothing to solve it.
We hope that the Government's review of local government finance will not take too long, because the electorate wants to know the results before the election. Whether it is in June, September, October or in 1992, it is not far away. Last Thursday, in his statement, the Secretary of State talked about councils being irresponsible and not being up to the job. He said that the Government would have to consider policies to alter the administration of local government.
Is it Government policy in the review to put education, police and fire services under central Government financing and then under central Government control? If so, who will be responsible for running the services? Will they be run by elected bodies or by bodies selected by the Secretary of State, similar to the water authorities and health authorities? What will happen to the authorities? Will county councils be abolished and will we be left with district councils? If so, and if the fire and police services are taken away, what duties will they be left with?
Will the main local government services be controlled centrally by selected bodies, and will district councils be left with the old parish council status? If that is the case, it will mean the complete destruction not just of local government but of local democracy. If the Government go down that path, they will pay a heavy price because it will not work. Like all other sections of the community, local government is not perfect and never will be—just like the House. We must never desert the position where local government is run democratically by locally elected councillors. That is the danger of the so-called review.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) talked about the new system. I do not know whether he is privy to more knowledge than we are. Does anyone, including the Government, know what is planned? I do not believe that they do. I do not think that the Government know how to go about it.
We will end up with a so-called property tax and a head tax. Again, it is a panic measure. Because of that, we are to have an increase in VAT of 2·5 per cent. Everybody, rich and poor, will have to pay that increase. That is being introduced to get the Government off the hook because of the poll tax action which they took, for political dogma. The vast majority of Conservative Members followed their leader although many of them knew well that the poll tax was wrong.
Government policy on local government should be put in place so that the public know about it long before the general election. If that does not happen, it amounts to deceiving the people. By whatever means the Government try to cover the mess that they have created, they will not deceive the people. The day hon. Members voted in favour of the legislation to introduce the poll tax, they were all guilty. The motion is about only one of the no-confidence issues which warrant debate. There will be many others.
8.34 pm
Mr. Michael Morris: The motion alleges no confidence in the Government's ability to rectify the damage done by the poll tax, yet the actions of the Prime Minister in the four months that he has been
1032
in office have instilled confidence in the people. Every poll taken over the past four months has amply shown that confidence in the Prime Minister is growing all the time. That is the key fact.
Mr. Lewis: What about Ribble Valley?
Mr. Morris: The Ribble Valley poll was not on confidence in the Prime Minister.
The confidence of the people arises because of the Prime Minister's ability to take difficult decisions. His first difficult decision, now coming to fruition, was to join the European exchange rate mechanism. We see the result, with sterling today above its norm. His second decision was to build a better relationship with Europe; that, too, has increased confidence in him.
At 1 o'clock today, I stood on the steps of All Saints in Northampton, having had the privilege of taking part in a service of thanksgiving for the cessation of the war in the Gulf. As I stood with the mayor, the councillors, the bishops and the families from Simpson barracks, all of them to a person were talking about the Prime Minister's handling of the Gulf crisis and their confidence in his leadership. I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition, although he was generous with his support in the House, was not mentioned.
The discussion went on to the community charge, because local councillors were there. What did they say?
Mr. Lewis: Did they call it the community charge?
Mr. Morris: They talked about the community charge and the review of the community charge. Then they remembered that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had much experience in local government, being the first Prime Minister for a long time who had been a councillor. Those of us who were in local government at the same time remember that he played a particular role on Lambeth council. In those days, councillors from other London boroughs went to Lambeth to see the pioneering work that it was doing. They went there to see the housing advisory service set up on the initiative of my right hon. Friend—a pioneering service that was a model for the rest of the country. What would happen if other councillors went to Lambeth today? It is the pits. Right hon. and hon. Opposition Members know that its record is one of the worst in the country and that it is run by the Labour party.
One of the earliest decisions by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was to take the homeless off the streets of London. He asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to ensure that hostel accommodation was available for them.
One problem for Labour Members today is that they face a Prime Minister who understands local government and who understands what is practical, realistic and possible. He is a realist. One of the greatest changes that hon. Members have seen in the Chamber has been Prime Minister's Question Time. Hon. Members now get a direct answer, which they never got from any former Prime Minister, regardless of party, since I have been in the House. There are not many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who have had experience of a Labour Government. The former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, never answered a question: he never dealt with more than two or three questions at any Prime Minister's

1033
Question Time. Opposition Members should remember that. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does answer questions and face up to difficulties.
Of course, that embarrasses the Opposition. They do not like someone who recognises when something is wrong and who is prepared to face up to change. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to recognise that the community charge has not worked. That is why the community charge is now dead. There is no debate about that. The community charge is dead; it is finished. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has put forward a framework for the future of local government finance—a household tax.
Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morris: No. The hon. Gentleman is happy to comment from a sedentary position, so I am not giving way to him. He is a newcomer to the House.
The framework that the Prime Minister has proposed is a good one. It is based on a household tax and it has two elements. The Labour party's proposals as I understand them have three elements, so there cannot be much wrong with something that has two elements.
The Prime Minister has recognised that any local government tax has to be at a lower level. That is why he is right to reduce its absolute level. It was a good move to ensure that that reduction was by way of a sales tax, an increase in VAT which, incidentally, brings us into line with the standard rate for the rest of Europe so it has a double benefit. One could argue that any future Government would have to bring us into line with the standard rate in Europe, and my right hon. Friend has done that in regard to local government, a key part of government in this country.
That is what really needles the Opposition. At last they realise that the Prime Minister believes in local government, understands it and will make it work. That worries them stiff. They know that almost all the local authorities that offer the worst services are Labour councils. Which local authorities are criticised by the Audit Commission? They are almost all Labour local authorities. Which local authorities have the most abuses in terms of direct labour? They are all Labour local authorities.
It does not matter which aspect of local government one considers—the areas of failure are all Labour-controlled areas. Year after year, they are being found out. The Prime Minister has rumbled them and the structure he now proposes is right. If there is to be consultation, who are we to complain? Consultation is a good thing and it takes time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Consult the electorate."] We shall consult the electorate. I support wholeheartedly what my right hon. Friend is doing. I remember that under the last Labour Government there was not much consultation about the selective employment tax, and what a failure that was.
At last we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to recognise that a tax has not worked and that a new structure and a new tax is needed and he is putting forward proposals for discussion within a broad framework. I wish him well in that, and the exercise has my total confidence
8.43 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: I report to the House that nowhere in the London borough of Newham is there any confidence in this Conservative Government. There is virulent opposition and hostility, in particular because of the poll tax debacle, which is surely the biggest fiasco in modern political history. It is a U-turn of quite staggering proportions. The once-proclaimed proud flagship is not only dead in the water but is visibly sinking beneath the waves before their very eyes. But I have yet to hear a single word of apology from Conservative Members. There has not been a word of apology or contrition from the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), or even from the Government. Any Government with an ounce of decency or shame would resign, and that is what we want them to do. They are talking about consultation and we want them to consult the British people through the ballot box.
Since last April, the Government have spent £3·7 billion to ameliorate the poll tax. Yesterday, they voted a further £4·3 billion. I hope that we do not hear any more from the Government about throwing money at problems. The poll tax was not only a unmitigated disaster but a costly one.
It was obvious to all sensible and rational people that the poll tax would be a disaster. If they had listened to the Labour party the Conservatives would never have made that mistake. The hon. Member for Northampton, South tells us that the present Prime Minister understand local government. If the Prime Minister understands local government, why did he support the poll tax? He was one of its main architects. After all that, the Government have the gall to expect the country to let them continue running our affairs after such a spectacular display of incompetence.
Many local authorities, including my own, have had to take on a huge number of costly staff and have had to buy in an awful lot of expensive computer equipment to implement the poll tax. What will happen to those staff and that expenditure? Local councils have been thrown into turmoil. In Newham the day before the U-turn was announced, the staff worked a 24-hour shift to get the poll tax bills ready. All that work has gone to waste, all that paper is now being shredded and, as I understand it, no bills are likely to go out before June. So how on earth do the Government expect the tax to be collected? They are sabotaging the collection of the tax.
We should understand that the poll tax was not an aberration or an accident. It was not introduced by mistake. The poll tax is the epitome of Conservatism. It is the essence of Toryism. It tells us all we need to know about the Tory party. It represents their political values. It shows in stark clarity their contempt for fairness.
The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) told us about the ideology behind the tax—that a duke should pay the same as a dustman. That is the essence of the Tory party and its political values. After all, the poll tax was merely the last of a long series of measures that have passed the burden of taxation from those at the top to those at the bottom. For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has been making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is not as though the poll tax was different; it was the essence of Conservatism. It was blatantly biased and it offended the British people's

1035
concept of fairness and that is why it failed. The British people would not accept something which was blatantly unfair. But there is more to it.
The poll tax has a political aim and object. It was a conspiracy to drown Labour local government in a wave of unpopularity. It was contrived that everyone should pay a large bill. It was thought that Labour local authorities would get the blame. The political thinking behind it was that when everyone was given a large bill the anger of the people and the blame would be directed at the Labour town halls. That backfired. The British people are not so naive as to fall for such a confidence trick. They know where the blame lies. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was swept away, not Labour local councils. Where is the right hon. Member for Finchley? Why has she not been here? I know that she has been voted a great deal of extra money today. Perhaps she is arranging her bank account or setting up a research department in which to put all her poll tax papers.
What about the accomplices on the Conservative Benches? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave details of all the speeches they made and how they were all in favour of the poll tax. We knew they were. Now they are panicking. The measure announced yesterday was conceived out of panic and opportunism. The rats are deserting the sinking flagship and everyone will have to pay a surcharge when they go shopping in order to get the Conservative party out of a hole.
This is part of a wider collapse of Tory policy. The reason for the suffering and turmoil in local government over the past 12 years has been the way in which the Government have shifted the burden of taxation from the taxpayer to the ratepayer—from central taxation and central Government to local government. In 1979, 61 per cent. of local government expenditure came from rate support grant. That has now been reduced to 42 per cent. That is the simple reason why there were increases in the rates and cuts in services.
The object and political thinking behind that is that the Conservative Government were supposed to get the credit for the tax cuts and the Labour local councils were to be blamed for the increases in rates and poll tax and simultaneous cuts in services. That is what the Government thought would happen. All that has failed. The British people have seen through all that and the game is up. Therefore, the policy has had to be reversed. We now have the big shift of billions of pounds away from local government to central Government finance.
The Government have had their come-uppance and surely they will get it again at the general election, which we want as soon as possible.
8.52 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: During the debate, criticisms have been expressed about the way in which Her Majesty's Government have conducted themselves over the review of local government. It is a comprehensive review in that it relates to structure and functions as well as finance. I am a little surprised by the terms of reference of the motion of no confidence. It is far too restrictive and, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, local government is a matter on which the Government have been active since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took office in November.
1036
From listening to the Leader of the Opposition, it would seem that one of his principal criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is his alleged dithering, particularly in respect of the financing of local government. Opposition Members should not confuse dithering with analysis and consultation. Before making such accusations, Opposition Members should remind themselves of the sequence of events since November.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took over at a time of rising tension in the Gulf region. During the intervening period, United Kingdom armed forces have been involved in a war. There is universal agreement and admiration for the manner in which all those involved, whether militarily or as international leaders, conducted themselves. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's actions were hardly those of a man acting in a dilatory manner.
Parallel to that, my right hon. Friend has had to repair fences with our European Community partners. He made it clear from the outset that he wished the United Kingdom to be at the centre of the decision-making process, influencing events rather than constantly complaining on the touchline. The manner in which he immediately sought to establish a close working relationship with the German Chancellor was not only highly commendable but hardly the approach of a dithering man.
As I interpret the political scene, the Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, are now giving their maximum attention to domestic matters, and that includes the economy and the review of local government. As the House will know, I represent a low-income area. Average earnings are about 14 per cent. below the national average. The introduction of the community charge to replace the former domestic rating system undoubtedly created difficulties for family budgets. In my area in 1989–90, the last year of the old domestic rating system, the average rates paid on a typical semi-detached house or bungalow were £380. The following year, with the introduction of the community charge, a couple living in the same property had to find £650 out of their net disposable income. Even allowing for the increase that would have taken place in their rates bill, the change to the community charge meant an additional financial burden of between £4 and £5 per week for a couple living in that typical dwelling in my constituency.
Clearly, that was unacceptable and something needed to be done. Whatever conclusions are to be drawn, they have to be right. We could not, and the nation cannot, afford any more costly errors.
I see nothing wrong with a Government admitting that a mistake has been made. After all, in other walks of life and other organisations and companies, we individuals frequently change our minds. Furthermore—it is worth reminding the House of this—had there been any obvious alternative to the domestic rates that commanded universal support, it would have been implemented many years ago. It is worth mentioning that the Labour party reached its conclusions only relatively recently. It was pointed out earlier today that the Liberal Democrats now favour a local income tax. When I became a Member of this House more than 20 years ago, they were always advocating a system of site value rating. They too have changed their minds, and I have no quibble about that.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced a number of interim conclusions about the basis of the proposed local tax.

1037
Broadly, I agree with those conclusions. Clearly this must be the starting point. We all await with interest the consultation document to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred today. In respect of the functions and structure of local government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last week laid down parameters of his findings, so we shall be able to proceed with more detailed consultations. Last week, too, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a major transfer of financial resources, so that the financial burdens placed on charge payers will be at more acceptable levels in the future.
This is a sensible and mature approach to the solution of what, after all, is a very complex problem, for which there is no obvious and universally acceptable solution. Most people would welcome the opportunity to be involved in this consultation process, in the knowledge that they were now genuinely being listened to. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will continue in this vein and will retain his style of leadership. I am certain that the country as a whole will appreciate his approach, and I hope that all my hon. and right hon. Friends will do likewise.
9 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Prime Minister—wherever he is—may well be pleased to know that, within five minutes of his sitting down this afternoon, one of my constituents, previously unknown to me, telephoned my office. Having watched the Prime Minister on television, my constituent asked two simple questions: "Does he know that the poll tax is a desperately serious issue? Does he understand how much suffering the poll tax has caused families like mine?" Thousands of families, hounded by the poll tax, must have watched the Prime Minister this afternoon with a mixture of bewilderment and contempt as he desperately struggled to avoid talking about the Government's record and their proposals.
The Prime Minister gave us three platitudes that he called general principles. He then promised that the new system would be fairer than the old rates. The Prime Minister has made similar promises in the past. Indeed, on 26 April last year, in a letter to one of his constituents, he promised a new system, saying categorically:
"The poll tax"—
poll tax—
"is a very much fairer and more acceptable system of paying towards the cost of local government."
The Prime Minister says whatever seems convenient at the time.
Of course, much of the Prime Minister's speech today was devoted to an attack on Labour councils. I have no doubt at all that the Secretary of State for the Environment, true to form, will do exactly the same when he addresses the House tonight. I hope that he will not be foolish enough to describe Labour councils and Labour councillors as the Prime Minister did—as unpopular, and growing increasingly unpopular. When the Tory Government came to power, there were 7,300 Labour councillors in England and Wales; now there are more than 9,000. By the most obvious test of political popularity—electoral success—Labour councils have grown steadily
1038
more popular with the years of Labour government. By pretending otherwise, the Prime Minister simply makes himself ridiculous.
However, I offer a word of consolation to the Prime Minister, who, in defiance of the usual courtesies, is not with us. My word of consolation is that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) supports him. So far as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is concerned, the present Prime Minister has one overwhelming advantage: he is not the previous Prime Minister.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I have high regard for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) as a Birmingham Member of Parliament. Last night's Birmingham Evening Mail reported the results of a poll for which the Labour-controlled city council had asked. According to that poll, three quarters of the population think that the Labour-controlled council wastes money. Does that show that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was wrong in criticising Labour councils?
Mr. Hattersley: The test that I asked the still-absent Prime Minister to apply was that of electoral success. We shall wait until May to see which party is in control of the council in Birmingham. The hon. Gentleman knows very well which party has been in control there for the past four years, and I believe that it will continue in control for the foreseeable future.
I turn away from the Prime Minister briefly and come to the poll tax, which was the product of political prejudice. In the graphic phrase of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the calculated intention was to make "dukes and dustmen" contribute the same amount towards the cost of local services. It was intended to emasculate autonomous local government and to make local government the creature of Westminster and Whitehall. It was meant to reduce the level and the quality of local services—and the dogma remains.
As we have heard time after time today from Conservative Back Benchers, the poll tax has not lost its charm for the Conservative party. It has not lost its ideological appeal. There has been no gradual intellectual conversion——
Mr. Patrick Cormack: It had no charm.
Mr. Hattersley: On this occasion, as on many others, the hon. Gentleman will speak for himself, but he will recall some of the speeches made in the past—if he does not, I promise to recall them for him—which took a rather different view from that which I freely admit has always been his.
There has been no gradual intellectual conversion or sudden spiritual revelation. There has just been the sickening feeling that if the Government follow their honest beliefs, they will lose the general election. If they could get away with it again, they would. I have no doubt about that.
I watched the Secretary of State for the Environment being interviewed on Sunday afternoon—wriggling and turning, twisting and weaving, and saying anything and everything rather than express a word of regret that the poll tax had been introduced in the first place. Last Friday,

1039
in his stuttering speech in Southport, he said nothing about the burden on low-income families; nothing about the damaging effect on local services; nothing about the inefficient way in which the poll tax was collected, and nothing about the fact that it took less from the rich and more from the poor. There was no remorse.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) rightly said, the Government will not and they do not, for they cannot, admit the basic intrinsic unfairness of the poll tax. Indeed, on television, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) could bring himself to say only that the poll tax had to go because it was "seen" as unfair by many poll tax payers, as if the play was a great success, but the audience was a total disaster.
There is absolutely no feeling of guilt about the poll tax on the Tory Benches. There is no embarrassment about the money wasted on its collection and no shame at the extravagant claims that were once made about its advantages. In the Tory party, the poll tax produces only one emotion—fear, the fear of defeat. Anyone who doubted that that Tory fear is escalating into Conservative panic must have had those doubts dispelled by listening to the radio yesterday morning. The hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) is back on the "Today" programme—a sure sign that there is trouble in the ranks. There he was—the Corporal Jones of the 1922 Committee—urging his colleagues not to panic. But it is too late—poll tax panic is now endemic in the Tory party. To be fair., as is always my habit, that is only reasonable, because the introduction of the poll tax, together with the incompetence of its administration and the chaos that now surrounds its retreat, is enough in itself to lose the Government the next general election.
Unfortunately for the country, the fear that has gripped the Tory party has rendered it incapable of taking decisive action or even coming to any agreed public position. On some days, a Minister argues that the poll tax has been killed off, but on others we are told that it is not dead, but sleeping. Last Sunday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was categorical in his assertion that the essential characteristic of the poll tax—the obligation of every adult citizen to pay the tax—would be preserved.
There is also the open and well-documented dispute between Ministers about whether a poll tax register has been maintained. The Secretary of State for the Environment has added to the confusion. When told that he had said,
"We shall not need a register",
he replied with all the dynamic certainty that once made him a candidate for the Tory party leadership,
"We haven't said that. We have said that we might."
In fact, the Government are in such a position that the rats cannot even agree among themselves about the best way of leaving the sinking ship.
The dithering and the doubts begin at the top. On this issue in particular, the Prime Minister is incapable of providing incisive leadership. He has claimed that he was "bounced".
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Prime Minister is here, but no one has seen him.
Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend suggests that the Prime Minister is here, but no one has noticed him. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed that he was "bounced"—his word—into acceptance of the poll tax. He seems to
1040
think that the confession that he was "bounced" is an excuse. In truth, anyone who is bounced into so catastrophic a decision is not fit to be Prime Minister. Throughout the poll tax debate, the right hon. Gentleman has bounced and bent in a way that must have reminded him of one of the circus figures of his youth—the incredible indiarubber man. In 1989, he told the Sunday Mirror,
"I have been in the Cabinet for just two years. I haven't run my own department. Nobody knows how I would react if something went horribly wrong."
Thanks to the poll tax, we know now—he dithers.
I do not accuse the Prime Minister of lacking principle——
Mr. Graham Riddick: This is very cheap.
Mr. Hattersley: I repeat, I do not accuse the Prime Minister of lacking principle; I simply assert that he lacks ideas of his own. No Prime Minister since the war has come to that high office with so few firm convictions and so few strong opinions, and it shows.
Last July, the Prime Minister warned the Conservatives of Wales—a small gathering of men and women—of the horrors that awaited them if a Labour Government were elected. "They intend to freeze the married couples allowance," he warned—the Government did that last week. "They plan to meddle with mortgage interest relief," he warned—the Government did that last week. He went on to give another warning certain to make all Welsh flesh creep. He said, "They intend to introduce a new local government tax, but they will not tell us what it is."
When yesterday, in a fit of pique, the Prime Minister attacked the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) for failing to change the poll tax and mortgage tax relief, honesty should have compelled him to admit that, although the right hon. Member for Blaby was not making those changes, the Prime Minister was publicly attacking the idea that such changes might be made.
The unfortunate right hon. Member for Blaby was the subject of most of the speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who attacked his former colleague almost from start to finish. It would have been extraordinary, had we not experienced their work together, to recall that they once sat in the same Cabinet. It reminds me of an old adage that will be repeated time after time after time between now and general election day, "If they cannot agree among themselves, how can they hope to run the country?"
The game of quoting what Tory Ministers have said about the poll tax and the iniquities of property tax, not to mention the catastrophe of property tax and poll tax combined, is so easy that it is barely worth playing. There are two members of the Cabinet, however, who deserve special mention.
I absolve from all blame the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities who, being a junior Minister, has all those problems associated with that rank. He will rightly say, for I have experienced similar difficulties, that he was acting under orders. We cannot say the same about the Secretary of State for Wales, who continually makes himself ridiculous over this issue. A year ago, he said that a property tax was
"A tax on house improvements, a tax on the improvement of the neighbourhood…a tax on people trying to better themselves."
The Secretary of State for Wales will vote for such a tax tonight.

1041
The Home Secretary, as one would expect, said what was fashionable at the time. He is therefore firmly on record against a tax that is based on property values. Last February he, too, criticised the principle of property taxes. He warned:
"If you increase the value of your home, it will be hit by the new tax. If you save and invest in your home for your family and your children, it will be taxed."
The Home Secretary will vote for a property tax tonight. Last year's convictions will not prevent him from giving wholehearted support to this year's policies. The Home Secretary is always the first boy to leave the burning deck. But the Prime Minister should do better.
One of the Prime Minister's problems is his habit of saying the first thing that comes into his head on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. Early last week, he was categorical in his promise that all questions about the future of local government finance would be answered on Thursday.
It is now clear that the Secretary of State for the Environment, far from giving all the answers, had not even asked himself all the questions. Changes were made to his scheme, even to the interim scheme, during the days that followed.
The hapless Minister was sent on the television to explain that, since the councils had "stopped their computers"—a charmingly archaic way in which to describe these things—there no great inconvenience would be caused by the Government changing their mind once or twice more. Local authority accountants, on the other hand, took a different view. They described themselves on the same programme as "suicidal".
The latest adjustment raises the essential question about the number of beneficiaries we can expect from the new scheme—the one-off Conservative rescue provision for 1991–1992, which the Secretary of State concedes cannot be reproduced next year.
My first question to the Secretary of State is how many poll tax payers will have their bills reduced by £140 as a result of last week's announcement? The first impression—it was certainly the Government's fraudulent intentionx2014;was that every poll tax payer would benefit by £140. That is clearly not so. [Interruption.] The Minister of State is perfectly entitled to make his calculations. The computers have stopped, so he can make whatever changes he chooses.
I ask the Secretary of State again how many beneficiaries will receive the maximum poll tax reduction. That was the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East earlier this afternoon. Figures have been touted about, insinuated in headlines and repeated time after time in speeches this afternoon. How many will benefit?
I make a confession to the Secretary of State. I shall be one of them. My polls tax bill for two of us was £300, compared to rates of rather more than £1,000. It is now to be reduced to a joint poll tax bill of barely £70. I regard that as wholly indefensible. I believe that millions of people in Britain who are better off under the poll tax and will benefit from what the Secretary of State proposed regard it as a shame of the worst sort that they should benefit when services for poorer people are being cut and the poll tax paid by poorer people is being increased.
1042
I ask the Secretary of State again how many people will receive the full £140. Of course, we know that everyone will pay the extra VAT. We know that people far worse off than I am will contribute to the VAT in order that my poll tax bill can be cut again. But how many people will receive the maximum benefit?
On 23 November, the Prime Minister addressed that very subject on the BBC "Six O'clock News". He said:
"I want to make sure that when we make changes … they don't just re-distribute the burden from one pocket to another ‖ That is not the way to proceed."
If the Prime Minister had done the House the courtesy of being here this evening, I would have offered him the chance to make clear his real feelings on the subject. Does he still believe that moving the burden from one pocket to another is not the way to proceed? If so, how does he justify the switch from poll tax to VAT? If not, when and why did he change his mind? Neither of those questions is unimportant, for they show that we have a Prime Minister who cannot remain constant to an idea for more than a few weeks at a time.
This afternoon the Prime Minister made no attmept to answer my right hon. Friend's question, so I address mine to the Secretary of State, not least because he and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggets that the Prime Minister should come forth and be recognised. Perhaps he should come forth and see whether he is recognised. He sits below the Chair so I shall continue to address my questions to the Secretary of State. I do so not least because, as the right hon. Member for Chingford announced last night with such malicious glee, the Secretary of State is the man who four months ago said that he had all the answers to the poll tax ready in his pocket.
I hope that, when the Secretary of State has concluded the part of his speech which will be more appropriate to the Oxford union 1950, he will answer four questions. After all, he cannot go on being the juvenile lead for ever.
My four questions are these. First, in the Secretary of State's new hybrid tax, how is the balance to be struck—that is to say, the proportion of payment—between the roof tax and the poll tax? Secondly, what is the balance that he hopes eventually to achieve between local and national finance and council services? Does he regard the balance between national and local finance as about right now, or does he wish to change it? Thirdly, does he intend too maintain a register of poll tax payers, or has he devised some other way of enforcing individual collection? Fourthly, will a tax be levied on every individual adult whatever their circumstances and incomes?
I must warn the Secretary of State now that there is no way that we shall be satisfied simply by the answer that these are proper subjects for consultation. It is almost, but not quite, inconceivable that the Government have not already come to a view on those fundamental matters. If the Secretary of State tells us otherwise, both the House and the country will have to decide whether that answer is pure invention to get him through tonight or a genuine admission that the Government are still lost and bewildered. The Secretary of State must not delude himself into believing that the word "consultation" is a magic charm which prevents him from suffering any harm. Everybody is in favour of genuine consultation. What we are against is bogus consultation, which acts as no more than an excuse for indecision, and that is what we have.

1043
Naturally, the Secretary of State is himself part of the problem. He is the worst possible man to do the job. His forte is the quick headline, like the promise made on 16 November that public anxiety could be dealt with at a stroke by switching education spending to central Government. Whatever happened to that idea? The Secretary of State has another problem. He is regarded by half the Tory party as the assassin, and they will not allow him to deviate too far from the policies of the Prime Minister whose fall he precipitated. He was appointed to his job for what the Prime Minister thought were party political reasons, but these days a Tory Prime Minister cannot even organise a decent conspiracy.
Yesterday evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) reminded the House that Benjamin Disraeli described the Tory party as an organised hypocrisy. Under this Prime Minister, it has become an utterly disorganised hypocrisy. It cannot even deceive the public for long. Its shabby manoeuvres are immediately exposed and its willingness to put party before national interest recognised and denounced even by those newspapers that three months ago were its warmest supporters.
The government have no direction and no purpose. They are doomed and acting as if they know that they are doomed. It is the knowledge that a whole decade of Tory government is almost at an end that has made them the most dithering Administration this century. The words of Sir Winston Churchill must now haunt the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has decided only to be undecided, resolved only to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, and all-powerful for impotence. It is time for him and for them to go.
9.28 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The whole House will have recognised the style of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), because we read it time and again in Punch. He will be as familiar as we are with the circulation problems that have attended his continuous contributions to it.
The House is entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. We heard his views about our proposals, but it will not have escaped the attention of the House that he did not tell us anything of his views or what he advocates. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman, with the characteristic gloss that he brings to the detail of policy, will not have read the Labour party's "Fair Rates". If he had, he would know that he was urging the House that we should go back to the rating system.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): What is wrong with fair rates?
Mr. Heseltine: That is a helpful question, and I shall give the House the answer which is, in fact, contained in what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said. He said:
"I would like to see us getting rid of the rates and putting something else in their place. If we could come out with a practical solution in the next four years … nobody would be happier than me."
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned four years, but those words were uttered 12 years ago, and what policy is he advocating tonight— a return to the rates. There is certainly no quick headline in any of that, but there is no substance in the proposals either.
1044
The House was not as full as I should like it to have been when the leader of the Liberal party gave us his views on the debate. I have never listened to a more sanctimonious speech in all the years that I have been here. The case that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) deployed was that the Labour and Conservative parties indulged in beastly party politics, while the Liberal party was above it. In the House, his party is not so much above it as irrelevant to it. For a Liberal leader to claim that his party's behaviour sets it apart from political infighting is one of the most preposterous statements that I have ever heard. Everyone knows that, when it comes to by-elections and local elections, there is no trick that the Liberal Democrats will not pull, no funny statistics that they will not use, no poll that they will not rig, no device that they will not contrive and no sharp practice in which they will not engage. I do not need to consult the Labour party on that—at least we can agree a consensus there.
The debate about local government did not begin in 1979. The real issues that we have to address in the debate began when the Labour party was in power. It began the process of trying to bring local government under some sort of control. It was a Labour Environment Secretary who said that the party was over. It was the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who introduced to the House, admittedly at the behest of the International Monetary Fund, the biggest planned cut in local authority current expenditure that we have seen.
What is the totality? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the critical question: how would the Labour party constrain local government any more successfully were it to win a general election, than it succeeded in doing when it was last in power, particularly as it lost power because it ran from its own organised unions, which it could not resist?
Mr. Shore: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the phrase, "the party's over" did not come from my lips,but that does not matter. I willingly plead guilty to the charge that we reduced the rate support grant from 66 to 61 per cent. of local government expenditure—the level at which we held it for three years. The first thing that the right hon. Gentleman did when he stepped into the Department of the Environment was to cut it to 59 per cent., from which it has never ceased to be cut, until it reached 38 per cent., as he told me in a written answer today.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has made my point. In the last three years on average under the Labour Government, the rate support grant went down by 2 per cent. In my first year, it went down by another 2 per cent. That is precisely the point that I was making.
We understand that the Labour party's policy in the first year is to go back to the rates, and that it will then move on to another system of local government finance. In the course of his excellent speech this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the simple question, "What will it cost?" The debate has been clearly conducted around the question of whether the Opposition would produce the figures. My right hon. Friend challenged them to put the figures in the Library. Five hours have gone by. We have checked the Library of the House of Commons and the figures are not there. Why are the figures not there? We know that the Opposition have the figures because

1045
when my right hon. Friend asked whether anybody had seen the figures, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) put up his hand. He has seen the figures. He should be so lucky.
So we have another question for the Opposition, and this is all about whether people will play any part in the Opposition's calculations. Would a single person with an income just above the help afforded in Labour's extended rebate system pay the same as a family of wage-earning adults living next door? If so, how conceivably could such a situation be justified? We need an answer, because in 1989 the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was d in Tribune as saying that Labour would
"get round … the disparity between someone living alone living next door to three or four earners."
In addition, we now know that the Labour party intends to revalue every domestic property on the basis of four different factors—market value, rental value, rebuilding costs and repair and maintenance costs. It will do that every year. We have four factors and an annual revaluation. However, there is then a fifth tax. The Labour party would help single retired people living alone, so there would be a people tax as well—an old persons' register. What does it mean? How will the Labour party help old people unless it knows where the old people are living? Has the Leader of the Opposition got an answer to that question? He says that in going back to the rates system, this time the Labour party will have a system of sensible rebates. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us one thing? How much will a system of sensible rebates cost?
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made a most telling point. The Leader of the Opposition told us how much the system of sensible rebates would cost—nothing. That is what he said. Let all those elderly people who will be helped by the system of sensible rebates know exactly how much cash is coming their way—nothing.
So it is no wonder that the Labour party is not prepared to discuss its proposals—self-evidently not with us, but apparently not even in detail with the party. That is in sharp contrast to the claim that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly made today that we are conducting the most important and comprehensive review of local government this century.
I appreciate the generous tribute of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Our position is clear on this matter—the community charge will go. It will be replaced by a new local tax. We have already established a better balance between national and local taxpayers. Our new local tax will reflect the number of people in the household and the value of the property in which they live. We are consulting fully and thoroughly about the structure, finance and management of local government.
I express gratitude to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including the right hon. Members for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), and my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who said that we are absolutely right to consult thoroughly on this matter and at a pace which ensures the proper decisions.
If there is any doubt about the synthetic nature of the opposition that the Labour party has mounted it is that it
1046
is impossible to understand why we were kept here until 2.30 am to carry the necessary legislation when the Opposition did not divide the House on clause after clause. The fact is that the Labour party had gone home to bed.
If I described all that as the consequence of Labour policy options, I should mislead the House. There are no conclusions. The purpose of "Fair Rates" is to deceive the public about the chaotic state of Labour's thinking. During the past three and a half years, leading Labour spokesmen have given 65 different policy positions on local government finance.
As we have pointed out, the truth has never been better expressed—no one put it more clearly—than by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) when he cried in despair:
"I'm saying to the NEC policy makers … 'Hang on a minute, what's our policy on local government?' Putting it at its boldest, we haven't got a policy."
That is the actual truth. It was true then—in 1987—and it is true today.
The reality is not that no one has ever tried to design a policy for the Opposition. The hon. Member for Brightside certainly tried. In October 1987, the Financial Times reported that he had made an apparent spur-of-the-moment suggestion that fresh consideration be given to the possibility of a local income tax. Then, some Opposition Members wanted a property tax and some wanted a local income tax. There was only one way forward. In April 1988, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spelled it out:
"We shall replace the poll tax with a property tax and a local income tax"—
the smack of firm resolution. He continued:
"We have agreed these matters today."
Next, the Leader of the Opposition took a permanently personal grip of the situation. On 22 July, the right hon. Gentleman determined that the policy had to be "sophisticated". The hon. Member for Copeland quickly got the message. He began to back off from local income tax. Three days later, we read in Hansard that he said:
"We will dedicate an element of income tax to local government."
The hon. Member for Brightside had not been let into the secret at that stage, and said:
"There has been no change this afternoon."
Later, after two months of "sophisticating", nothing had changed. The right hon. Member for Islwyn was able to say in September:
"What we are contemplating may involve a tax based on the value of a property supplemented by a small … local income tax."
Enter the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), centre stage. [HON. MEMBERs:"Where is he?"] At this point, the process assumes a real sophistication. On 10 November, the hon. Gentleman told us that Labour would look at
"a range of options—some of which will be single taxes and some of which won't…. Nothing is set in concrete."
By then, the hon. Member for Brightside had caught up with what was going on. Of the two-tax policy, he said:
"It is politically dead. Personally, I was quite happy to bat on with it, but you must look reality in the face."
By that time, the hon. Member for Dagenham was driving ruthlessly on. On 18 January 1990, he was able to share the results with the House:
"We are making very good progress with the work we have undertaken to prepare our alternative … We have every confidence that in the coming months we shall reach a

1047
conclusion that we shall be able to bring forward with confidence."—[Official Report, 18 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 438–39.]
Two months later, the hon. Gentleman was asked who would pay under Labour's system. He replied:
"That's the one thing we have yet to decide … We will reach a decision very shortly."
That was a year ago today.
It was then that the hon. Member for Dagenham realised the dangers of revealing the truth. Early in April, he declared that Labour would not reveal the details of its policy until after winning power. Some people were embarrassed by that apparent coyness, as a result of which the new policy statement lasted two weeks. Then the hon. Member for Dagenham said that Labour would certainly give people
"plenty of information in good time so that they will have some idea of what the relative size of their bill will be.
Then we marched on to July, when Labour published its "Fair Rates" document. There was not a fact in it, or a figure of any sort; the only precision that it contained was a firm pledge to return to the rating system—the very system that the Leader of the Opposition had described as the most unjust of all taxes. We got rid of that system and, however unjust Labour Members may once have considered it, they are now determined to bring it back, with rebates which—in the indelible language of the right hon. Gentleman—will be so generous that they will cost nothing. But you get nothing for nothing.
There we have it: a brief history. The Opposition have got nowhere, but they dare not admit it. They will not —cannot—come and talk to us, because they know that they will be flushed out and exposed.
I do not want in any way to suggest that the Labour party does not believe in consultation. However, although we have asked Labour to consult—all the other parties have consulted, and we have consulted their councillors up and down the country—it will not do so. That is not because Labour is against consultation in principle. The one clear statement that is worth recording can be found towards the tail end of "Fair Rates". This is what the Labour party says about consultation:
"The Labour Party intends to consult widely on the basis of the proposals set out in this paper. There is no reason why Labour should fall into the same trap as the Conservatives in announcing an immovable and predetermined policy irrespective of expert and political opinion or regardless of constructive observation. We seek to find a sensible and lasting solution which can gain the maximum consensus both inside and outside the local government arena."
That is what they said until we asked the Labour party to do it. What rank hypocrisy.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I have been listening for a long time to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. A serious matter is before the House. As £4·5 billion of public money is to be spent, the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to explain how it will be spent.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman knows precisely how it will be spent—on reducing the cost borne by local people. The levels, on average, will be lower than they paid in the last year of the rating system, because we intend to take £140 off the headline charge. If I am asked how many people will benefit, I can say that about 14 million people will benefit from the full £140 reduction.
The truth is that the Opposition have been flushed out. They will not talk——
Mr. Hattersley: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to answer a question, he has answered a question that I did not ask. He has also given a different answer from the one that he gave on Thursday. It is also a different answer from the one that the Leader of the House gave yesterday. Can I ask him a question that I did ask: how many beneficiaries will enjoy the £140 that he has trumpeted during the past week?
Mr. Heseltine: That is exactly the question that I did answer. When I answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions, he does not understand the answer that I give him.
The fact is that the Opposition have been flushed out—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Heseltine: The Opposition will not consult because they dare not produce the facts behind their consultation. The party of "won't pay" has become the party of "won't say". It is not simply a question of the Opposition not being prepared to answer basic questions about the cost of their proposals. The issue that the Opposition must face up to is the level to which they have brought so many Labour-controlled authorities.
At least let us be clear about this: the Opposition are not going to win this vote of confidence tonight. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Applause is not the way that we show our approbation in the House.
Mr. Heseltine: But there is a consolation prize for the Labour party. It will win the vote of no confidence that was passed today in its Labour candidates in Lambeth. The House is entitled to the latest up-to-the-minute information. Today the Labour executive kicked out 13 of Labour's councillors in Lambeth. The Labour leader, Joan Twelves, is out. The mayor, George Huish, is out. The deputy leader, John Harrison, is out. The chief whip, Julian Lewis, is out. Greg Tucker, Mrs. Twelves's partner, is out. I leave it to my right hon. and hon. Friends to interpret that for themselves; whatever he happens to be, he is out on his ear. As all those great luminaries of the Labour establishment get the chop, they have given a new political significance to the meaning of the Lambeth walk. [Interruption.] It is a long way to Tipperary and it is quite a long way to Sheffield as well.
Why did the Labour party stop at Lambeth? The truth is that it did not. The national anti-poll tax campaigner, Steve Nally, was heaved out as well. Let us be generous and say with one accord to the leader of the Labour party, "Well done, but why did it take you so long? Now what will you do about all the other councillors and Labour Members of Parliament who will not pay their poll tax? What will you do about the Labour party in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, which was urging us to put a spanner in the works?"
The Labour party is unfit to govern. The House has no confidence in the Labour party. It has no confidence in the leadership of that party that had so to narrow the terms of the censure motion that it became a one-issue debate. In the whole history of the Mother of Parliaments, never have we seen a motion of confidence so narrow because the Labour party was frightened to let its leader loose. He cannot be trusted, even by his own party, to cover all the national and international issues.

1049
We have no confidence in a party which, if we could have discussed the matters, we would have shown to be prepared to bargain away our nuclear defences. We have no confidence in a party that would capitulate to union aggression or that would put up the cost of local authority finances, put up taxes, put up borrowing, and put up inflation. We have no confidence in a party which tolerated the disgrace of Lambeth council and dozens of others. We have no confidence in a party whose councillors and Members of Parliament openly flaunt the breaking of the law.
If that is the alternative, thank heavens that the House can have confidence in Her Majesty's Government. The Prime Minister has achieved more in local government reorganisation since he became Prime Minister than the Labour party has designed throughout the decade that it has been in opposition.
We can be clear. We have a choice of Government. We have a national Conservative Government in charge, on top, leading Britain forward. We have a Labour choice in local government—wasteful, divisive and expensive. There is no contest at all. We shall make sure that the Opposition parties stay on the opposition Benches and we shall ensure that we drive them into opposition increasingly in local government as well.
This House has confidence in the Government, and I invite it to join the Government in the Lobby tonight.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 358.

Division No. 106]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Canavan, Dennis

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Allen, Graham

Carr, Michael

Alton, David

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Anderson, Donald

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Clay, Bob

Armstrong, Hilary

Clelland, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Cohen, Harry

Ashton, Joe

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Corbett, Robin

Barron, Kevin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Battle, John

Cousins, Jim

Beckett, Margaret

Crowther, Stan

Beith, A. J.

Cryer, Bob

Bell, Stuart

Cummings, John

Bellotti, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cunningham, Dr John

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

Dalyell, Tarn

Benton, Joseph

Darling, Alistair

Bermingham, Gerald

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bidwell, Sydney

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Blair, Tony

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

Blunkett, David

Dewar, Donald

Boateng, Paul

Dixon, Don

Boyes, Roland

Doran, Frank

Bradley, Keith

Douglas, Dick

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Duffy, A. E. P.

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Eadie, Alexander

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Buckley, George J.

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Caborn, Richard

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Callaghan, Jim

Fatchett, Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Faulds, Andrew

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Fearn, Ronald

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

1050

Fisher, Mark

Martlew, Eric

Flannery, Martin

Maxton, John

Flynn, Paul

Meacher, Michael

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Meale, Alan

Foster, Derek

Michael, Alun

Foulkes, George

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fraser, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Fyfe, Maria

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Galbraith, Sam

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Galloway, George

Morgan, Rhodri

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Morley, Elliot

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

George, Bruce

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mowlam, Marjorie

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Mullin, Chris

Golding, Mrs Llin

Murphy, Paul

Gould, Bryan

Nellist, Dave

Graham, Thomas

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Brien, William

Grocott, Bruce

O'Hara, Edward

Hardy, Peter

O'Neill, Martin

Harman, Ms Harriet

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Patchett, Terry

Haynes, Frank

Pendry, Tom

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Pike, Peter L.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Prescott, John

Henderson, Doug

Primarolo, Dawn

Hinchliffe, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Radice, Giles

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Randall, Stuart

Home Robertson, John

Redmond, Martin

Hood, Jimmy

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Reid, Dr John

Howells, Geraint

Richardson, Jo

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Robertson, George

Hoyle, Doug

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Rogers, Allan

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rooker, Jeff

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Rooney, Terence

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hume, John

Rowlands, Ted

Illsley, Eric

Ruddock, Joan

Ingram, Adam

Salmond, Alex

Janner, Greville

Sedgemore, Brian

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Sheerman, Barry

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Short, Clare

Kennedy, Charles

Sillars, Jim

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Skinner, Dennis

Kirkwood, Archy

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lambie, David

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

Lamond, James

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

Leadbitter, Ted

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Leighton, Ron

Snape, Peter

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Soley, Clive

Lewis, Terry

Spearing, Nigel

Livingstone, Ken

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Livsey, Richard

Steinberg, Gerry

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Stott, Roger

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Strang, Gavin

Loyden, Eddie

Straw, Jack

McAllion, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McAvoy, Thomas

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Turner, Dennis

McFall, John

Vaz, Keith

McGrady, Eddie

Walley, Joan

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McKelvey, William

Wareing, Robert N.

McLeish, Henry

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

McMaster, Gordon

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

McNamara, Kevin

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

McWilliam, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Madden, Max

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Marek, Dr John

Wilson, Brian

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Winnick, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Worthington, Tony

1051

Wray, Jimmy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Ken Eastham.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Curry, David

Aitken, Jonathan

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

Alexander, Richard

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Day, Stephen

Allason, Rupert

Devlin, Tim

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Dickens, Geoffrey

Amess, David

Dicks, Terry

Amos, Alan

Dorrell, Stephen

Arbuthnot, James

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dover, Den

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Dunn, Bob

Ashby, David

Durant, Sir Anthony

Aspinwall, Jack

Dykes, Hugh

Atkins, Robert

Eggar, Tim

Atkinson, David

Emery, Sir Peter

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Evennett, David

Baldry, Tony

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fallon, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Favell, Tony

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bellingham, Henry

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bendall, Vivian

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Benyon, W.

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forman, Nigel

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Forth, Eric

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Franks, Cecil

Boswell, Tim

Freeman, Roger

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

French, Douglas

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

Fry, Peter

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gale, Roger

Bowis, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Gill, Christopher

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Brazier, Julian

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Bright, Graham

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodlad, Alastair

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

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gorst, John

Buck, Sir Antony

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Burt, Alistair

Gregory, Conal

Butler, Chris

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Butterfill, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Grist, Ian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Ground, Patrick

Carrington, Matthew

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carttiss, Michael

Hague, William

Cash, William

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hampson, Dr Keith

Chapman, Sydney

Hanley, Jeremy

Chope, Christopher

Hannam, John

Churchill, Mr

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

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Harris, David

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Haselhurst, Alan

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hawkins, Christopher

Colvin, Michael

Hayes, Jerry

Conway, Derek

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hayward, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Cope, Rt Hon John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cormack, Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Couchman, James

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Cran, James

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Critchley, Julian

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hill, James

1052

Hind, Kenneth

Mitchell, Sir David

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Moate, Roger

Holt, Richard

Monro, Sir Hector

Hordern, Sir Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Moore, Rt Hon John

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

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Moss, Malcolm

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Mudd, David

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Needham, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Nelson, Anthony

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Neubert, Sir Michael

Irvine, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Irving, Sir Charles

Nicholls, Patrick

Jack, Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Jackson, Robert

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Janman, Tim

Norris, Steve

Jessel, Toby

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Oppenheim, Phillip

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Page, Richard

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Paice, James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Patnick, Irvine

Key, Robert

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Kilfedder, James

Patten, Rt Hon John

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Kirkhope, Timothy

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Knapman, Roger

Porter, David (Waveney)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Portillo, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Powell, William (Corby)

Knowles, Michael

Price, Sir David

Knox, David

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rathbone, Tim

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Redwood, John

Latham, Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Lawrence, Ivan

Rhodes James, Robert

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Riddick, Graham

Lee, John (Pendle)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Lightbown, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Rost, Peter

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Rowe, Andrew

Lord, Michael

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Sayeed, Jonathan

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shaw, David (Dover)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Maclean, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shelton, Sir William

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Madel, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Major, Rt Hon John

Shersby, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Sims, Roger

Mans, Keith

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Maples, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Marland, Paul

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Marlow, Tony

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Speed, Keith

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Speller, Tony

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mates, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maude, Hon Francis

Squire, Robin

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Steen, Anthony

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stern, Michael

Miller, Sir Hal

Stevens, Lewis

Mills, lain

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Miscampbell, Norman

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

1053

Stokes, Sir John

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Sumberg, David

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Summerson, Hugo

Waller, Gary

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Ward, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Warren, Kenneth

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Watts, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wells, Bowen

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Wheeler, Sir John

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Widdecombe, Ann

Thorne, Neil

Wiggin, Jerry

Thornton, Malcolm

Wilkinson, John

Thurnham, Peter

Wilshire, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Winterton, Nicholas

Tracey, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Tredinnick, David

Wood, Timothy

Trippier, David

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Trotter, Neville

Yeo, Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Younger, Rt Hon George

Viggers, Peter

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Tellers for the Noes:

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville

Walden, George

Question accordingly negatived.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the motions on statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

Statutory Instruments, &c.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)
  That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991, dated 4th March 1991, a copy of which was laid before the House on 6th March, be approved.

  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Caravan Sites and Pitches (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft British Telecommunications plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft British Gas plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on llth March, be approved.

  PUBLIC HEALTH
  That the draft Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  LIBRARIES
  That the draft Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.

  GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
  That the draft Central Office of Information Trading Fund Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
  That the draft Buying Agency Trading Fund Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
  That the draft Property Services Agency Supplies Trading Fund Order 1976 (Revocation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 5th March, be approved.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  That the draft House in Multiple Occupation (Charges for Registration Schemes) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft Electricity Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.

  COUNTY COURTS
  That the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  COMMON FISHERIES POLICY
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11)541/90 on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); supports the Government's aim to participate fully in preparatory discussion for the mid-term review of the C'FP; and endorses its approach to continue to make adjustments and improvements to the CFP to deal with existing and future problems within the framework established by the 1983 CFP settlement.

  COMMUNITY SOCIAL MEASURES
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8073/90 on organisation of working time, 8792/90 and 4112/91 on the protection of pregnant women at work and 8075/90 on temporary and mobile work sites; endorses the conclusions of the Madrid and Rome European Councils that measures taken in the field of social affairs should have full regard to the effects on job creation, to the principle of subsidiarity and to the diversity of national traditions and practices; and supports the Government's view that the proposals on temporary and mobile work sites broadly meet these criteria, that the proposals on the organisation of working time do not, and that the proposals on the protection of pregnant women at work require to be more closely focused on health and safety in order to do so.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

Compulsory use of Seat Belts
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9228/88 and 10333/90 on compulsory use of seat belts; notes that their provisions are broadly in accord with present and proposed domestic legislation; and endorses the Government's intention to seek amendment of the proposals so that any adopted Directive neither imposes unacceptable constraints nor limits the scope for further action perceived by Parliament to be necessary without prejudice to the question of competence of the Community in relation to road safety.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).
10.15 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the Leader of the House would be willing to give further consideration to this very important constitutional point, and is it in order for the Leader of the House to comment?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can help the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr.Taylor). These issues have been the subject of some initial discussion through the usual channels, but, as I have pointed out to my hon. Friend in the House before, when one embarks on a new process, as we are doing now, issues can sometimes arise that we must consider. I have said that we shall certainly be having a review before the end of the summer and that we may wish to review some of the issues earlier than that. My hon. Friend's point could be one of the issues that I shall look at with a bit of experience of the work of the relevant Standing Committees. I have made a note of what my hon. Friend has said. That is certainly one of the points that I shall look at.
Mr. Taylor rose——
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to move his amendment?
Mr. Taylor: In the circumstances, certainly not, Mr. Speaker.
Question put and agreed to.

British Nationality
10.16 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move,
That the British Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 183), dated 4th February 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be revoked.
The Government are proposing substantial increases in the fees for naturalisation and registration. Those increases would be substantial even if the Home Office offered a speedy and efficient service, but the service is neither speedy nor efficient. It may be for the convenience of the House if I state now that I shall not seek to press a Division on the regulations, but it is important that the House debates what is an extremely important matter to many British citizens living in this country.
Delays are part of the immigration system of this country. Some suspect that delays are deliberately used as an instrument of control. Efficiency in the immigration and nationality department has been one of the many casualties of the Government's term of office. The Government, as the operators and employers of those who work in the immigration and nationality department, must accept the blame for that inefficiency.
In some ways, this debate is about value for money or, rather the complete lack of it. Last year, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in its fifth report of the 1989–90 Session, paper 319, published another damning report on the work of the immigration and nationality department, condemning the Home Office's quality of service, especially for the very services for which the public will now have to pay more as a result of the regulations. The Select Committee said that the delays were "indefensible". That is how the all-party committee described the situation now prevailing in that department in Lunar house, in Croydon.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend realise that, if completions of naturalisation and registration cases continued at their current rate of 28 a month, it would take until the year 2084 before all the cases were completed? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is disgraceful?
Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. This matter worries many of my hon. Friend's constituents and other Opposition Members. As I said, the Home Affairs Select Committee said that the delays were "indefensible". That Committee was not impressed by the explanations which the Government offered in evidence or by the promises that the Home Office would try to do better—for good reason, as it turns out.
The position has not improved over the past few months—indeed, it has deteriorated further. The delay in dealing with claims for naturalisation was, on average, about 27 months in June 1990, when the report was published. By Monday this week, 25 March, the delay had increased to 36 months—three years to deal with an application. In no other service would that be tolerated or be considered remotely acceptable.
On the same Monday, the delay in dealing with registration matters was two years, yet the Government propose that the fees for that service should rise—from £60 to £85 for registration, and from £60 to £135 for some
1058
naturalisations. It seems that the Government are charging more for a poorer service, yet they say that they model themselves on the private sector and operate in the marketplace. Surely they must realise that the immigration and nationality department would be out of business within weeks if it operated in any marketplace.
I look forward to hearing what the Government propose. This public service lies entirely within the Government's control. They operate the department and could improve services if they chose. I think that I can safely say that in no other service is there such a glaring example of Government complacency and Government inefficiency. Perhaps other hon. Members or even Ministers can point to another example, but I am not aware of one.
The Home Affairs Select Committee said:
"Delays are particularly unacceptable in a fee-based service."
Yet we have greater delay and higher fees. It is ironic that this service is presided over by the ex-chairman of the Conservative party. The fees are paid up front and, in effect, the Home Office receives an interest-free loan from the applicants. The deposit is quite substantial.
One effect of the regulations is that, if applications are unsuccessful, a substantially increased part of the fee will be forfeited. It is unreasonable that a person who applies for registration or naturalisation should find, after two or three years, that he has failed and loses quite a substantial sum.
Whoever wrote the explanatory note which accompanies the regulations certainly had a way with words. The explanatory note says:
"The fee payable in respect of an application for registration as a citizen … is increased from £10 to £60, while the fee payable in respect of such registration itself is reduced from £50 to £25."
Although there was a small increase in one respect, one would think that there was a reduction. However, the amount of money that will be forfeited in the event of an unsuccessful application has been increased considerably.
The Home Affairs Select Committee identified several problems in Lunar house, where the immigration and nationality department is based, for which the Government should take some responsibility and which they should put right. About a year ago, when I visited Lunar house, I was struck by the considerable staff turnover. By and large, the work is not particularly pleasurable, in that more often than not the Home Office tends to say no. In addition, certainly a year ago, there was a large amount of office space in Croydon and it was found that other employers could offer more attractive employment than the Government. Understandably, anyone who was sitting in Lunar house and looking around at the people going into the banks and insurance companies would realise that there was a more attractive option then making a career in Lunar house.
The Government have not dealt with staff conditions and staff training. The latter is particularly important when there is high turnover, as experience is needed to deal with applications. There could be catastrophic implications for an individual if his application failed.
The Minister should also consider the possibility of moving the immigration and nationality department from Croydon to another part of England—the midlands would be an obvious location. I know that that matter has been considered by the Government and other agencies, but perhaps the Minister will say something about that

1059
tonight, because that move might address the problem of high staff turnover. Perhaps the Minister could also tell us why the Birmingham office, which was heralded two years ago, was eventually acquired but did not open for more than a year because money was not available.
When one works in an atmosphere where delays are endemic and one knows that the Government hold the work done in the immigration and nationality department in fairly low esteem, it means staff morale can be low. The Government must accept responsibility for that. The service of that department is desperately needed by many of our citizens. They are entitled to a first-class service, not a second-class one.
In evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee a Home Office official said:
"nationality work does to some extent stand on its feet"
Last year the Home Office almost made a profit on that aspect of its work, but that profit is indefensible when the Home Office is not delivering the service to match the high fees charged. Perhaps the Minister can tell us on what basis the fees are calculated. The nationality division costs about £5·9 million, which is almost covered by the fees received, yet that division's staff are engaged in other work—they are not wholly dedicated to processing applications.
The Home Affairs Select Committee has said:
"The principle of a cost-based service is only acceptable if a prompt service is provided."
It is right to say that, but no prompt service is offered, nor has it been for some time. The Select Committee also noted:
"Compensation for poor service is widely accepted in the private sector."
That is true, and it should be more widely accepted, particularly in the case of the immigration and nationality department.
For some time, the Labour party has accepted the principle of compensation for poor public service—we have set that out in our consumers' charter. That charter must be right and I do not believe that the Minister will condemn it tonight, because, lo and behold, the Prime Minister discovered exactly the same thing in his speech about mashed potatoes last weekend in Stockport.
We shall set targets for the Home Office for all aspects of its work. For entry clearance work, there should he strict time limits to deal with applications and similar time limits for issuing explanatory statements in the event of an unsuccessful application. Appeals should also be subject to strict time limits—similar to those that are commonplace in the normal civil law procedure of the various jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.
The delays that are part and parcel of the immigration procedures of this country are indefensible. They are bad for the public and for those who work in that sector. They should be tackled by the Government. Targets should be imposed so that the public are left in no doubt as to the quality of service they are entitled to expect. The Labour party believes that people should be guaranteed their money back, in whole or in part, in the event of failure on the part of the Home Office to honour the obligations incumbent upon it. If the Government set such targets and offer such compensation, it would be good for the pubfic, good for staff morale and good for the service.
What have the Government got to say about those proposals? Not a lot, I fear. Last week I asked the Minister
1060
to let me know when he intended to comment on the various recommendations made by the Home Affairs Select Committee. He replied:
"The Government undertook in their reply to the report … to issue regularly bulletins on the progress of nationality work. The first such bulletin will issue shortly."—[Offical Report, 25 March 1991, Vol. 188, c. 269.]
Nine months have elapsed since the Select Committee reported, but no bulletin has been issued and the Minister is unable to tell us when he will respond to the many useful suggestions of the Select Committee. That is yet another example of delay and of the Government's apparent inability to make up their mind how they should respond to some extremely sensible suggestions made by many hon. Members who are sympathetic to the Government.
The position on outstanding applications is particularly worrying. More than 16,000 applications for naturalisation lodged before January 1988 have still not been dealt with. Some 12,000 applications lodged between January 1988 and the end of December 1988 have not been dealt with. More than 16,500 applications lodged after January 1989 have not yet been dealt with. That is 46,000 applications which are still awaiting processing. That is clearly intolerable. Some 15,500 applications for registration have not yet been dealt with. Surely no Government could be satisfied with that. Surely no Government could rest and say that they are not prepared to tackle what is increasingly becoming an irritant to large numbers of people living in this country.
This debate is about efficiency and value for money. Unfortunately, we are getting neither of those in the service that is being provided by the Home Office. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what progress is being made with computerisation. Or are the Government being typically complacent in this branch of the service? The Minister tells us about the importance of gathering the fees and revenues due to the Home Office, but what exactly is being done to recover the large sums of money now outstanding in penalties imposed under the Immigration (Carriers' Liabilities) Act 1987? Surely those sums could help to defray the costs of the operations of the Home Office if the Government were of a mind to do something about collecting the arrears, which run to many millions of pounds.
The matter is important not only in terms of providing a service to members of the public or reducing the irritation and anger felt by many people who find that their applications are not being dealt with by the Home Office. It will be of crucial importance once the single market is completed in 1992. The Minister will be aware that one's ability to move around Europe will depend to a great extent on the status that one enjoys. If one is not a citizen or does not have right of abode or otherwise the right to move around Europe, people in this country who want to work in different parts of the European Community, which is the idea behind the single market, may find that they cannot do so simply because their applications have not been processed because of bureaucratic delay and red tape. That sort of inefficiency is inexcusable, and it will cause great anxiety and hardship to many people, especially once the single market is in full operation at the end of next year.
In this short debate, the Minister will have to come up with firm proposals on how he intends to tackle the unjustified and intolerable problem that has been created over the past few years. It must give him no satisfaction to

1061
preside over such a mess and such an unsatisfactory situation. An efficient system is needed—one provided at a reasonable cost. In my submission, the Government have failed on every count.
10.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The last time that fees for citizenship applications were raised was in April 1986—almost five years ago. It is right that the House should take this opportunity to discuss the increases which are now prescribed.
I hope to cover the main points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who asked about fee setting. The current fee setting system replaced one which simply threw up cash surpluses or shortfalls and which was criticised by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1983. We now have an accrual accounting method whereby income from applications is credited to the fees account stage by stage as the work is done. Interest credited for as yet unapplied fee payments is subtracted from processing costs so that applicants rather than the Exchequer get this benefit.
Fee levels are set to recover expected costs in each category of application and no more, but calculations have, of course, to be made on the basis of forecast levels of output and costs and it would be impossible to break exactly even all the time. In some years, therefore, our outturn accounts show a surplus, and in others a loss. Taken together over the six years from 1984–85 to 1989–90 the trading accounts show a net surplus in the order of £250,000. Our estimate is, however, that there will be a loss in the 12 months just ended and that, if fees are unchanged, a greater one in the coming year.
It is against that background that we have reviewed fee levels and have, as the Select Committee recommended, tried to remove any element of cross-subsidy. We expect that the revised fee levels will provide sufficient income to meet the cost of processing applications at least over the period from March 1991 to March 1992.
The level of fees for the three categories—residence naturalisation, spouse naturalisation and registration—have varied over the years. For example, the fee for naturalisation on grounds of residence was set at £200 in April 1982. It was reduced to £160 in April 1984 and then increased to £170 in April 1986. We do not intend any increase to that fee as a result of the present review. I hope that the House will welcome the fact that about one third of our customers will therefore pay less than their predecessors did eight or nine years ago to achieve British citizenship.
Mr. Vaz: The Minister used the word "customer". In November 1987, when he introduced the Immigration Bill, the then Home Secretary referred to providing a good customer service for those who went to Lunar house. Does the Minister believe, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) describe the disgraceful delays at Lunar house and in Liverpool, that he is giving his customers a good customer service?
Mr. Lloyd: We are giving our customers a good service, but it is not nearly as speedy as I and others would like. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked how fees
1062
were set and, as I am responding to him, I shall concentrate on that point until I move on to the service and, in particular, the speed of service.
Mr. Max Madden: Can the Minister tell us the impact on fees of the requirement to use detectives to carry out inquiries and interviews associated with nationality? I have always wondered why CID officers are employed on that work. Would not it be better, more effective, cheaper and quicker to use Home Office civilians than detectives who would be better employed chasing criminals, especially in view of the soaring crime rate that we have learnt about within the past 24 hours?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not have such a breakdown, but I am fairly confident that the proportion is small. We try to organise the service with sufficient flexibility that we do not use police officers and make investigations unless there seems to be a good reason for it. In most cases, there is not.
The fee for registration was set at £70 as long ago as April 1982. In April 1984, it was reduced to £55 and there was a small increase to £60 in April 1986. As a result of this latest review, it will now rise to £85.
The other main fee level, relating to naturalisation on the grounds of marriage, attracted a fee of £70 in 1982. That was reduced to £55 in April 1984 and increased to £60 in 1986. We now propose a substantial increase from £60 to £135.
When in 1984 and again in 1986 we assessed the amount of work that such applications would entail, we had little experience on which to base our assessment. Many married women, for example, were still exercising their rights to registration as British citizens under section 8 of the British Nationality Act 1981.
It was only with the ending of the transitional rights on 31 December 1987 that a clearer picture emerged of the cost of processing applications. Our latest analysis showed that the average cost of a successful application under section 6(2) is £143·95, whereas we charged only £60. Applicants in this category were, in effect, being subsidised by applicants in other categories. The rise is large, but consistent with the principle that applicants should meet the average cost of processing their own category of application.
However, we believe that it is right to continue the concession for members of the same family applying at the same time. Thus, couples applying together for naturalisation will continue to pay one single fee, as will minor children of the same parent applying together for registration. The continuation of the concessions is a real and practical help to families and an encouragement to them to apply for British citizenship together.
The major change to the fees introduced by these regulations, and mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, is to charge unsuccessful applicants the cost of processing their applications. Hitherto, unsuccessful applicants have been charged only a minimal £10. In fact, the careful deliberation and the prolonged inquiries that can take place before an application is refused can take almost as much, and sometimes more, time and cost more money than one which is successful.
We believe that it is unfair to expect applicants who meet the requirements of the Act to pay the costs of those who fail, and we see no reason why the taxpayer should continue to subsidise them either. All unsuccessful applicants who apply after 1 March 1991 will have to meet

1063
the full average cost of processing their applications. That will be £60 for registration, £130 for naturalisation on the grounds of marriage and £135 for other naturalisation.
I do not believe that these fees will deter people from applying for British citizenship. Those who are properly qualified will not be affected. It may help other potential applicants to give more thorough consideration to whether they meet the unwaivable statutory requirements; a reduction in the number of ineligible applications can only be a good thing.
The Home Affairs Select Committee has said—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to the subject—that the time taken to process citizenship applications was far too long. The Opposition have argued that it would be wrong to increase fees until a speedier service can be provided. I accept that the delays are far too long" and—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will know—I have rehearsed the reasons on several occasions. As he did not mention the position, I think that one can understand it only if I briefly outline those reasons again.
There was an unprecedented number of applications for citizenship in 1987. Most of them were for registration under the transitional provision of the British Nationality Act 1981, in which the entitlement to be registered ended, in most cases, on 31 December 1987. A large number of those applying had had many years in which to rnake applications for British citizenship, in some cases since 1973, but they left it until the last minute.
The Government expected an increase in applications for registration and thought that about 64,000 would be received. They also expected to receive 26,000 or so naturalisation applications. Some 16 additional staff were provided to cater for the extra work. In fact, 210,000 registration applications were lodged. In addition, the publicity, as the closing date for applications approached, also attracted 70,000 applicants for naturalisation, even though their rights were not affected by the ending o f the transitional period. The total number of all applications was, in fact, about five times the number received in 1986 and about three times the estimated number—resulting in a waiting period of three years. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is the current waiting time.
Mr. Darling: We all appreciate the problems that arose at the end of 1987, but can I take it from what the Minister was saying that, although it is proposed that the fees will go up as a result of the regulations, we cannot look forward to an improvement in the quality of service or the amount of time taken to process the applications be reduced? The thrust of what I was saying was that it seemed to be unreasonable to expect people to pay more for a pretty shoddy service.
Mr. Lloyd: I shall return to that point. There is a logical misapprehension in the case that the hon. Gentleman is making. The whole delay has been caused not by slowness in processing over time, but by the large backlog that was created at the end of 1987 and which has held everything back since. When that backlog is overcome, the average statistical time of processing will come down sharply.
Mr. Darling: I do not want to labour the point, but I am sure that the Minister will accept that, if he took a suit to be dry cleaned and he was told that it would take six months or a year to do it, he would not care why that situation came about: he would simply want to get his suit cleaned as quickly as possible. Exactly the same situation
1064
applies in Croydon. I appreciate that there were difficulties which are unlikely to arise again, but the customers, as the Minister calls them, want to know why their applications cannot be dealt with a little more speedily than three years.
Mr. Lloyd: If I were the customer or the applicant, I should think in exactly the same way. But if I were the Opposition spokesman who hoped to take over the business in a short time, I should want to look behind the problem to see what caused it. I should come to the conclusion that appearances did not describe where the difficulties were. The difficulties were at the end of 1987 and have not occurred since then. I shall return to that point.
To help deal with the processing of the applications a new nationality office was opened in Liverpool, in August 1988. The hon. Gentleman wondered what had become of the suggestion that it should be moved from Croydon. We decided to move the office to Liverpool, and primarily it handled the transitional application cases—those are the ones that came in at the end of 1987—with the target of taking decisions on all of them by 31 March 1990.
In fact, the Liverpool nationality office took decisions on all its registration cases by 19 January 1990, except those where replies from applicants were still awaited. Those cases consisted of those where we are waiting for the applicant to forward the fee, or to swear an oath of allegiance, or to send some other documentary evidence to establish an entitlement. The number of such cases is gradually being whittled away, and at the moment only 4,125 remain outstanding.
When the Liverpool nationality office had largely completed the processing of the registration applications, its staff were retrained in order to process applications for naturalisation. At the same time, we decided to move the base for dealing with citizenship matters from Croydon to Liverpool. In the long term, that will reduce the cost of processing applications, although I have to say that we underestimated the short-term effect that transferring work from Croydon to Liverpool would have on production, and waiting times have not fallen as quickly as we should have liked.
But the number of outstanding cases has nevertheless continued to drop—from 120,000 at the end of 1989 to 86,000 at the end of 1990. At the end of February, the backlog was down to 80,000. During that time, more than 29,000 fresh applications were being made. We are now concluding cases at the rate of 5,000 a month. Our determination to clear those cases as quickly as possible is evidenced by the increase of staffing levels in Liverpool from 140 to 205 in the coming financial year.
The transfer of work from Croydon to Liverpool was to have been completed by the end of March, but we have decided to keep a nucleus of staff, about 80, in Croydon until later this year to help reduce the backlog more quickly. We are taking other steps, too, to reduce the time taken to deal with applications. We have reviewed our operating procedures and the way in which the nationality division is organised to ensure that when we begin our consideration of an application, there will be no further avoidable delay in determining it.
Waiting times, currently 36 months for naturalisation applications, are—as I and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said—far too long, but the underlying situation has been steadily improving. All the huge

1065
overhang of 1987 cases, and most of the 1988 cases, have now been started and we can expect that most of them will be determined within the next few months. [Laughter.]
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) laughs, but he will understand, if he thinks about it rather than jeers, that the essential, if the average time is to come down——
Mr. Vaz: It has gone up.
Mr. Lloyd: It has gone up because we have not yet finished the applications made at the end of 1987—a huge influx of applications, five times as high as normal.
The reason why the waiting time appears to increase is that that huge number of applications came in at the same time. Therefore, until they are settled the average time will increase, but, as soon as they are out of the system, it will start to drop sharply. I know that the hon. Member for Leicester, East does not want to listen to what I am saying, because he is anxious to make his own remarks, but I suggest that, if he reflects on the figures for applications that came in since 1987, and the movement since then, he will realise that when the overhang is removed the average waiting time must, and will, come down sharply.
Mr. Vaz: So sophisticated is the way in which the Minister manipulates and massages the figures that I think that his next, portfolio will be Secretary of State for Employment. If he reads the evidence of his own civil servants to the Select Committee for Home Affairs, he will know that they have admitted, on his behalf, that they got the planning stages completely wrong. The responsibility for the disaster of 1987, when there was a huge influx of applications, rests with the Home Office, because it failed to plan properly. That is what his civil servants said. What the Minister should have done then is employ more staff.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the Home Office did not predict the size of the influx in 1987, but I hope that he will also accept that that influx was from people who might have put in their applications at any time during preceding years. It suggests that the absence of a British passport, at least for them—whatever annoyance and irritation their presence in the queue is causing for those who came later—was no great hardship. Otherwise they would have applied earlier.
The backlog of applications is being reduced; and I am quite sure that we shall see the benefits in shorter waiting times later this year.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I think that the Minister is being a little unfair when he says that people could have applied much earlier. The fact of the matter is that a deadline was set by his office, which forced people to take a decision on whether to apply. Additionally, the increasingly unpleasant experiences of many people, permanently and legally resident in this country, while trying to travel around Europe on a non-British or non-European Community passport, more or less forced them into getting an EC passport to travel freely. I think that the Minister should think more carefully before he makes that sort of remark.
Mr. Lloyd: The sort of remark that I make is self-evidently true. As there was an opportunity for most of those people who applied at the end of 1987 to apply
1066
much earlier, they did not find it inconvenient not to have a British passport. The logic of that is so clear that even the hon. Gentleman, fair-minded as I know he is, will be able to accept it. However, I do not view that with any satisfaction or as an acceptance of the fact that there are delays. The delays are unacceptable to us. That is why we have made changes to reduce the waiting time. I accept that delay can be a considerable nuisance for some people who have to wait and who need to travel.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we receive representations that show that an applicant is being caused considerable difficulties by delay, we are willing to bring forward the application, and to give it a measure of priority. A number of hon. Members know that, because I have responded in that way to representations made by them.
Mr. Paul Channon: My hon. Friend may have already answered my question, but has the Home Office given any thought to those who are caught in the middle of this terrible delay, and who may have strong personal reasons for travelling abroad? Is there any system that will allow them to obtain temporary documents, or any way in which the Home Office can help bona fide cases without prejudicing later chances of naturalisation?
Mr. Lloyd: Most people who apply for naturalisation have a passport from their country of origin, which will enable them to travel. If they want to travel to a destination to which it is difficult for them to travel with that passport, we regard that as a good reason for giving them priority, and we do so if representations are made to us.
Mr. Darling: Like—probably—most other hon. Members, I have written to the Minister on behalf of constituents who find that they cannot travel because they lack the necessary documentation: for instance, a British passport. If a compelling reason can be produced, someone will go and retrieve what is needed; unfortunately, however, it takes some time for the Home Office to reply to letters, and someone then has to wade through the papers in Lunar house to find the application concerned. I accept that people try to be helpful, but the best idea —which may require extra resources—is to try to get rid of the backlog so that we do not have to debate it again and again in the future.
Mr. Lloyd: I have two answers to what the hon. Gentleman has said. First, if he has advanced the case for priority treatment of a constituent and the delay has continued although the priority itself has been accorded, I should be grateful if he would let me know; I should like to follow that up. Secondly, we have now changed the procedure. The hon. Gentleman referred to this earlier, and—by implication—in his intervention. Now, when we receive applications, the passport is examined and the required information taken from it; the passport is then returned. It does not lie in a file in Lunar house or Liverpool. The hon. Gentleman is right, in that some remain from the earlier period, but they will be returned on request. I should be concerned to learn of long delays in that regard, and I should like to know of any such cases that the hon. Gentleman has encountered.
Following the recent Select Committee report, we are arranging for the production of periodic bulletins about the current state of the backlog. Copies will be made

1067
available to the press, and for distribution by organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the citizens advice bureaux. The first issue will be published—I was going to say "shortly", but an earlier "shortly" has already been quoted, so I shall say "in the next two or three weeks" instead. I believe that that will help to keep those in the queue better informed about progress.
Returning to another point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, let me stress that the revised fee levels will affect only those who apply on or after 1 March 1991, and that, unless there is a massive increase in the rate of applications that we cannot now foresee, new applicants can expect to receive a far speedier service than we have been able to offer in the past. We plan to carry out a further review of fee levels early next year. That will enable us to consider the effect of our revised procedures and of the transfer of work to Liverpool, and it will ensure that the fee costs are properly and fairly shared. At that stage, the House will again have the opportunity to debate any proposed changes in the fee levels and the average time that it takes to meet applications.
I believe that the increases are fully justified and that it is right that the processing costs should be borne by the applicants in each category. I am confident that the House will take the same view.
10.59 pm
Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Ealing, Southall): The House knows that a considerable number of people from the Indian sub-continent have settled in my constituency. The long delay in achieving naturalisation is a source of considerable worry.
I do not know whether the Minister really understands why people did not immediately apply for British citizenship when it was first offered. For many families the reasons are complex. If people go abroad for lengthy periods, British nationality provides them with no advantage. Moreover, an Indian may retain his Indian nationality in Britain and show no inclination to take British citizenship. I found out in conversations with civil servants and with one of the Minister's predecessors that, if an Indian takes British citizenship, he can lose his right to property in India.
Due to the troubles in the Punjab, at one time it was much easier to travel as an Indian national, with an Indian passport, to see relatives and attend family occasions such as weddings and funerals in India. Under earlier legislation, no restrictions were placed on job and business opportunities. Sometimes the wife and the children, but not the breadwinner, took British citizenship.
The Minister referred to the Home Office's British nationality division and said that, on 20 February 1991, it admitted that the average waiting time for naturalisation applications was 36 months. I am informed that it is 32 months. However, as the Minister suggested, that is far too long.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: The 36 months is the length of time that registration or naturalisation applications have taken. Those coming up now were made at the end of 1987. The applications took a very long time—three years. However, as we are now well into dealing with the 1988 applications, those made afterwards will take much less time to deal with. The period will fall sharply. We are at about the peak now.
Mr. Bidwell: One hopes that that is so and that the Minister's optimism will bear fruit. Such a long waiting period is absolutely disgraceful; it cannot be described just as a matter for regret.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) about the EC. There will be much more movement within the Community, not just to take holidays but to take up job opportunities as EC citizens.
I pay tribute to the staff in the Minister's office for the excellent co-operation that I have enjoyed over the years. I always take the opportunity in these debates to pay them a tribute. The staff in the Foreign Office and in the Minister's Department are helpful in assisting hon. Members, although they cannot work miracles. If the regulations result in additional staff, and if the optimism of the Minister bears fruit, we shall all be much happier.
I remember a case that was given consideration out of turn. It involved a young woman working in this country for a company which had branches in Germany. She was told that she could not have a promotion within the company because she was not then an EC citizen, which was required under the rules relating to the movement of labour.
Commonwealth citizens enjoy democratic rights and can sit in the House, if elected. For many years an Australian citizen was a Member. I refer to my neighbour, Mr. Kerr, who held an Australian passport to his dying day. Everyone should understand that that can happen and should not moan about people not taking out British citizenship.
We are entering a new phase of life, when many young people who have not yet secured British passports and who are not members of the EC may be handicapped in work opportunities because they cannot take up posts without being EC citizens. That point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central and must be considered. As we go into the single market, there will be a big leap towards economic integration. Leaving monetary integration aside, because that is a thorny question, there will be greater mingling of the people of Europe than has taken place over the past decade.
I hope that everything that the Minister has put before the House bears fruit. I wish him luck. if he is not successful, we will be on his tail again.
11.7 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell). I agree wholeheartedly with his comments about the private office of the Minister. I should not like any of my subsequent comments, which will not be as kind, to reflect on the work of his staff, whom I have always found to be extremely courteous and efficient.
I, too, share the deep concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) about the way in which the Department is being run. As I said in my intervention, in November 1987 the then Home Secretary introduced the Immigration Act 1988. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I were on the Standing Committee. When introducing the legislation, the then Home Secretary spoke about providing a good customer service, as though Lunar house were a branch of Marks and Spencer. If it were, and if the Minister was working on a performance-related salary, he

1069
would have to hand back to the state everything that he has earned over the past two and a half years, because he has not completed the tasks that were set him.
The Minister was right to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, whose chairman, the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) is in the Chamber. He will know that every Select Committee report that has been published since 1987—I cannot claim to have been a member of the Committee before then—has condemned the work of the Home Office. I did not engineer the condemnation. The Select Committee is an all-party group and the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House was obvious, first because of the scandalous delays at Lunar house due to the misjudgment by Home Office officials of the number of applications in 1987, and subsequently because of the utter and complete failure of the Minister and his Department to come to terms with the deep crisis that is gripping the Home Office's immigration and nationality department.
Yet the Minister is seeking to raise fees, albeit with a half-hearted apology. He says that it is unacceptable that the delay is now 36 months. Anyone else would describe it as three years. After all, 36 months is three years. The Minister should be honest about the catastrophe at Lunar house. He says that the number of outstanding applications has been reduced to 80,000, as though it were a tremendous achievement. The reality is that it is a disgrace. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said, no other Government Department would find itself dealing with such long delays and such a considerable backlog. The Minister and the Home Office get away with it because the House debates these measures late at night when few hon. Members can participate.
The Minister told us that there is a backlog because so many "customers" made their applications in 1987. If he had read the evidence that was given by his senior officials at the hearings of the Select Committee, he would know that they admitted that the Home Office had made a mistake. They accepted that they had not planned the process properly. They said that if they had had the chance to repeat the exercise, they would have planned it differently.
The Minister talked about the Liverpool office as though that was a great gift. When I tried to telephone those who run the Members' correspondence and inquiries unit at Liverpool, I could not get an answer. I had to ring the Minister's private office and ask one of his assistants to call me. Eventually, a member of the Minister's Department managed to speak to the unit on the telephone. When I came to speak to someone from the unit, I asked why there was no direct line for the use of Members. The official said, "We have not been able to install a direct line because BT has delayed the installation." That is an example of the sort of excuses that are being made by officials at Lunar house and at Liverpool. If that is the way in which they treat Members of this place, they must be treating Members' constituents in an equally appalling manner.
The Minister has asked us to explain the hardship that is caused if an applicant has to wait for 36 months, or three years. I shall give him an example. Let us say that one of my constituents is of Indian origin, happens to hold an
1070
Indian passport and makes an application for naturalisation. He sends his passport with his application, as requested by the Home Office, and the passport expires within the three years of delay. In that event, the Indian Government will not issue another passport to the applicant because they will want to be satisfied that the individual has not applied for naturalisation. If the applicant wants to travel urgently, the Minister might say, "Get in touch with my Department and a travelling document will be issued." That is all very well, but it will take a long time for that document to be issued. Indeed, the same procedures are followed in issuing a travelling document on the basis of any emergency as those that are observed if a person applies for naturalisation.
The Minister has not been honest with the House, to the extent that increasing the fees means that the Department will continue to make a profit, notwithstanding the way in which it operates. The Minister shakes his head, but the Department will make a profit as a result of the fees that are charged. If it makes a profit, it should ensure that applicants receive the best possible service that can be made available to them. It is clear that the present service does not fall into that category.
Constituents come to my surgery to question the delays. If I write to the Minister on behalf of a constituent, six weeks will pass before I receive a reply. He will explain that there are delays because of the many applications that were made in 1987. I send the Minister's reply to my constituent and there is a further delay while he or she responds. If the Minister thinks that matters can proceed quickly whan a passport is at Lunar house, he does not know how the system works. I tabled a question a short while ago to ask the Minister how many passports were held at Lunar house. Even his Department does not know how many are held there. We cannot be sure, therefore, that some of the passports are not being held there for longer than is necessary.
This morning I attended the Committee considering the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and supported by other members of the Select Committee, dealing with another aspect of Home Office responsibilities. The Minister said that he wanted to co-operate and be seen to be friendly to new initiatives. I welcome that co-operation and it is untrue for people to think that every time I speak in an immigration debate I automatically criticise the Minister. On some immigration matters, he has been flexible, after persuasion. I do not automatically condemn everything he does, because this morning he was helpful. In that spirit of compromise, will he consider a way in which he can be helpful to some of my elderly constituents who have applied for citizenship?
When people apply for citizenship they have to satisfy a criterion that they are able to speak English. Many of those who have applied in my constituency are elderly Asians who have only ever spoken Gujarati. In other parts of the country they may have spoken only Punjabi or Urdu. At their age, they cannot be expected to learn English simply to satisfy a requirement of the British citizenship rules. Will the Minister look carefully at that? There are elderly Asian men and women in my constituency who communicate with their families in Gujarati, are able to go to shops in Leicester in which the shopkeepers speak their language and go about their daily lives, watch videos and so on. They are able to do all that

1071
with their language and there is no reason why, at their advanced age, they should have to learn a new language in order to satisfy those requirements.
I know that it remains in the Minister's discretion to grant them citizenship. Will he please look at the possibility of amending the regulations to ensure that they are not made to satisfy that criterion? If I were to introduce a Bill—if I can—in the same way as the hon. Member for Westminster, North, whose Bill was debated this morning with the full support of the Government, I hope that the Minister will show it equal support.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), the Minister said that he hoped that this matter would be resolved and that the delays would be ended. Will he let us know what he regards as an acceptable time for people to wait before being given citizenship? Three years is too long. In fact, one or two years is too long. The Minister should aim to apply the same targets as the Government are using in other areas of policy to his Department so as to end the misery and hardship suffered by so many people because of the way in which his Department operates.
11.17 pm
Mr. Max Madden: The Minister was good enough to write to me on 22 March in reply to a letter from me dated 25 February about the naturalisation application of a constituent I shall call Mr. A. The Minister said:
"You will be pleased to hear that this case is receiving detailed attention. I should mention, however, that Mr. … has previously been refused naturalisation because he did not appear to have sufficient knowledge of English to meet the statutory requirement. To check the current position it is likely, therefore, that our inquiries will include an interview. We will ask the local police to arrange this.
I am afraid I cannot say how much longer it will now take to determine Mr. … 's application. When we have completed all the appropriate inquiries we shall, of course, let his solicitors know the decision as soon as possible."
In reply to an intervention, I understood the Minister to say that the police were not automatically involved in inquiries. It is absurd for the police to be required to interview that applicant to satisfy themselves whether he has sufficient English to met the statutory requirements. It seems a criminal waste of police time when crime is causing so much public concern and when today the Home Office and Home Office Ministers have been busily trying to persuade the public that they are not responsible for the time wave going on around us. Why are CID officers—detective sergeants or detective constables—required to undertake inquiries in connection with British citizenship? It would be much more appropriate for civilian officials to be employed. It would also be less intimidatory. Detectives would be freed to chase criminals, and in my view the service would be much better.
Tonight the Press Association is reporting a parliamentary reply in which the Home Secretary announces the establishment of an executive agency for the issue of passports. The Home Secretary has made a commitment that passports will be issued within 20 working days. That comes as very good news to many of my constituents, who have had to wait months and months for passports. If passports can be issued within 20 working days, there is absolutely no reason why it should take more than six months to grant naturalisation and citizenship.
1072
I appeal to the Minister to give urgent consideration to the question of further decentralisation of citizenship inquiry work. Why should we not have an office in each region—the east midlands, Yorkshire, the north, Scotland, Wales, and so on? That would bring the service very much closer to the customers, who at present have to put up with a very bad service. I am sure that decentralisation would be very welcome to the Minister's officials. Certainly it would be very welcome to our constituents.
There is no doubt that the fee increases that we are being asked to approve are totally unjustified. This is the rip-off of the century. The Home Office and its Ministers stand accused of a mix of excessive profiteering and breathtaking incompetence. If they were the subject of a "Which?" consumer investigation, they would qualify for every booby prize there has ever been.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's magnificent flow, but I should point out that our single objective, following advice given to us by the Select Committee, is simply to recover costs.
Mr. Madden: In 1987, the Department made a profit of more than £6 million. The operation is now assumed to be extremely profitable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has said, all sorts of costs are lumped in to conceal the extent of the profitability of British citizenship work. These fees are wholly unjustified. It is especially wrong that people whose applications are refused should have to pay very substantial deposits. People whose applications are refused are not told why, nor do they have any right of appeal. In addition, their deposits are kept.
This is a grotesquely incompetent service. From the point of view of the customer, it is appalling in any terms. British citizenship is a right. Our constituents have a right to expect the Home Office to deliver an efficient, effective and speedy service. I hope very much that the next time the Minister comes to the House it will not be to increase the fees. I hope also that he will announce that some of the proposals of the Select Committee and of hon. Members speaking in this debate have been adopted.
11.23 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Like my hon. Friend, I am appalled by the very large increase in these fees. I am particularly disturbed at the way in which it is being implemented. It was announced in February that the increase was to be introduced on 1 March. We are on the threshold of April, yet the debate is only now taking place. Presumably, if the House were minded not to pass these regulations, there would have to be some complicated manoeuvring in the Home Office to repay money that has already been received as a result of the increase.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Madden) has said, the Home Office makes a considerable profit on the fees charged for nationality work—£6 million profit in previous years. Given the increase of about 25 per cent. in the basic registration charge and a higher increase for some other services, there is likely to be a considerable increase in profits in future years.
On top of that, deposits are kept for the three years during which the application is processed. If the application is then refused, the majority of the deposit is retained and, under the regulations, the proportion is to be

1073
greatly increased to £60 on the full fee where the basic application costs £135 on grounds of marriage. At the end of those three years, no reasons are offered if the application is refused and no appeal is possible. The only course is to make a fresh application some years later. That smacks of Kafka. One has to pay for something in advance with no idea how long the process to get it will take; if it is refused, one cannot know why, and there is no appeal against the refusal. But as one would not know the reasons for the refusal anyway, it would be difficult to appeal against it.
The Minister should think again about the amount being charged, the appalling delays, and the language that he has used tonight. The idea that there is an underlying improvement in the trend of the way in which nationality fee applications are dealt with is extraordinary. For people in our constituencies, it does not add up to much to be told that the delay is still three years. As has been said, many people need their passports quickly—perhaps because they have jobs that require them to travel. There is some suggestion that employers are loth or extremely unhappy to employ or promote people who do not hold British passports because they know of the extraordinary delays that those poeple are likely to encounter while travelling through airports or any ports of entry anywhere in the EEC, never mind the rest of the world.
Mr. Vaz: Has my hon. Friend had any examples in his constituency, as I have had in mine, of constituents who, having made an application, have not received any acknowledgment from the Home Office that their case is being dealt with? People who applied in 1987 may have received a postcard reply, but no further communication from the Home Office. They therefore visit their Member of Parliament at his surgery to try to speed up the matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that the timetable should include a further acknowledgement to keep people informed about the stage that their application has reached, and informing them of how long the process will take? At the moment, they get no explanation until hon. Members write to the Minister and get a reply saying that it will take three years.
Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. I hope that the Minister heard it and will take it on board. I have been approached by constituents who, having applied for British nationality and paid their fees, have not received any acknowledgement. The only way that they can tell whether the application has been processed is by examining their bank statement to find out whether the cheque has been cashed. That is very unsatisfactory.
When constituents approach me on such matters, I always tell them that the delay in dealing with applications is about three years. If there is some overwhelmingly pressing reason why they should have the passport more quickly, such as for travel, I take up the case and write to the Minister. I join my hon. Friends in paying the warmest tributes to the Minister's office and staff who are extremely helpful and co-operative and who reply to letters, doing their best to deal with the cases. I am in no sense being critical of them when I say that I want to see a better system rather than this system of cutting off the rough
1074
edges by having a good way of dealing with hon. Members' queries. I hope that the Minister understands that point.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is giving sensible advice to his constituents. The whole point of the bulletin that we shall be issuing shortly is that it will give information that will be generally helpful to applicants. It would not be sensible to transfer many staff into writing letters to people who have outstanding applications to tell them where their application is when they could be using that time to reduce the backlog still further.
Mr. Corbyn: Obviously any organisation with a serious backlog must decide how much staff time should be spent catching up and how much should be spent dealing with the people with problems. The Minister should appreciate that there is understandable concern if a cheque was cashed two or three years ago but the applicant has heard nothing. I do not wish to add to the problems, but, as the process is computerised, it is not that difficult to send a follow-up letter. I feel——
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [22 March], to put the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 192.

Division No. 107]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Beckett, Margaret

Meale, Alan

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

Nellist, Dave

Cohen, Harry

Skinner, Dennis

Cryer, Bob

Soley, Clive

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Graham, Thomas

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Haynes, Frank

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. Keith Vaz. and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Loyden, Eddie

Madden, Max

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Chope, Christopher

Amess, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Amos, Alan

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Arbuthnot, James

Colvin, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ashby, David

Cope, Rt Hon John

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Couchman, James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Cran, James

Baldry, Tony

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bellingham, Henry

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

Bendall, Vivian

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Day, Stephen

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Devlin, Tim

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Boswell, Tim

Dover, Den

Bowis, John

Dykes, Hugh

Brazier, Julian

Fallon, Michael

Bright, Graham

Favell, Tony

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fishburn, John Dudley

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

Forman, Nigel

Buck, Sir Antony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Burns, Simon

Forth, Eric

Burt, Alistair

Franks, Cecil

Butterfill, John

Freeman, Roger

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

French, Douglas

Carrington, Matthew

Gale, Roger

Cash, William

Gardiner, Sir George

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Gill, Christopher

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Chapman, Sydney

Goodlad, Alastair

1075

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Latham, Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Lawrence, Ivan

Gorst, John

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Gregory, Conal

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Grist, Ian

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Hague, William

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Harris, David

Maclean, David

Hayes, Jerry

McLoughlin, Patrick

Hayward, Robert

Madel, David

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Malins, Humfrey

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Mans, Keith

Hind, Kenneth

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

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

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Mates, Michael

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Maude, Hon Francis

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Irvine, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Jack, Michael

Mitchell, Sir David

Jackson, Robert

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Janman, Tim

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Jessel, Toby

Moss, Malcolm

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Key, Robert

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Kilfedder, James

Nicholls, Patrick

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Oppenheim, Phillip

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Page, Richard

Knowles, Michael

Paice, James

Knox, David

Patnick, Irvine

1076

Patten, Rt Hon John

Thorne, Neil

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thurnham, Peter

Portillo, Michael

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Redwood, John

Tracey, Richard

Rhodes James, Robert

Trippier, David

Riddick, Graham

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Viggers, Peter

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Sayeed, Jonathan

Walden, George

Shaw, David (Dover)

Waller, Gary

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Ward, John

Sims, Roger

Watts, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wheeler, Sir John

Squire, Robin

Whitney, Ray

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Steen, Anthony

Wiggin, Jerry

Stern, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Stevens, Lewis

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Winterton, Nicholas

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wolfson, Mark

Summerson, Hugo

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Mr. John M. Taylor, and Mr. Tom Sackville

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

JOINT COMMITITEE ON CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
Ordered,
That Ann Widdecombe and Sir Richard Body be discharged from the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c.Bills and Mr. Spencer Batiste and Mr. Peter Temple-Morris be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

House of Commons Members' Fund
11.43 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
That the whole or any part of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section 1 of the House of Commons' Members' Fund Act 1939, and the whole or any part of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, as amended by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, as amended by section 12 of the Parliamentary Pensions Etc. Act 1984, and section 7 of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss also the following motion:
That in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended, and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1st April 1991, as follows:
(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as amended there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
'1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £3,237 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £5,952 per annum whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £6,231 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £8,946 per annum, whichever is the less:'.
(b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
'2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virture of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,626 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £4,341 per annum, whichever is the less
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £3,114 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £5,829 per annum, whichever is the less:'.
(c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:
`the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £1,626 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £4,341 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £3,114 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £5,829 per annum, whichever is the less:'.
(d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words:
'the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 shall be—
1078

(a) £1,884 if the payments are made to a past Member; and

(b) £942 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.

Mr. Morris: I propose the motions that appear on the Order Paper in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who share with me the responsibility, as managing trustees, of administering the House of Commons Members' fund.
The purpose of the first motion is to provide for an increase in the present levels of grants and payments which may be made under the Members' fund legislation. These were last revised in April 1990 and the proposal I make now is that they should be increased, from 1 April 1991, by approximately 10·9 per cent. in line with the increases recently approved for public service and state retirement pensions which will take effect from April.
Those who stand to benefit under the proposal are former colleagues who left the House before September 1964, and their surviving spouses. Unlike those of us serving in the House now, they do not qualify for a pension in respect of parliamentary service as of right.
Many of this fast-dwindling number are now in their nineties, often living in straitened circumstances, and have to cope with all the difficulties that come with advancing years. The modest extra financial help which this motion seeks to provide will, I am sure, ease some of their problems and be gratefully received.
I make no apology for once again asking right hon. and hon. Members to help the managing trustees trace any former Members, or dependants of former Members who have died, who may be in need of help from the fund. In 1990, with the help of parliamentary colleagues, we were able to make contact with, and give help to, nine former Members and dependants. Over Easter in their constituencies, I hope that it may be possible for Members of Parliament who have reason to believe that their predecessors could be helped by the fund, to establish their whereabouts and let us know the former Member's name and address. The cause is worth while, and I shall much appreciate the help any present Member can give in bringing former Members into contact with the fund.
The provisions for which I now seek approval are set out in detail in the motions on the Order Paper and may be briefly summarised. Sub-paragraph (a) deals with grants to ex-Members. It is proposed to increase the basic annual grant to £3,237 subject to an income limit, including the grant, of £5,952. In the case of ex-Members with longer service and in need, the grant may be increased to a maximum of £6,231 subject to an income limit of £8,946.
Sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with the provision for grants to widows and widowers of ex-Members. It is proposed to increase the basic annual grant to £1,626 subject to an income limit, including the grant, of £4,341. Similarly, in the case of widows and widowers of ex-Members who had longer service, and where there is need, the grant may be increased to a maximum of £3,114 subject to an income limit of £5,829 per annum.
Sub-paragraph (d) refers to "as of right" payments from the Members' fund to ex-Members who had 10 years' service before October 1964, and to widows and widowers of such Members, as provided for by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981. It is proposed to increase these annual payments

1079
to £1,884 in the case of ex-Members and £942 in the case of widows and widowers. The additional annual cost of these increases is estimated to amount to £10,788.
The other resolution relates to section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, as amended by section 7 of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, which now authorises the trustees of the Members' fund to make
"such periodical or other payments … as they think fit"
to ex-Members, or their widows, widowers, or children of ex-Members,
"having regard to the circumstances of the persons to or in respect of whom the payments are to be made."
Section 4 of the 1948 Act, together with Section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, as amended, provide that in any year, for the purpose of making such payments, the House of Commons may by resolution direct that the whole or any part of the amount contributed by Members, together with up to £22,000 of the Treasury's contribution in the year, can be appropriated. The total which may be appropriated at present under this provision is £37,600. However, in his speech on Second Reading of this year's Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act on 31 January 1991, the Lord President gave in column 1149 a specific undertaking to make an additional £100,000 available to meet the costs of further discretionary awards to be made under Section 4.
At present, nine beneficiaries receive payments totalling £21,216 per annum under this section, and the monies to be appropriated are needed to continue these payments and to fund further cases which will arise.
I am sure that the motions will have the support of all right hon. and hon. Members, and I commend them to the House. In doing so, and as in previous years, I should like again most warmly to thank Jim Dobson, Tony Lewis, Mike Barram, Pam Hurford and their colleagues in the Fees Office for all the care with which they assist beneficiaries of the fund. I am told frequently how much their work is appreciated by those whom the fund exists to help and, as chairman of the trustees, I see at first hand the commitment and concern with which they work, day by day, in the service of our former colleagues, their widows and other dependants. They deserve the gratitude of the whole House.
11.52 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I should like to convey the appreciation of the House to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the others on the fund committee for their meticulous work on behalf of Members and ex-Members and their widows. Having been responsible for looking after the estates of a number of ex-Opposition Members after their death and considering the possibilities of pensions and other funding arrangements, I find it of great concern that, over the years, the House has not been giving widows, in particular, the benefits that they should have received. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the number of recipients, as of right, under the motion.
I share my right hon. Friend's gratitude to Jim Dobson and the Fees Office staff for their work, but I am concerned that there is difficulty in contacting ex-Members or even the widows of ex-Members. Surely, if we were paying into a pension fund or any other fund outside the House of Commons and we left employment, our employers and the
1080
people to whom we contribute our pension fund would be able to determine where we lived and how they could give us the benefit.
It is not incumbent on Members to find out whether their predecessors or their widows are alive. It is the responsibility of the House to keep detailed information on the people who have served it in the past. I am positive that my right hon. Friend will consider this, so that he will be able to persuade his committee to ensure that, in future, the House has a proper record of those who have served the House, their addresses and their whereabouts if they move, so that the fund can be extended to them.
I welcome the extension and the increase in the benefits. That is long overdue. Perhaps the House could consider even more and better funding for the people concerned, particularly the widows of Members. This is a step towards giving them a reasonable income, but it is far less than Members' widows should expect after 20 or 25 years' service to the House. Members are away from their wives five days' a week and only home at weekends. That can go on for up to 25 years, and if they die their spouses deserve every consideration. It is high time the House considered that. I ask my right hon. Friend again to give the number who would receive benefits as of right.
11.56 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: I have the privilege of addressing the House on the subject of funds for those who have served in this place and for widows, too, who were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
We tend to concentrate far too much on affairs of state and to forget the important things that are buried underneath, such as the rights of Members of Parliament and their widows. My hon. Friend talked about man and wife, and some are lucky enough to be in this place together. It is not always a question of one being way up in the north and the other way down here in the south. The married couples who serve in this place are lucky people. Most Members who do not live in the south are separated from their spouses. It is important to ensure, not only tonight but in the future, that we deal properly with such matters.
I have a great friend back in Mansfield who is aged 95. He came into this House in 1941 and in 1966 he went to the other place. He is still a Member of the other place. But at the moment he is very poorly and he has been in hospital for a number of weeks. He benefited from the fund and it is important that he should. Many of our colleagues who have now passed on benefited from it when we did not have a proper pension fund. It helped people who had served this place for many years. Without such a fund, they would have received nothing.
It is important that we should think about that continuously and at the same time consider what we should do in the future. There is always argument about the amount of money available. At the moment, we are talking about our own parliamentary pension fund which has gone before the review board. That fund is alive with money and we should be making good use of it. The widows have had a raw deal for many years and it is our responsibility, not the Government's, to decide what should happen. That is what we should be doing. We should remember that.

1081
As I said at the beginning, affairs of state appear to hide that kind of thing. We should look at the matter carefully and do the right thing. That is not only in the interests of the widows; it is in our interests as well.
We pay into a pension fund to enjoy a decent pension when we retire. One can pay into a private pension outside, pay less and get more when one retires. It is scandalous. Therefore, we ought to study this matter properly.
I am leaving the House at the next election, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be leaving with me. We will enjoy a pension of sorts when we finish, but I hope that future Members of Parliament will benefit from the discussions that we are having in the House with a view to improving pension entitlements so that they are looked after properly when they leave. It is important that we should keep our eye on the matter and not forget it.
Finally, I must mention the wonderful staff in the Fees Office—they have been mentioned twice tonight. I do not want to mention any name in particular, but I know that, as regards the Fees Office, there is one important person in the Chamber at the moment. However, across yonder it is teamwork in our interests. One can go to the Fees Office at any time and they will help with any problem. As regards the fund, we must not forget that we are totally reliant upon them to do the job properly and they do it. They do a first-class job, and we must recognise that too.
In the final analysis, the guidance that the Fees Office get is dependent upon the trustees doing their job and representing Members of Parliament properly in this place as regards grants or pensions. However, we must remember that if the Fees Office staff do not have the resources in their hands they cannot do the job properly, or in the way that we would like them to do it. The proper resources should be there so that the trustees can do their job.
The trustees have done a first-class job and I thank them for it and ask them to continue. Let the wonderful people in the Fees Office get on with it on our behalf.
12.2 am
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am always pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I endorse all that he has said, and all that the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has said, about the skill, dedication, commitment and service of those people in the Fees Office, who do a wonderful job, not only for us as Members of Parliament, but in administering the pension and other funds on behalf of previous Members, their spouses, widows, widowers and other dependants.
I hope that you will permit me to pick up on one matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the way in which the House treats those people who are no longer here, who have retired or, sadly, have lost their seats. I have longed to say this, because I have spoken many times to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe, who shares my view, I think, but as a trustee is limited in what he can do.
I believe that the House deals in a miserly way with those who have served in this place, have committed themselves to it for many years, and have either retired or lost their seats.
The hon. Member for Ashfield, when speaking to those two motions, said that the pension fund was awash with
1082
money. He did not go on to say that, as a result, the Government—that is, the Treasury—were seeking to reduce its contribution to the Members' fund, which is quite wrong and quite immoral. Those people who administer the fund, and the Government, acting on behalf of this place in making certain resources available, should deal more generously with Members who lose their seats or retire.
People who are living in very straitened circumstances —some in almost abject poverty—have been mentioned many times. As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said, it is sad that we have to seek to trace such people. We should know where they are and be able to help them. Given our modern information technology and communications systems, it is disgraceful that we should have to appeal to Members of Parliament to try to ensure that those who have given service to the House and the country can lead slightly more comfortable lives in their retirement. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has already made that point.
I, too, pay tribute to the trustees. They do an excellent job, committing themselves for many hours to serving the House, past Members and their dependants. Without adequate resources, they cannot do the job that the House and the country expect for those who have served here. I warmly support the motions moved so succinctly by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, and I commend him for what he and his fellow trustees do.
I hope that, although few people are present at this late hour, the message will reach the Treasury: "Don't you dare reduce the resources." They should be maintained; perhaps, indeed, they should be increased—as the hon. Member for Ashfield suggested—to enable us to provide reasonable pensions and other benefits, in a responsible manner, for those who have served here, and for their dependants when they have passed on. Otherwise, the House will not be doing itself a service, let alone those who have served it so well.
12.6 am
Mr. Alfred Morris: I very much appreciate the kind words of my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the work of the trustees. I know that my fellow trustees, on both sides of the House, will be grateful, too, for what they have said tonight.
I am extremely glad also that my own tribute to the staff of the Fees Office, who sustain our efforts as trustees, has been so strongly endorsed by everyone who has contributed to the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore and for Ashfield spoke with all their customary and robust common sense. They were concerned about the financial circumstances of widows of former Members and I know their concern reflects anxiety felt by Members of all parties.
The widows of the former Members of Parliament with whom we are dealing tonight are among the least fortunate of all widows whose husbands have served the House of Commons. They are the widows of Members who served here before the inception of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The increases that I propose are modest, but are much needed by widows, many of whom are over 90 and live in straitened circumstances.

1083
I must not stray tonight into the affairs of the fund in response to what has been said about the pensions payable to the widows of Members of Parliament in the current scheme. It is well known, however, that the managing trusteess of the PCPF have made clear to both the House and the Top Salaries Review Body our strong feeling that Members' widows should have a two-thirds pension. I hope that the pressure we have tried to exert will soon bear fruit. As the House knows, I am also chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore about as-of-right payments. They are made from the Members' fund to ex-Members who had 10 years' service before October 1964 and to widows and widowers of such Members, as provided for by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981. As of now, 38 ex-Members are recipients of as-of-right payments and 42 widows. The total therefore is 80. I hope that this answers my hon. Friend's point.
My hon. Friend and others have made a number of suggestions that are carefully noted. I shall look in particular at what has been said about keeping in touch with former Members. We are talking here in many cases about people who left the House more than 40 years ago. Information technology, about which the hon. Member for Macclesfield knows a great deal, was quite different then from what it is today.
I hope that Members will help us, wherever they can, to fill the gaps in our information. We need to know of more of our ex-colleagues who can benefit from the House of Commons Members' fund. If any hon. Member who is here tonight, or anyone reading the report of this debate, can put us in touch with anyone we can help, as managing trustees of the fund, we shall be only too delighted. We all pay, as Members of Parliament, into the fund. All of us want to make absolutely certain that the help that it can provide is provided to those who are most in need.
Again, I thank my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Macclesfield for their valuable contributions to the debate. All the points they made will be very carefully considered by the managing trustees.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the whole or any part of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section 1 of the House of Commons' Members' Fund Act 1939, and the whole or any part of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, as amended by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, as amended by section 12 of the Parliamentary Pensions Etc. Act 1984, and section 7 of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.
Resolved,
That in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended, and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1st April 1991, as follows:
(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as amended there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
1084
`1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £3,237 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £5,952 per annum whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £6,231 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £8,946 per annum, whichever is the less:'.
(b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
`2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virture of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,626 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £4,341 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £3,114 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £5,829 per annum, whichever is the less:'.
(c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:
`the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £1,626 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £4,341 per annum, whichever is the less:'.
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £3,114 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £5,829 per annum, whichever is the less:'.
(d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words:
`the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 shall be—

(a) £1,884 if the payments are made to a past Member; and

(b) £942 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.

PETITION

  Crown Post Office (Maesteg)
  12.12 am
  Mr. Ray Powell: I wish to present a petition from my constituents residing in Maesteg in the Ogmore constituency and in the borough of Ogwr expressing great dismay and concern that the Crown post office at Maesteg, serving a population of some 25,000, should be downgraded to that of an agency office without any guaranteee that the provision of the present services will remain available and that the staff employed will enjoy the present nationally agreed pay and conditions of work. The 5,000 signatories also clearly state that this will not be in the long-term interests of the people of Maesteg.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge Right Honourable Peter Lilley, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to intervene in the proposal to downgrade the Maesteg Crown post office to an agency office.
  And your petitioners will, as in duty bound, ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Timeshare Promotion Schemes
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
12.13 am
Mr. David Amess: I very much hope that the subject that I shall draw to the House's attention this evening will be of general interest. It raises certain principles upon which we may wish to reflect. Having discussed the subject with colleagues, I believe that there are few hon. Members who have not yet received an envelope from America suggesting that detail of good news are to follow. I will give some details of the good news shortly. I recognise that business is very tough for many people. Competition within various sectors is extremely keen and advertising has an important role to play, but I deplore the explosion of junk mail dropping on to our mats, the clear objective of which is to encourage individuals to participate in timeshare promotion schemes.
The whole question was drawn to my attention by the good endeavours of a number of constituents, who complained about the volume of unsolicited mail and their disappointment at later not receiving the prizes to which they believed that they were entitled when they opened the envelopes.
When I and my good wife received letters from America a few weeks ago, we opened them and were greeted with the glad tidings that we had both won cars. The company which sent us the news is a marketing organisation based in Sheffield. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name it".] When we opened the envelopes, we were told that we were gold star winners and that we had both won cars. Naturally we were excited. During our animated conversation, my wife decided that she would have a white car and I decided to choose a blue car.
After making a telephone call and determining that the good news was indeed correct, I thought that I would be cautious and put pen to paper. I received an interesting reply from the marketing company. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name it."] I am under pressure from my hon. Friends to name the company.
I quote from the letter:
"I was very surprised to learn that you went as far as discussing what colour Ford Fiesta you would choose and how excited your household were that morning. I did, however, detect a certain tongue in cheek tone, and if you were truly under the impression that you had both won a Ford Fiesta, which I seriously doubt, I should like to bring your attention to two main points of the letter. Firstly, the opening line begins, 'If you bring the number', and secondly, in the sentence below the first box section it clearly indicates that this is purely an illustration.
Your request finally to take advantage of my offer of contacting Mr. Nokes and Mr. Aspindle is purely a figure of speech, but if the purpose of contacting them is to verify whether or not they were genuinely awarded motor cars, I can assure you that written and photographic evidence has been submitted to the Office of Fair Trading and Advertising Standards Authority. I am sure that, put in their position, you would not want to be hounded by countless calls from doubting members of the public as to the authenticity of the claims."
What a lot of codswallop, dishonest in the extreme. Judging by the letter, the company is not even ashamed of its activities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name it."] Responding to the pressure of my hon. Friends, I have substantial documentary evidence of the veracity of what I have said.
1086
I and my wife then attended another presentation to which we had been invited, at fairly seedy premises in Leicester square. After being served tea in plastic containers we were, as it were, counselled. Once our credentials were established, we watched a film of nauseating crassness about the wonders of timeshare. We were then assigned a South African gentleman. He assumed that our appetites had been whetted and it was clear that he hoped that he would be able to make a sale. He inquired my occupation. When I told him that I was a Member of this good House, he turned somewhat pale, or paler than I look now. Putting it mildly, he could not wait to get shot of me. We were then ushered to the door, where we were presented with our card. Those at the door went through the procedure of checking our lucky number with the card whereby I would collect my car or whatever.
It will come as a great surprise to the House when I say that I did not win a car, nor did I win a motor scooter or money. Instead, I was presented with a plastic alarm clock and a delightfully and exotically described Queen Anne entertaining set. The entertaining set would not entertain one person, let alone a gathering of guests.
I have recently received more invitations. The House will be interested to know that one of them was from the same company in Sheffield, which clearly had not crossed me off its mailing list. The company tells me that I am again a gold card winner and that I am guaranteed to win either a Volvo sport, a sport boat with outboard motor or £2,000 in cash. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that I have made an arrangement to attend the presentation in a fortnight's time. That is why I am resisting pressure to name the company.
I have also received a letter from a trading company based in Bradford, in which I am told that I am a gold card winner. I am told also—I am indeed lucky—that I have won a 1991 Ford Escort 1·6 Ghia or a Bahamas cruise, or a £1,000 cash prize. I shall be attending that company's presentation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) in about a fortnight's time.
Finally, I have received a card from Dallas, Texas. It tells me that I am yet again a gold card winner, not a silver or bronze winner. It seems that I shall receive either a Ford Fiesta or an Electra sport boat. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) were still in his place, I am sure that he would be able to accommodate me with some water on which to enjoy the pleasures of a motor boat. I am in something of a dilemma when it comes to establishing where I shall be able to cruise with my wife and, on reflection, I have not made an appointment with that company: I do not wish to be greedy and I wish some prizes to be in reserve for future winners.
I know that the two organisations with which I have made appointments will be delighted by the news that I am able to give the House tonight, which is that I shall be attending both presentations complete with a camera crew. I know that the crew will wish to film me as I drive down the motorway in my new car and as my wife sails down the Thames in our new sport boat. The presentation will be completed, of course, by pigs flying.
I have two secretaries who job-share, one of whom has recently related her good fortune. She received a letter from one of the timeshare companies, in which she was told that she had won a 22-inch colour televison or £2,000, or an attractive luggage set, a car or a camera. She was told in the letter that she and her husband—she is married to

1087
one of the constables who serves in the House—could collect a fabulous prize merely by attending the timeshare presentation.
There was no mention at the outset of having to spend two hours listening to one of the presentations in Kensington. As soon as they arrived at the company's building a form was shoved into their hand and they were asked what sort of holiday they would prefer. They were then ushered into a small room with a few other people and left to watch a film with a famous person talking about how fantastic timeshare villas were. As soon as that finished, they were taken to sit at a table with a salesman who tried extremely hard to sell them a timeshare scheme. He got very impatient when he learned that they were not interested. It was hard sell at its worst.
When he realised that he was not going to sell anything, he got up and left. My secretary and her husband called him back and asked about the prize. He said that the number on the letter referred to numbers on small lockers on the wall. On closer examination, none of the lockers had a number. However, he opened one and said, "Oh yes, you have won a camera." He turned to a box on the floor that was full of cheap and nasty cameras that would be described as mickey mouse.
Only this morning my other secretary received some good news. She has won a Caribbean cruise, a Florida dream holiday, £1,000 cash, seven days for two in the mystical east, a Ford Escort or a holiday in New York.
Since the subject for this Adjournment debate was announced, it has attracted a fair amount of media interest. I pay a warm tribute to a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Edward McMillan-Scott. He is the MEP for York and the Conservative spokesman on tourism and transport. Some years ago, he began a campaign against fraud and malpractice in the holiday homes market. None of my remarks is directed specifically against the timeshare concept. For many people, it is an attractive option, but I object to the hard-sell technique being employed to get people to the presentations.
As the House will know, timeshare means the right to use a flat or apartment usually for one or two weeks at the same time each year. Timeshare operates largely independently of laws, as the companies are owned through offshore trustee companies. I am advised that there is a high rate of bankruptcy among the companies and the knock-on effects are worrying for some of our constituents who enter into such agreements.
The concept of timeshare started back in 1974; but following scandals and bankruptcies in the United States of America, marketing companies moved to Iberia. Further to Mr. McMillan-Scott's amendment to the 1989 Garcia Amigo report on timeshare for the European Parliament, the Commission has introduced a mandatory seven-day cooling-off period in its draft unfair contract terms directive. I am glad to tell the House that that becomes effective on 3 April.
Mr. McMillan-Scott's advice to our constituents is well stated. He says that one should never take credit cards to a timeshare presentation, always ask to see copies of club constitutions and deeds of trust, and never be tempted, if one already has a timeshare, by offers to upgrade to a new development on promises that one's own will be easily sold, as that is seldom the reality.
People are advised never to pay more than £2,500 for a high-season week in Southern Spain, and never to forget
1088
that 30 per cent. of the whole cost of these timeshare schemes goes in commission to the salesmen engaged in presentations.
The Consumers Association contacted me today. It, too, is expressing concern about the aggressive and misleading marketing campaigns, the lack of cooling-off periods, spiralling maintenance costs, and problems with resale. The association has welcomed the report of the Director-General of Fair Trading, which was published last July, and supported its recommendations. However, it would like to see all contracts signed by United Kingdom residents made subject to the jurisdication of English courts. It certainly welcomed the Government's response to the report in February, with its proposal for amendment of the Trade Descriptions Act to cover award schemes and misstatements about services and accommodation facilities.
The International Property Owners Organisation has also made strong representations to me about the offshore trust that is to be set up by founder members of clubs. As the club is not the beneficial owner of the property, the trustees in most cases act as custodians of documents, and not within the provisions of acceptance of the word "trust" as recognised by most citizens.
The power of attorney is usually held by the man with the money, and is used to sell or mortgage the property. The organisation constantly receives distressing complaints, resulting directly from the marketing techniques of the very companies that I have described and it is clear that often inadequate counselling is given when crucially important decisions are being made about the investment of our constituents' hard earned money.
I hope that the Minister, in the short time that I have selfishly left to him, will be able to say something about why these letters originate in the United States of America, what is the likelihood of getting effective legislation to stop all this nonsense in the first place, and what is the likelihood that in two weeks' time my wife and I will become the proud winners of a new car, a new motor boat or a holiday abroad.
12.32 am
Mr. Conal Gregory: I am mindful of the hour, but I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on raising the most important subject of timeshare. I echo my hon. Friend's praise of the hard work of the European Parliament Member for York, Mr. Edward McMillan-Scott, who has taken the matter up and put it on the books in Europe.
I hope that the Minister will say to what extent there will be safeguards for the British public, particularly in respect of the people to whom they should address their complaints. Is it recommended that complaints should go to the trading standards officers? A great many complaints are being received, and it is important that confidence should be restored. We do not want to see further auctions—perhaps the saddest auctions of all, involving those who have to sell their timeshare rights.
12.33 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): I am happy to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) in praise of Edward McMillan-Scott, the MEP for York. As so many timeshare deals are

1089
located abroad, there is a large degree of competence for the European Community, and we shall urge the Community to act.
I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on drawing the attention of the House to the abuses that undoubtedly take place in the sale of timeshare properties, and on doing so in such a lively and entertaining manner. The way in which he described his own experience in a seedy establishment in Leicester square, where, instead of receiving the hoped-for Fiesta, he ended up with a plastic alarm clock, gripped the House.
Although I believe that those tactics are adopted by only a minority of companies, I fully share my hon. Friend's distaste for them and deplore both the deception involved in luring people to timeshare presentations by the offer of attractive-sounding gifts and the high-pressure sales tactics to which they are all too often subjected when they get there.
As my hon. Friends will be aware, we were sufficiently concerned by this problem to ask the Director General of Fair Trading to carry out a full review of the problems associated with timeshare. This he did, and his very full and thorough report was published in July of last year. As the report makes clear, it is necessary to keep the problem in perspective.
As I am sure my hon. Friends will accept, there is nothing wrong with timeshare as a concept. There are believed to be more than 200,000 timeshare owners in the United Kingdom, and available evidence suggests that most are perfectly happy with what they have bought. I would not want anyone to be discouraged from buying a timeshare from a reputable company by the dishonest sales methods of a few. Yet, as my hon. Friend has so eloquently made clear, those sales methods create a real problem. Indignant letters from people who have received letters from timeshare companies telling them that they have received an attractive-sounding award form the biggest single item in my mailbag as Minister responsible for consumer affairs. I have yet to receive letters from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, but he has made his point far more effectively in this forum, and we in the Department are grateful to him.
Although it is true that, as my hon. Friend said, award schemes of free gifts do not fall within the present scope of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, purchasers of timeshare properties will, so far as United Kingdom law applies, enjoy the protection of the normal law of contract and of existing consumer protection legislation. The Trade Descriptions Act may not apply to award schemes, but it applies to other aspects of the sale of timeshare, and sellers of timeshare are also subject to the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations. So a purchaser or prospective purchaser has a remedy at law against deliberate deception or misrepresentation.
He has a remedy, too, if he finds that he has contracted to buy a property which does not correspond to the description given to him when he signed the contract. The Director General of Fair Trading has already invited and received from one timeshare company an undertaking that it would not publish further misleading advertisements. I
1090
am not sure whether that was the timeshare company about which my hon. Friend talked, but could not name for the present.
I emphasise these points, because the impression is sometimes given that the timeshare purchaser is always a helpless victim. This is by no means necessarily so. There is, however, one important qualification that I should make, and to which I shall return. I said that purchasers of timeshare properties would enjoy the protection of the normal law of contract and of existing consumer protection legislation so far as United Kingdom law applies. In many cases, it will not. A contract may be with a foreign developer or it may well be entered into abroad. This point is of particular concern to the European Community, and we shall raise it with the EC following the campaign that was started by Edward McMillan-Scott. Most timeshares are located abroad. United Kingdom legislation may be able to deal with sales abuses in the United Kingdom, but this is not enough to provide complete protection for United Kingdom timeshare owners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon called for changes in the law to put a stop to these schemes, and it may help if I enlarge a little on this aspect. First, I do not think that it is the place of the law to put a stop to this or any other method of selling, provided it is conducted honestly and without misrepresentation. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is also a believer in the traditional free market, will agree with that.
I quite take my hon. Friend's point that timeshare promotion schemes have sometimes been very far from honest. He gave some vivid examples. But it should in fairness be said that the schemes vary widely in their approach. Some make it clear that the addressee will be required to sit through a timeshare presentation in order to qualify for his or her gift, and it may be made clear too, that the gifts are not without strings. For example, if one has won a holiday in Florida, one will have to pay for the air fares. In that case, the schemes, although perhaps somewhat distasteful, are not something which, in a free society, we ought to be trying to ban. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree. Other schemes are much less honest, and here I agree with my hon. Friend that the law needs to be strengthened—and we will strengthen it.
To a certain extent, the law already offers some control. Timeshare award schemes are subject, like any other commercial activity, to the law of misrepresentation and also to the regulations against misleading advertising. As I mentioned, the latter have been used successfully against one promoter, but there are undoubtedly gaps in the law. First and most obviously, there is the fact that the Trade Descriptions Act does not apply to award schemes of the type with which my hon. Friend dealt. We intend to remedy that gap as part of our general review of the Act which is now in progress. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
So far, so good. My hon. Friend described the nuisance and deception involved in some award schemes, and we propose to act to prevent that. Perhaps it is worth my stressing once again that it is not award schemes as such that are objectionable—they are a legitimate, although not to my mind attractive, way of selling. What is objectionable is when they deliberately set out to deceive, either by making the recipient think that he has won

1091
something that he has not or by disguising the fact that the recipient will be required to sit through a possibly lengthy sales pitch before the award can be claimed.
The problem does not end there. People who attend these presentations are often subjected to perhaps several hours of heavy and persistent salesmanship—I am not sure whether that happened to my hon. Friend—for which they may be psychologically and even physically unprepared, unlike my hon. Friend. It is not easy to imagine the effect that those presentations may have on normally robust and intelligent people. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to act and that the law should address award schemes.
Unfortunately, I have so little time in which to speak that I cannot spend as much time as I should have liked dealing with how we propose to act at European level. I shall approach my counterpart in the European Commission and ask him to institute the suggestions of the Director General of Fair Trading, especially the proposal for a cooling-off period. That is important. Most of the difficulties with timeshare arise because people are pressured into making an instant decision which they later regret.
More work must be done to ensure that there is a proper prospectus. Often a person hears about a vague concept of buying a place in the sun for his retirement, but there are few details about what he will get for the money that he hands over, often because of a high-pressure sale.
Although there is a certain amount that we can do, we must rely on the good sense of the people who go to
1092
presentations. Legislation and effective regulation by the industry can help them, but consumers must be prepared to look after themselves. They must be prepared to think about what they are offered.
My hon. Friend will go to the timeshare presentation in a week. If he does not want to buy, he should get up and leave. If, at the end of the presentation, he is pressed to sign a contract on the spot, he should refuse. If he is offered apparent benefits from signing on the spot, he should refuse. If he is interested but in doubt about what is on offer, he should ask for a prospectus and time to study it at leisure. But the House and I know that my hon. Friend's good sense is such that he will not walk away from such presentations without thinking carefully about what is on offer.
Mr. Speaker: I am now required to suspend the sitting until a message has been received from another place. The bells will be rung shortly before the sitting resumes.
12.43 am
Sitting suspended
1.36 am
On resuming—
Mr. Speaker: A message has been received from another place as follows:
The Lords have agreed to the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill, without amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Two o'clock.

ENERGY

  Energy Statistics
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 26 February, column 448, when he expects the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1991" to be published.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is expected that the 1991 edition of the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics" will be published at the end of July, as in previous years. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Gas-fired Boilers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to bring forward proposals to implement the EC directive on the energy efficiency of gas-fired domestic boilers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The form and content of this draft directive are still under discussion and it is too early to say when a draft will be ready to be considered for adoption by the Community. If it is adopted, subsequent implementation in this country will proceed within the timetable which will be set in the directive.

  Coal
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any proposals to amend the Coal Industry Act to put an obligation on British Coal to protect existing coal reserves.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under the Coal Industry Acts 1946 to 1990, the British Coal Corporation has a statutory duty to secure the efficient development of the coal industry. The Government have announced their intention to privatise the coal industry after the next election, which will involve a change to the existing legislation.

  Rye House Power Station
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how long the Rye House power station in Hertfordshire has been decommissioned.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The decommissioning of the old Rye House power station was completed by the end of 1982.

  Offshore Safety
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he has made in implementing the recommendation of the Cullen report into the Piper Alpha disaster that responsibility for the regulation of offshore safety should be transferred to the Health and Safety Executive.
  406
  Mr. Wakeham
  I announced on 12 November,Official Report, column 330, the Government's acceptance of all the recommendations for improving offshore safety made by Lord Cullen in his report on the Piper Alpha disaster. These included the establishment of a single regulatory body to deal with offshore safety which, on balance, he recommended should be part of the Health and Safety Executive. It follows that the Health and Safety Commission will be responsible for taking forward Lord Cullen's other recommendations. I also announced in November that ministerial responsibility for offshore safety matters in Great Britain would, with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, be transferred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  I am pleased to announce that, following the completion of the necessary detailed preparatory work, and with the agreement of the Health and Safety Commission, the staff of the offshore safety division of the Department of Energy, together with certain staff from the Department of Transport, will, with effect from 1 April 1991, be transferred to the HSE. They will form the core of a new division, which will be considerably strengthened to enable it to continue to enforce the existing regime for the regulation of offshore safety and to carry forward the successful development and implementation of changes recommended by Lord Cullen.

  It is clear that a significant increase in the resources available to the HSE will be necessary to enable it to carry out its new responsibilities. Agreement has been reached on this with the HSC and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who will be assuming ministerial responsibility from the same date, will be seeking authority for the necessary additional resources by means of a supplementary estimate.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Community Charge
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will bring forward proposals for ensuring that community charge non-payers are not recorded on the general register of county court judgments on debts.

  The Attorney-General
  The regulations that govern the operation of the Register of County Court Judgments do not at present provide for information about community charge non-payers to be recorded, since community charge is enforced through magistrates courts.

  Female Circumcision
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many cases relating to female circumcision the Director of Public Prosecutions has received papers since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No papers have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases in which a prosecution under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 has been sought.

  Cases concerning female circumcision may also be prosecuted as offences of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Information on whether any papers have been referred

  407
  seeking prosecutions under this Act in such circumstances is not, however, readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any changes have been made to the running costs limit for the Public Record Office.

  The Attorney-General
  The running cost limit for the Public Record Office will be decreased by £69,000 from £16,754,000 to £16,685,000 to compensate for a breach in the running cost limit in 1989–90. This follows the normal practice of reducing the limit for one financial year by the amount of any overspend in the previous year.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the year-on percentage change in the retail prices index(a) excluding the community charge and mortgage interest payments for each month since April 1989, (b) excluding rates and mortgage interest payments for each month between June 1987 and April 1989 and (c) excluding mortgage interest payments for each month since June 1987.

  Mr. Maples
  The following table gives the information:

  Retail prices index—percentage change over 12 months

  All items excluding mortgage interest payments and Community Charge/Rates

  All items excluding mortgage interest payments

  1987

  June

  3·4

  3·5

  July

  3·5

  3·7

  August

  3·5

  3·7

  September

  3·4

  3·5

  October

  3·7

  3·9

  November

  3·8

  4·0

  December

  3·8

  3·9

  1988

  January

  3·5

  3·7

  February

  3·5

  3·6

  March

  3·6

  3·8

  April

  4·0

  4·2

  May

  4·2

  4·4

  June

  4·5

  4·7

  July

  4·8

  5·0

  August

  4·9

  5·0

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Grants in Aggregate External Finance

  13,230

  14,130

  15,160

  15,560

  16,100

  Other grants

  6,570

  7,200

  7,510

  7,380

  9,200

  Rates (net of all rebates)

  13,860

  15,720

  17,140

  19,130

  20,780

  Trading surpluses, interest and dividend

  1,230

  1,330

  1,390

  1,680

  2,090

  Rents

  3,090

  3,040

  3,040

  3,190

  3,150

  Borrowing from central government (PWLB)

  5,750

  5,720

  4,090

  4,940

  2,260

  from other sources

  −4,080

  −5,570

  −2,740

  −4,600

  −940

  Other receipts

  −150

  510

  −600

  −150

  250

  Total income

  39,500

  42,080

  44,990

  47,130

  52,890

  408

  All items excluding mortgage interest payments and Community Charge/Rates

  All items excluding mortgage interest payments

  September

  5·0

  5·2

  October

  5·0

  5·1

  November

  5·0

  5·1

  December

  4·9

  5·1

  1989

  January

  5·4

  5·5

  February

  5·5

  5·7

  March

  5·6

  5·7

  April

  5·9

  5·9

  May

  5·8

  6·0

  June

  5·8

  5·9

  July

  5·7

  5·8

  August

  5·5

  5·7

  September

  5·7

  5·8

  October

  5·9

  6·1

  November

  5·9

  6·1

  December

  6·0

  6·1

  1990

  January

  5·9

  6·7

  February

  6·0

  6·2

  March

  6·2

  6·3

  April

  6·5

  7·9

  May

  7·0

  8·1

  June

  6·9

  8·2

  July

  7·0

  8·3

  August

  7·9

  9·1

  September

  8·3

  9·5

  October

  8·4

  9·5

  November

  8·0

  9·2

  December

  7·7

  9·0

  1991

  January

  7·4

  8·5

  February

  7·5

  8·6

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish tables for the financing of local authority expenditure in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, in a form comparable to table 5.13 of Cm 1520, but analysing the financing of local authority expenditure as defined in table 5·6 rather than the financing of local authority expenditure on a national accounts basis.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table shows the financing of local authority expenditure as defined in table 5.6 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement" —Cm 1520—for the United Kingdom.
  409
  The footnotes in table 5.13 of Cm 1520 still apply except that "other grants" excludes the repayment of VAT and "other receipts" excludes the imputed income from non-trading capital.

  Data are not held in a form which allows a disaggregation of the above table by territory, except at disproportionate cost.

  Denationalisation
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of jobs(a) in total and (b) as full-time equivalent that have been subject to denationalisation since 1979–80.

  Mr. Maude
  At least 910,000 jobs in total—at least 885,000 full-time equivalent—have been transferred to the private sector due to privatisation since 1979–80.

  Gross Domestic Product Deflators
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the derivation of the financial year gross domestic product market price deflators now used in Cm 1520, together with a similar derivation for the financial year gross domestic product market price deflator without adjustment for the effect of the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Mellor
  The GDP market price deflator for past years is calculated from the ratio of data on cash and constant price figures for GDP at market prices. Figures for the current year and future years are Treasury forecasts. Details of the method used to adjust the GDP deflator series to remove the discontinuity associated with the abolition of domestic rates, are given in paragraphs 7 to 12 of appendix A of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement"—Cm 1520. The unadjusted GDP deflator series consistent with the adjusted figures published in Cm 1520 is:

  Unadjusted GDP deflator (1989–90 = 100)

  1963–64

  11·2

  1964–65

  11·7

  1965–66

  12·3

  1966–67

  12·8

  1967–68

  13·2

  1968–69

  13·8

  1969–70

  14·6

  1970–71

  15·8

  1971–72

  17·2

  1972–73

  18·6

  1973–74

  19·9

  1974–75

  23·8

  1975–76

  29·9

  1976–77

  33·9

  1977–78

  38·6

  1978–79

  42·8

  1979–80

  49·9

  1980–81

  59·1

  1981–82

  64·8

  1982–83

  69·4

  1983–84

  72·6

  1984–85

  76·3

  1985–86

  80·4

  1986–87

  83·2

  1987–88

  87·7

  1988–89

  94·1

  1989–90

  100·0

  1990–91

  106·0

  1991–92

  112·4

  410

  Unadjusted GDP deflator (1989–90 = 100)

  1992–93

  117·7

  1993–94

  121·8

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in descending order of balance of payment performance(a) agriculture as a whole, (b) agriculture minus cereals, (c) the cereal sector, (d) coal, (e)steel, (f)electrical, (g)chemical and (h)invisibles.

  Mr. Mellor
  The balance of payments surplus on invisibles for 1990 is currently estimated at £5·1 billion. Visible trade information is not available for specific commodities on a balance of payments basis: the following table shows 1990 crude trade balances (1) for the nearest classes of goods on an overseas trade statistics basis.

  £ billion

  SITC2

  Crude Balance1

  5

  Chemicals

  +2·3

  67

  Iron and steel

  +0·4

  04

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  +0·3

  32

  Coal, coke and briquettes

  −0·5

  716, 75–77

  Electrical machinery

  −3·3

  Agriculture3

  −6·4

  Agriculture3 less cereals and cereal preparations

  −6·1

  1 Exports cif less imports fob.

  2 Standard International Trade Classification (Rev. 3).

  3 There is no generally accepted definition of agriculture in the SITC. The figures used cover food and live animals, feed, beverages and other agricultural products (SITC Sections 0, 1 and 4; Division 22 and parts of Divisions 21, 26, 29, 51, 53, 55 and 59).

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Finance Bill will be published on Wednesday 17 April.

  Civil Service Catering Organisation
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the recommendation of the Treasury working party which has looked into the options for the future of the Civil Service Catering Organisation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 March 1991]: Following an assessment of prospects for the Civil Service Catering Organisation—CISCO—in a study announced on 4 April 1990, Official Report, columns 608–09, I have decided that CISCO should be reorganised with the aim of its transfer to the private sector.

  Reorganisation will include developing CISCO's operations on more commercial lines and concentrating them upon its business activities. It will be for individual Departments and agencies to decide what catering facilities will be made available to staff. In consequence, certain administration-related work which CISCO has undertaken hitherto will pass elsewhere within government, some to Departments generally and some to the Treasury. The changes will give CISCO the opportunity to

  411
  improve the value for money which its services offer both to its Government Department clients and to the individual customers of the staff restaurants which it runs and manages. Competitive tendering of catering contracts will continue, and the free choices made by CISCO's clients and customers will eventually determine whether it will be viable for operation in the private sector or whether the needs of Departments and individual customers will best be met by other catering contractors. I expect the management of this process of change to finish by the end of March 1993.

  Consultations will take place with the Council of Civil Service Unions and the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) of 15 February,Official Report, column 624, if he will estimate the increase in the standard rate of income tax which would be required to yield the same revenue as his revised estimate of the yield of the community charge in 1991–92, following his Budget announcement on measures to reduce the amounts raised in community charge.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: Around 4p.

  Inflation
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fall in inflation between 1979 and 1990(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the G7 as a whole, calculating United Kingdom inflation in terms of the underlying rate in each case.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: There are a number of ways of estimating underlying inflation. As measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments and the community charge rates the 12-month rate fell from 12·5 per cent. in 1979 to 7·2 per cent. in 1990. Alternatively as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments the rate fell from 12·5 per cent. in 1979 to 8·1 per cent. in 1990.

  The average 12-month increase in consumer prices for G7 countries in 1990 was 5 per cent. A comparable figure for 1979 is not available.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Reading
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of books included in the recommended reading lists for children in level 3 which are presently in print.

  Mr. Eggar
  Of the 24 titles on the booklist for the level 3 reading test, 10 are currently in print, four more will be in print by the end of this week and the remaining 10 will be reprinted over the next few weeks. The titles were chosen on the assumption that every school would have at least one in stock. There is no need for schools to obtain a copy of every title on the list in order to carry out the reading tests.

  National Association of Boys' Clubs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the cost of HM inspectors' inspection of the National Association of Boys' Clubs carried out between September 1988 and June 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  The approximate direct cost of the inspection was £15,000.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to promote the discussion of environmental problems, within the geography national curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend laid earlier this week the order that contains the attainment targets and programmes of study for geography in the national curriculum. This includes a whole attainment target dealing with environmental geography. Environmental education is also a cross-curricular theme within the national curriculum and other subjects, notably science, will have their part to play in delivering this aspect of education.

  Mandatory Awards
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to amend the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1990 for the current academic year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend is laying before the House today the Education (Mandatory Awards) (Amendment) Regulations 1991. Subject to parliamentary approval, these will amend the regulations covering England and Wales for the current academic year in the following respects.

  First, they will give effect to the arrangements for architecture students announced by my right hon. and learned Friend on 6 February, Official Report, columns 145–46. Following the redesignation of architecture courses, they will provide for a mandatory award this year to any eligible student who has not already received a bursary under the temporary scheme established last autumn.

  Secondly, they will provide for fees-only or full mandatory awards as appropriate for certain students whose ordinary residence included periods spent in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic before unification. This is a technical change to put these students on the same footing as those whose residential qualifications were acquired elsewhere in EC territory.

  Thirdly, the amendments will dispense with the allowance which has hitherto been payable, at discretion, to students who would otherwise suffer undue hardship during the vacation. This allowance is no longer needed, now that the resources available to students have been substantially increased, notably with the introduction of loans. Its removal will ease local education authorities' administration of awards. Students will still be eligible for the extra weeks study allowance if they are required to attend their courses during the vacation.

  Finally, the amendments will correct some minor technical ambiguities in the provisions for termly payment

  413
  of fees, for certain exceptional entitlements to a mandatory award following previous award-supported study, and for the scope of the basic disabled student's allowance.

WALES

  Children's Hospital, Ely
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the relative costs of procedures and operations at the children's ear, nose and throat hospital, Ely, Cardiff relative to the costs of other hospitals for similar(a) outpatient and (b) inpatient cases.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not held centrally.

  Archaeological Explorations
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the number of instances in Wales whereby landowners have been required to incur the costs of archaeological explorations and/or excavations; and if he will indicate the total cost of such work.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There is no specific statutory provision to require landowners to meet the costs of archaeological explorations and/or excavations. However, the treatment of archaeological remains can be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and local planning authorities can impose appropriate conditions to protect monuments or ensure access for archaeologists. In addition voluntary agreements can also be made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide for archaeological works. Such local arrangements are matters for the interested parties and are notified to the Department.

  Sheep Farming
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with Welsh farmers about the future of the sheep industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The sheep industry is a regular subject of discussion in the frequent meetings I have with farmers and their representatives. The Government continue to support the industry and last year took full advantage of the European Commission's decision to bring forward the two advance payments of sheep annual premium. In 1991, sheep producers in the LFA will benefit from substantial increases in the rate of HLCA payments, and a supplement of 4 ecu to the sheep annual premium, which together will increase the support payments, to producers in Wales by some £18 million.

  Knacker Industry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in Wales on the knacker industry; and what representations he has received.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am aware of the concerns of the knacker industry. It is central to our waste disposal practice and for many years has provided a vital service. A414
  Community directive agreed last November lays down harmonised rules about the disposal of animal waste. We have secured, against the opposition of other member states, provision for the knacker trade to continue in its present form at least until 1995 and then the possibility of continuation after that date.

  Local Government
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he intends to publish concerning his proposals for unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have made no proposals for unitary authorities and the question of guidelines does not arise. I have received some representations that we should move towards such a system, but I do not intend to make any decisions until I have had the benefit of further discussions with the Welsh local authority associations.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of community and town councils.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Community and town councils play an important role in many parts of Wales. In considering the merits of any proposals put to me for reorganisation of Welsh local government, I intend to take careful account of their implications for the continued effective operation of these councils.

  Historic Monuments Agency
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the performance targets he is setting for 1991–92 in relation to the establishment of CADW: the Welsh Historic Monuments executive agency.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  CADW: Welsh Historic Monuments will formally become an executive agency under the "next steps" initiative on 1 April this year. It is responsible for the discharge of the Secretary of State's statutory functions relating to the preservation, protection andmaintenance of ancient monuments, historic buildings and conservation areas within Wales.

  The chief executive will be personally responsible for achieving improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and in customer services. To enable him to exercise that responsibility, my right hon. Friend has made delegationsof authority to him, which are set out in the agency's framework document, which defines the respective rolesand responsibilities of the agency chief executive, the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State for Wales. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Each year we shall be setting demanding financial and service targets for CADW. The targets set for its first year of operation as an agency, financial year 1991–92, are as follows:

  A. Conservation/preservation

  (i) Completion to time and within cost of 85 per cent. of priority conservation projects identified in the quinquennial review of properties in care.

  (ii) Notification to applicants of decisions on Historic Buildings Council grant applications within 18 weeks of receipt in 85 per cent. of cases.

  (iii) Determination of 75 per cent. of scheduled monument consent cases within 90 days.

  415

  (vi) Determination of 75 per cent. of listed building consent referrals in 28 days; 90 per cent. within 60 days.

  (v) Complete 12 historic building listing re-surveys in the year, where each re-survey covers one or more community districts.

  (vi) Decide on 30 ancient monuments within the scheduling enhancement programme in the year. This programme is rationalising the existing schedule of ancient monuments and identifying representative samples of different monument classes for scheduling.

  B. Presentation

  (vii) Generate increase in receipts to £2·76 million from the 1990–91 forecast outturn of £2·4 million.

  (viii) Maintain overall market share of the top 20 heritage sites in Wales at 66·6 per cent., which represents about 1·4 million visitors to CADW sites.

  C. Administration

  (ix) Operate within allocated programme and running cost budgets.

  (x) Generate a 1·5 per cent. efficiency improvement against gross running costs covering all of the agency's operations.

  Performance against these targets will be assessed in the agency's annual report which we will lay before the House as soon as possible after the year end.

  CADW remains part of the Welsh Office, and my right hon. Friend will remain accountable to this House for CADW. Where hon. or right hon. Members have queries about matters relating to the operations of CADW I hope that they will write in the first instance to the chief executive at Brunel house, 2 Fitzalan road, Cardiff CF2 1UY. If Members remain dissatisfied after receiving a reply from CADW they will be able to raise the issue with my right hon. Friend. We will, of course, continue to deal with questions of policy and the provision of resources.

  The Secretary of State approved the appointment of Mr. John Carr, the current director of CADW, as the chief executive of the agency for the next three years. We wish the chief executive and his staff every success for the future. I am confident that the enhanced responsibilities which they have will enable them to meet their objectives in respect of the built heritage of Wales while giving better value for money.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to establish a regional assembly for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  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 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. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in his review of the structure and function of local councils in Wales what consideration he has given to the likely cost of establishing a Welsh assembly.
  416
  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 26 March 1991]: The proposals for an assembly which have been put to me are not sufficiently precise to allow for an accurate costing, but the costs would certainly be considerable. Estimates made in the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy"—Cm 6348, 1975—increased to allow for inflation, suggest that the annual running costs of an assembly could be between £40 million and £50 million. The "Vote No" lobby issued a booklet in February 1979 which put the cumulative costs of an assembly over a 21-year period. That total, increased for inflation, would now be £1 billion.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Ethiopian Government concerning the cutting off of the joint relief partnership supply route from Assab port to famine areas of northern Ethiopia since 17 March.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We made representations with the donor group in Addis Ababa on 22 March. On 25 March the Ethiopian Government announced that the southern line would reopen. We understand that convoys began moving again on 26 March, when 40 trucks left Dessie to travel north.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total amount of United Kingdom aid for cross-border relief into Tigray and Eritrea given since September 1990 to date; and what plans he has to give further assistance for cross-border operations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  About £6·3 million. We shall continue to provide humanitarian relief aid to Eritrea and Tigray using the most effective means available, including cross-border where appropriate.

  Thailand
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to reduce or cut off bilateral aid to Thailand following the recent military coup.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are following political developments closely and will take them into account in reaching decisions on new aid activities.

TRANSPORT

  Road Building
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the (i) areas of outstanding natural beauty and (ii) sites of special scientific interest which lie within the path of currently proposed routes for his Department's road building programme.

  Mr. Chope
  All trunk road schemes are designed to avoid unnecessary adverse impact on the environment and to maximise the environmental gains which result from new roads. Wherever possible roads are kept away from protected areas such as areas of outstanding natural
  417
  beauty and sites of special scientific interest, and when there is a risk that a proposed scheme will affect such an area it is examined with particular care to establish that a new road is needed and that the route has been chosen to do as little damage to the environment as practicable. The Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission are consulted from the earliest stages of route proposals, and measures to mitigate impact or to recreate habitats are agreed with them.

  Areas of outstanding natural beauty now cover more than 13 per cent. of the land area of England and Wales and existing trunk roads already run through many of them. Improvements to those routes may affect 12 of the38 areas of outstanding natural beauty. They are:

  Chilterns

  Cotswolds

  Cornwall

  Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs

  Dorset

  Kent Downs

  High Weald

  East Hampshire

  North Downs

  North Wessex Downs

  Surrey Hills

  Sussex Downs

  More than 5,300 sites of special scientific interest cover about 7 per cent. of the land area of Great Britain. Currently proposed routes for road improvements have some impact on 27 sites of special scientific interest—0·5per cent. of the total:

  Bingley South Bog

  Boilton Wood

  Chasewater Heath

  Clints Hill

  Coombe Haven (corridor for road reserved at designation)

  Duddon Sands

  Eashing Copse

  Fleam Dyke/Roman Road

  Folkestone and Etchinghill Escarpment

  Folkestone Warren

  Goss Moor

  Hampton Rock Cutting

  Hilton Gravel Pits

  Hindhead Common

  Hook Moor (road verge designated as SSSI)

  Hurcott and Podmore Pools

  New Forest

  Oxleas Wood

  Rainham Marshes

  River Wye

  Roughdown Common

  St. Catherine's Hill

  Snelsmore Common

  Swale

  The Roughs

  Winchester Meadows

  Woolston Eyes

  When construction of the A595 Egremont bypass is complete, it is proposed to designate a rocky outcrop exposed by the roadworks as an SSSI. There are other examples of road construction itself leading to the creation of scientifically valuable habitats.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on requirements for major maintenance on motorways and other trunk roads.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has made good progress towards eliminating by 1992–93 the backlog of maintenance identified in the early 1980s. In the current financial 418
  year, renewal achieved has exceeded our target by some 10 per cent. and I expect the target again to be exceeded in the forthcoming financial year.

  Traffic growth, particularly in recent years, has greatly exceeded that forecast when much of the present network was built. Over the last six years extensive data on network conditions have been collected and these have now been analysed to provide comprehensive information on future maintenance needs. Results indicate that an effective programme of maintenance will require a level of activity significantly above 1991–92 level.

  The information from this work will be updated annually so that progress can be monitored and requirements reviewed.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much it will cost his Department to assess competing bids for transport supplementary grant for highway structural maintenance on the primary route network.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: The assessment of competing bids for TSG will not necessitate any increase in departmental staff.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Leisure Centres
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list by district council the leisure centres operated by each local government authority in Northern Ireland;

  (2) if he will list the community centres operated by district councils in Northern Ireland, stipulating the responsible council in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  Leisure Centres
    District Council Leisure and Community Centres

      ANTRIM BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Antrim Forum
      Community Centres

      1. Neillsbrook

      2. Crumlin

      3. Rathenraw

      4. M uckamore

      5. Stiles

      6. Greystone

      7. Parkhall

      ARDS BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Ards Leisure Centre

      2. Comber Leisure Centre

      3. Kiltonga Squash Centre

      4. NI Aquarium

      Community Centres

      1. Queen's Hall

      2. Glen

      3. Manor Court

      4. West Winds

      5. Donaghadee

      6. Ballywalter Village Hall

      7. Ballygowan Village Hall

      8. Portaferry Market House

      9. Town Hall, Arts Centre, Newtownards.

      ARMAGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Orchard Leisure Centre
      Community Centres

      1. Armagh

      2. Keady

      3. Richhill Recreation Park (Pavilion)

      BALLYMENA BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Seven Towers Leisure Centre
      Community Centres

      1. Ahoghill

      2. Bailee

      3. Ballykeel

      4. Broughshane

      5. Cullybackey

      6. Dunclug

      7. Galgorm

      8. Harryville

      9. Portglenone

      10. Sentry Hill

      11. Waveney

      BALLYMONEY BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Riada Centre
      Community Centres

      1. Ballybogey Hall

      2. Carnanney Tenants Association

      3. Cloughmills Village Association

      4. Dervock and District Community Association

      BANBR/DGE DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Downshire Leisure Centre/Swimming Pool

      BELFAST CITY COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Andersonstown Leisure Centre

      2. Avoniel Leisure Centre

      3. Shankill Leisure Centre

      4. Maysfield Leisure Centre

      5. The Grove Leisure Centre

      6. Beechmount Leisure Centre

      7. Ballysillan Leisure Centre

      8. Olympia Leisure Centre

      9. Whiterock Leisure Centre

      10. Shaftesbury Recreation Centre

      11. Ballymacarratt Recreation Centre

      12. Ormeau Park

      13. Falls Swimming Centre

      14. Grosvenor Recreation Centre

      15. Loughside Recreation Centre

      Community Centres

      1. Ardoyne

      2. Concord

      3. Dee Street

      4. Divis

      5. Duncairn

      6. Finaghy

      7. Glen Road

      8. Hammer Community Complex

      9. Highfield

      10. Horn Drive

      11. Knocknagoney

      12. Ligoniel

      13. Markets

      14. Morton

      15. North Queen Street

      16. Olympia

      17. Suffolk

      18. Sandy Row

      19. Trinity Street

      20. Whiterock

      21. Woodvale

      CARRICKFERGUS BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Carrickfergus Leisure Centre
      Community Centres

      1. Woodburn

      2. Sunnyland

      3. Greenisland

      4. Whitesand

      5. Castlemara

      CASTLEREAGH BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Dundonald International Ice Bowl

      2. Robinson Centre

      3. Ballybeen Community/Leisure Centre

      Community Centres

      1. Bolvoir

      2. Braniel

      3. Dungoyne

      4. Tullycarnet

      5. Cregagh

      6. Castlereagh

      COLERAINE BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Coleraine Leisure Centre

      2. Waterworld Complex

      Community Centres

      1. Millburn

      2. Harpers Hill

      3. Ballysally

      COOKSTOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Cookstown Recreation Centre

      CRAIGAVON BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Craigavon Leisure Centre

      2. Cascades

      3. Lurgan Swimming Complex

      Community Centres

      1. Ashgrove Road

      2. Avenue Road

      3. Brownstown Park

      4. Corcrain

      5. Drumgor

      6. Killicomaine

      7. Monbrief

      8. Mourneview

      9. Moyraverty

      10. North Lurgan

      11. Pinebank House (Arts and Resource)

      12. Lurgan Town Hall (Arts and Resource)

      13. Portadown Town Hall (Arts and Resource)

      14. Harford Street Hall

      DERRY CITY COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Templemore Sports Complex

      2. Lisnagelvin Leisure Centre

      3. Brooke Parke

      4. Brandywell

      Community Centres

      1. Shantallow

      2. Gobnascale

      3. Foyle Hill

      4. Glenview

      5. Lisnagelvin

      6. Creggan

      7. Liscoln Courts

      8. Cam Hill

      9. Clooney

      10. Rosemont

      421

      11. Gaol Turret

      12. Pilot's Row

      DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Down Leisure Centre

      2. Newcastle Leisure Centre

      3. Ballynahinch Recreation Centre

      Community Centres

      1. Killough Road

      2 The Dan Rice Memorial Hall

      3 Down Arts Centre

      DUNGANNON DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Swimming Pool, Circular Road
      Community Centres

      1. Public Service Building 'The Moy'

      2. Resource Centre

      FERMANAGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Lakeland Forum

      2..Castle Park Centre

      3. Bawnacre Centre

      Community Centres

      1. Belcoo

      2. Belleek

      3. Ederney

      4. Kesh

      5. Newtownbutler

      6. Roslea

      LARNE BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Tower Pools Complex
      Community Centres

      1. Ballycarry

      2. Glynn Village Hall

      3. Greenisland

      4. Islandmagee

      5. Kilwaughter Village Hall

      6. Lynn

      7. McGarel Town Hall

      8. Millbrook

      9. Seacourt

      LIMAVADY BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Roe Valley Recreation Centre

      2. Dungiven Recreation Centre

      Community Centres

      1. Dromore

      2. Limavady

      3. Feeny

      4. Aghanloo

      5. Benone

      LISBURN BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Lisburn Leisure Centre

      2. Lisburn Swimming Pool

      3. Grove Activity Centre

      4. Kilmakee Activity Centre

      5. Glenmore Activity Centre

      6. Brook Activity Centre

      Community Centres

      1. West Lisburn

      2. Bridge

      MAGHERAFELT DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Greenvale Leisure Centre

      2. Maghera Recreation Centre

      Community Centres
      1. Draperstown Town Hall

      MOYLE DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Sheskhurn House Recreation Centre
      Community Centres

      1. Bushmills

      2. Mosside

      3. Causeway Centre

      NEWRY & MOURNE DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Newry Sports Centre

      2. Newry Swimming Pool

      3. Kilkeel Sports Centre

      Community Centres

      1. Cloughreagh

      2. Loanda House

      3. Dromalane

      4. Meadow/Armagh Road

      5. Cabra

      6. Meigh

      7. Cullyhanna

      8. Burren

      9. Barnmeen

      10. Mullaghbawn

      11. Dromintee

      12. Forkhill

      13. Crossmaglen

      14. Whitecross

      15. Lisnacree

      16. Longstone

      17. Saval

      18. Lislea

      19. Annalong

      20. Camlough

      21. Newtownhamilton

      22. Ballyholland

      23. Threeways

      24. Bessbrook

      25. Kingdom

      26. O'Neill Avenue

      27. Warrenpoint Town Hall

      28. Newry Town Hall

      NEWTOWNABBEY BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. The Valley

      2. Ballyearl

      Community Centres

      1. Rathfern

      2. Rushpark

      3. Ballyduff

      4. Monkstown

      NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL
      Leisure Centre
      1. Bangor Leisure Centre
      Community Centres

      1. Skipperstone

      2. Kilcooley

      3. Breezemount

      4. Conlig

      5. Redburn

      6. Birdland Drop In

      7 Queen's Hall

      OMAGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres
      1. Omagh Leisure Centre
      Community Centres

      1. CKS

      2. Cloughfin

      3. Creggan

      4. Drumquin

      5. Eskra

      423

      6. Fintona

      7. Gardenville

      8. Gortin Village

      9. Greencastle

      10. Hospital Road

      11. Hunter Crescent

      12. Lisanelly Heights

      13. Loughmacrory

      14. Mountfield

      15. Mullaghmore/Castleview

      16. Omagh CDT

      17. Owenkillew

      18. Strathroy

      19. Termonmaquirc

      20. Trillick

      21. Drumduff/Drumnakilly

      STRABANE DISTRICT COUNCIL
      Leisure Centres

      1. Riversdale

      2. Derg Valley

      Community Centres

      1. Melvin Hall

      2. Fountain Street

      3. Clady Hall

  Tank and Bottled Gas
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set up an inquiry into the price of tank and bottled gas in the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  The Director General of the Office of Fair Trading is already making inquiries into the operation of the liquefied petroleum gas market throughout the United Kingdom. I have alerted him to the impact recent price increases are having in Northern Ireland and the director general has undertaken to let me know the outcome of his inquiries.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave him on 12 March 1991,Official Report, columns 466–67.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of officers in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave him on 12 March 1991,Official Report, column 467.

  Dunover Road, Ballywalter
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to improve the roadway, known as Dunover road, Ballywalter, between Broadway and The Manse beyond the 30mph sign; whether a footway will be provided along this stretch of road; what information he has on the number of schoolchildren walking along this roadway; and whether any work will commence at this location in the current year.

  Mr. Needham
  A scheme to realign a section of Dunover road between Broadway and the existing length 424
  of footway has started; it will include the provision of a footway. There are no proposals for improving the remainder of Dunover road at present.

  No information is available on the number of schoolchildren who walk along the road in question.

  Boyd House, Ards Hospital
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many residents there are in Boyd house at Ards hospital; whether new residents are still being accepted; and if he will make a statement about the future of Boyd house.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are 43 residents in Boyd house, a 52-place unit for the elderly. There is no waiting list for admission and new residents are still being accepted. The organisation of services at local level is a matter for health and social services boards. I am not aware of any proposals by the Eastern board relating to the future of Boyd house.

  Police Complaints Commission
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange for copies of the report of the triennial review by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland to be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The report has been laid today. It reviews the working of articles 4 to 16 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 during the period 1988 to 1991.

  This is the first such report from the commission, which was established in 1988. I am glad to note that in general terms it is satisfied with the statutory procedures in the order for the handling of complaints from the public against individual police officers. However, it has made nine recommendations which it considers will further enhance these procedures and, before reaching any decision on them, I intend consulting the various interested bodies. I shall report to the House further in due course.

  I am grateful to the commission for the considerable effort that has been put into the preparation of the report. It has now had three years' experience of the system for handling complaints and it is only right and proper that its views backed by operational experience should be the basis for a re-examination of the procedures. The commission, by its fair and thorough handling of individual complaints, has already done much to improve the relationship between the police and the public it serves. Its triennial review is further evidence that it is concerned to ensure that the complaints system operates efficiently, effectively and impartially for all the parties involved and, most importantly, that it is seen to do so.

  Rate Collection Agency
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in establishing the Rate Collection Agency.

  Mr. Needham
  I am pleased to announce that the Rate Collection Agency will be established as an executive agency of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland with effect from 1 April 1991. It is responsible for the collection of rates and administration
  425
  of the housing benefit scheme for owner-occupiers. I am confident that the new status as a "next steps" agency willlead to a significant and sustained improvement in the delivery of this important public service. I am delegating full managerial authority for the agency's day-to-day operations to the chief executive. The policy and resources framework for the agency is set out in the framework document, copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House. For 1991–92, the following targets have been set for the agency:

  (i) To reduce debt to below 2 per cent. of the gross collectable rate, excluding late assessments, by 31 March 1992.

  (ii) To achieve a reduction of 1·6 per cent. in the real value of the unit costs of collecting rates per hereditament.

  (iii) To generate refunds to 90 per cent. of ratepayers so entitled within 14 days of credits being identified.

  (iv) To process by 31 March 1992, 75 per cent. of applications in respect of the incoming year received from existing housing benefit recipients before 16 March 1992.

  (v) To achieve a 1·5 per cent. reduction in the real value of the unit costs of processing housing benefit applications.

  (vi) To achieve 96 per cent. of housing benefit assessments free of error.

  The Rate Collection Agency has also to achieve running costs cash efficiency savings of at least 1·5 per cent. in addition to projected non-cash efficiency savings.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the 43rd session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  The 43rd session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe will be opened in Strasbourg on 22 April 1991. The delegation from the United Kingdom for the session will consist of 11 Members of the Conservative party, six Members of the Labour party and one Member of the Liberal Democrat party. I have also appointed a number of substitute delegates.

  The appointments of representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nominations by the leaders of those parties concerned.

  The same delegation will be representing the United Kingdom Parliament at the assembly of the Western European Union, which next meets in Paris on 3 June.

  Representatives from the Government Benches will be:

  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg)—who will act as leader of both delegations.

  My hon. Friends the Members for:

  Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith)

  Calder Valley(Mr. Thompson)

  Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)

  Northampton, South (Mr. Morris)

  Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes)

  Poole (Mr. Ward)

  Ashford (Mr Speed)

  Streatham (Sir W Shelton)

  Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and

  The Earl of Kinnoull

  Representatives from the Labour party will be:

  The hon. Members for:

  Newport, East(Mr. Hughes)

  Wallsend (Mr.Garrett)

  426

  Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)

  Tooting (Mr Cox)

  Liverpool, Riverside (Mr Parry)

  Falkirk, East(Mr. Ewing)

  Representatives from the Liberal Democrats party will be:

  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)

  The following substitutes have been appointed to act as o necessary on behalf of the delegates.

  From the Government benches

  My hon. Friends the Members for:

  Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)

  Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe)

  Norfolk, North(Mr. Howell)

  Mid-Kent (Mr.Rowe)

  Lewes (Mr. Rathbone)

  Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden)

  Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord)

  Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt)

  Lord Newall and Lord Rodney

  From the Labour party:

  The hon. Members for:

  Wansbeck (Mr.Thompson)

  Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland)

  Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)

  Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)

  Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)

  Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and Lord Kirkhill

  From the Liberal Democrats party:

  The Lord Mackie of Benshie

  Former Prime Ministers
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to assist former Prime Ministers with their office and secretarial expenses.

  The Prime Minister
  I propose to establish, with effect from 1 April 1991, a financial allowance to help former Prime Ministers to meet the continuing additional office costs which they are liable to incur because of their special position in public life. The new allowance, which will be equivalent in amount to the parliamentary office costs allowance, will be payable in respect of office and secretarial expenses incurred in connection with their public duties. It will be paid from the Cabinet Office vote. The allowance will not be payable to a former Prime Minister occupying the position of Leader of the Opposition and therefore in receipt of "Short" money.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Yugoslav Government regarding recent violence against the Albanian minority in Kosova; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our western partners are continuing to urge the Serbian authorities to ensure the human and political rights of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

  Albania
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent proposals have been received by Her Majesty's Government from the Government of Albania regarding the restoration of full and formal diplomatic relations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British and Albanian officials met in November and December of last year to discuss outstanding bilateral issues, including the possible resumption of diplomatic relations. We have not since then received any further proposals from the Albanians.

  Nuclear Tests
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the United Kingdom delegates to the amendment conference for the partial nuclear test ban treaty in January made to the criticisms of United Kingdom policy of continued nuclear warhead testing put forward by the Mauritius, Brazilian and Pakistan delegations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The head of the United Kingdom delegation to the conference made clear our position: because our security will depend for the foreseeable future on deterrence based in part on the possession of nuclear weapons, we have continuing need to test our nuclear weapons to ensure that they remain effective and up to date.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response was made by the United Kingdom delegation to the amendment conference for the partial nuclear test ban treaty held in January, to the proposals submitted in draft for a verification protocol II to the partial nuclear test ban treaty to assist in the completion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We made it clear at the conference that we do not believe that a comprehensive test ban could be properly verified. We believe that the conference on disarmament at Geneva provides the most appropriate forum for discussion of progress on nuclear testing issues.

  Thailand
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Thai authorities to encourage a restoration of democracy and an end to repression.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made clear, both to the National Peace Keeping Committee and the interim civilian Government, our great regret at the removal of a democratically elected civilian Government and the imposition of martial law; and our hope for the swift restoration of democracy.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Middle East
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences he has granted for the sale of conventional or non-conventional weapons to middle eastern states since the ending of the Gulf conflict.
  428
  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the period from 1 to 20 March 1991, 50 export licences have been granted for the supply of conventional weapons to the following middle eastern countries:

  UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen. There were no export licences for non-conventional weapons.

  Cosmetics (Animal Testing)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to end the testing of cosmetic products on animals: and what assessment he has made of the effect which the completion of the single market will have on such experimentation in Britain.

  Mr. Leigh
  No. The law requires cosmetic products to be safe for use by the public, and in some cases the only way of ensuring this is to test them on animals. We are, however, seeking to keep to the essential minimum the increased testing proposed by the European Commission.

  Baghdad Arms Exhibition
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what grounds BAe was given an export licence to exhibit a jet trainer aircraft at the Baghdad arms exhibition in 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on individual export licence cases.

  Applications for export licences are considered on their merits. Licences for international exhibitions normally require the goods to remain under the control of the exporter and to be returned to the United Kingdom within a specified period.

  Trade Descriptions Act
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will complete his review of the Trade Descriptions Act.

  Mr. Leigh
  Consideration of the responses to the consultation document issued as part of the review is continuing and I shall announce my conclusions as soon as possible.

  Timeshare
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received during 1991 from companies selling and marketing timeshare properties.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have received one such representation.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to discuss in the European Council of Ministers the marketing of timeshare properties.

  Mr. Leigh
  It is for the presidency to arrange the timing and agenda of meetings of the Council of Ministers. No meeting of the Consumer Council has yet been arranged by the current presidency.

  Inward Investment, London
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a list of the figures for inward investment projects involving international firms for the London boroughs of Barnet, Enfield and Haringey, and for the constituencies of Tottenham, Hornsey and Wood Green, Edmonton, Enfield, North and Enfield, Southgate, for each year since 1979 in terms of the number of projects, new jobs and safeguarded jobs.

  Mr. Leigh
  I regret that the information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Telephone Engineers (Line Tapping)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will discuss with the chairman of British Telecom and the Director General of the Office of Telecommunications what evidence there is of telephone engineers tapping into private subscribers' lines to make 898 and other premium-rate or long-distance calls: and what steps are being taken to prevent this from occurring.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a discussion. This is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications, Sir Bryan Carsberg. I understand that he has instructed his staff to conduct a thorough and wide-ranging review of all premium-rate disputes. The investigation of allegations that telephone engineers have been tapping into private subscribers' lines to make illicit calls will form part of that review.

  South Africa
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will report on how British companies have complied with the European Community code of conduct for companies with interests in South Africa during the 12-month period to 30 June 1990.

  Mr. Lilley
  By 15 March 1991, 107 companies had submitted reports to the DTI under the code of conduct. Copies of the reports and of the Department's analysis and summary have, as in previous years, been placed in the Library of each House. These documents may also be inspected at the Department's export market information centre, at the British embassy in Pretoria, at the British consulate-general in Johannesburg, and at the British consulates in Cape Town and Durban.

  The analysis and summary is the fifth since the adoption of the revised code of conduct by EC Foreign Ministers in November 1985. Reports were received from all British companies, except one, whose interests are known or believed to warrant a full report under the code. The company which did not report was reminded of the existence of the code.

  The reporting period under review has seen a marginal increase in the number of black employees of British subsidiaries being paid below the code's recommended minimum level. This increase is due to one company having acquired two new subsidiaries during the reporting period. This particular company intends to raise the wage levels in these two subsidiaries to at least the code's minimum level.

  Companies' reports indicated that the level of their involvement with trade unions representing black workers increased, with the majority of companies reporting
  430
  formal involvement with the trade unions. Many companies have taken steps to alleviate the particular hardships experienced by their migrant workers.

  The number of companies providing training schemes has continued to increase, and as in previous years, all companies provided "on-the-job" training. In addition, companies continued to report impressive levels of involvement in projects benefiting not only their employees and their families but the wider communities from which their work force were drawn. Companies also continued to encourage the growth of black business.

  The report reflects the increasing level of unemployment in South Africa, with a number of companies reporting a contraction of their black work force. This disturbing trend has continued since the period covered by the report: the South African Chamber of Business now estimates that over 40 per cent. of the economically active population are unemployed. This illustrates the pressing need to restore growth to the South African economy.

  The Government are once more grateful to companies for their continued co-operation in providing reports and urge them to maintain this performance and to comply fully with the code.

  Professional Qualifications
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will lay regulations to implement EC directive 89/48/EEC on the recognition of professional qualifications.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have today laid in Parliament the European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 1991 under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. These regulations would implement into United Kingdom law Council directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of a t least three years' duration.

  The directive represents a significant improvement in the opportunities that will be available to members of the professions throughout the Community. It will enable a professional to use his home state professional qualification to obtain access to the equivalent profession in other member states. He will not have to have to undergo the education and training required for the profession in the other member states. The directive will also benefit consumers who will gain from improved competition in professional services.

  The United Kingdom would be only the second member state, after Ireland, to have implemented the directive in full. I am anxious that consumers in the United Kingdom should enjoy the benefits of improved competition in the provision of professional services as soon as possible. This action maintains the excellent record of the United Kingdom on the implementation of Community directives.

  I will also be encouraging other member states to fulfil their Community obligations without delay so that United Kingdom professionals are able to take full advantage of the system of mutual recognition established by the directive.

  Tied Pubs
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has considered representations for a deferment of the date by which national brewers have to release pubs from ties.

  Mr. Lilley
  Yes. I have considered carefully representations both for and against the deferment of the November 1992 date by which major brewers are required by the Beer Orders to release pubs from ties. I have concluded after weighing up all these representations that amending the orders in this way could not be justified. Brewers will have had three years in which to make their dispositions by November 1992. Deferring the date would be unfair to those national and regional brewers who have already taken steps to comply with or take advantage of the order and would prolong uncertainty for tenants.

  The Beer Orders require brewers owning more than 2,000 pubs to free up from tie half they own in excess of 2,000 by 1 November 1992. There are at least four ways in which a brewer can free up a pub from tie: the pub can be leased to the sitting tenant free of any ties; sold to the sitting tenant; sold with sitting tenant to a third party; and sold with vacant possession. Only the last of these four options would involve the eviction of the tenant.

  I am naturally concerned about statements by certain brewers that they will issue "notices to quit" to large numbers of their tenants, even though the number issued is likely to be much lower than the figures that have been mentioned in the press. I understand that most of these notices will be issued by two national brewers in order to renegotiate the terms of their tenancy agreements and will not ultimately lead to evictions. I have urged the brewers concerned to keep the number of notices they send out to an absolute minimum and to make their purpose clear to tenants.

  Deferring the November 1992 date in the Beer Orders would not affect the date by which the brewers would have to send out "notices to quit" since this is determined by the fact that all tenancy agreements will be protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act by July 1992. It has been put to me that there would be no need to issue "notices to quit" if the date in the Beer Orders was deferred since this would allow pubs to be sold as they become available through natural wastage. However, brewers will have had three years by November 1992 in which to take action to comply with the order. This already represents a year more than was originally recommended by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its report on the supply of beer. Four of the six major brewers have either already taken or announced steps to comply with the order by November 1992. It is not clear why these should be disadvantaged because the other two have been slower in taking action.

  Several national brewers who have already taken steps to comply with the orders have made it clear they do not wish to see any deferment of the November 1992 date. A large number of the regional brewers have expressed strong opposition to any change in the date as they are keen to strengthen their brewing base by acquiring further premises and selling to more "free outlets". They regard the present orders as a balance between the interests of brewers of different sizes which would be upset if there was a change in the date. A number have suggested that deferring the date in the order might lead to further regional brewers withdrawing altogether from brewing.
  432
  Tenants' representatives have also generally made it clear that deferring the date would be unwelcome as it would prolong uncertainty for their members.

  I recognise that the changes taking place are unsettling for many in the industry. But they also offer opportunities —to tenants to manage their own businesses and to brewers to compete in a larger free trade market. I believe that it would be wrong to change the timing now, given the way many national and regional brewers have already responded to the orders and given the further uncertainty that would be created for pub tenants if the implementation date were delayed.

  Beer
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the reasons for non-implementation of section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 as it affects the head on a measure of beer.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: I have no plans to implement section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 because there is little evidence that individual consumers are dissatisfied with how beer is served.

  ECGD Insurance Services Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 5 March to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), if he will give the full corporate headquarters address of NCM, list its shareholders and their percentage shareholding, and give a brief summary of its experience in the field of export credit guarantee, insurance and reinsurance in(a) the Netherlands, (b) Benelux, (c) other EC member states and (d) other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and what links it has or has had with any state-backed export credit guarantee schemes in the Netherlands.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: The full name and address of NCM is as follows:

  Nederlandsche Credietverzekering M aatschappij N.V.

  Keizeresgracht 271–287

  1016 ED Amsterdam

  Netherlands

  NCM is Holland's largest credit risk insurance company. It was established in 1925 and its shareholders are 31 European banks, insurance companies and reinsurers. Details of NCM's shareholders and its activities can be obtained from NCM's annual report. I am arranging for the latest copy of this to be made available in the Library of the House. More detailed information on NCM, acquired by ECGD in the process of selling its short-term business, has been provided on a strict commercial in confidence basis and cannot, therefore, be disclosed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 5 March to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), if he will give the full company headquarters address of Assicurazioni Generali and a summary of its experience in export credit insurance in(a) Italy, (b) other EC member states and (c) other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and if he will

  433
  list its links with state-backed export credit insurance, guarantee or reinsurance schemes provided by the Italian Government.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [ holding answer 8 March 1991]: The full name and address of Assicurazioni Generali is as follows:

  Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.

  Piazza Duca Degli Abruzzi 2

  34132 Trieste

  Italy

  Assicurazioni Generali is principally involved in the business of insurance and reinsurance. It has a large minority shareholding in SIAC, the Italian credit insurer. Details of Generali's activities can be obtained from its annual report. I am arranging for the latest copy of this to be made available in the Library of the House. More detailed information on Assicurazioni Generali, acquired by ECGD in the process of selling its short-term business, has been provided on a strict commercial in confidence basis and cannot, therefore, be disclosed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 5 March, to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson),Official Report, columns 88–89, if he will provide the full address of the corporate headquarters of Cobac and a brief review of its experience in the field of export credit guarantee insurance or reinsurance in (a) Belgium, (b) Benelux, (c) other EC member states and (d)other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and what links it has had and now has with any state-backed export credit guarantee schemes in Belgium.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]:The full name and address of COBAC is as follows:

  Compagnie Belge d'Assurance Credit

  Rue Montoyer, 15-

  B-1040 Brussels

  Belgium

  COBAC is active in credit insurance and related business. Details of COBAC's activities can be obtained from its annual report. I am arranging for the latest copy of this to be made available in the Library of the House. More detailed information on COBAC, acquired by ECGD in the process of selling its short-term business, has been provided on a strict commercial in confidence basis and cannot therefore, be disclosed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 5 March, to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson),Official Report, columns 88–89, if he will give the full corporate headquarters address of Gerling and its parent company, and a summary of its experience in the field of export credit insurance, reinsurance or guarantee in (a)Germany, (b)other EC countries and (c) other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and what links it has or has had with any state-backed export credit guarantee scheme in Germany.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: The full name and address of Gerling is as follows:

  Gerling-Konzern Speziale Kreditversicherungs-AG

  Hohenzollernring 62

  D-5000 Cologne 1

  Germany

  Gerling is the second largest German credit insurer. It provides domestic and export credit insurance. Details of
  434
  Gerling's activities can be obtained from its annual report —English language versions are not available. I am arranging for the latest copy of this to be made available in the Library of the House. More detailed information on Gerling, acquired by ECGD in the process of selling its short term business, has been provided on a strict commercial in confidence basis and cannot, therefore, be disclosed.

  Kuwait Oil Fires
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications he has had from Ventron Technology Ltd. of Reddish, Stockport, about equipment to extinguish Kuwait well fires; and what steps his Department has taken to meet representatives of Ventron and to put forward their ideas for dealing with the problem to the Kuwait Government.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 March 1991]: My Department received a fax message from Ventron Technology on 7 March. I received a letter on its behalf from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 14 March.

  My officials have since spoken to Ventron Technology about its proposals, and the company has been recorded on my Department's database of companies interested in working in Kuwait.

  British Shipbuilders
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), on 18 March,Official Report, column 20, if he will make a statement concerning the details of the settlement of the outstanding claim made by Trafalgar House against British Shipbuilders.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]: The settlement was in respect of an action brought by Trafalgar House for which British Shipbuilders have not admitted liability. The claim was for alleged losses of £191 million plus interest from 1984 due to alleged misrepresentations by British Shipbuilders following the privatisation of the Scott Lithgow yard.

  The legal costs for each side were likely to run into tens of millions of pounds had the action come to court.

  The £17 million cash settlement, plus the forgoing by British Shipbuilders of a counterclaim for £8 million from Trafalgar House, therefore represents a considerable potential saving for the public purse.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a table of expenditure showing the cost of running each regional office of his Department in 1989–90, excluding the funding programmes operated by the offices.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: The information is as follows:

  £ thousands

  North East

  3,412

  North West

  3,633

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,300

  435

  £ thousands

  East Midlands

  1,598

  West Midlands

  2,951

  South West

  1,461

  South East

  2,663

  East

  391

  Kuwait
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role his Department has taken in assisting British companies to secure contracts to rebuild Kuwait.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 20 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), at column 157.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the impact of the poll tax on the demand for help and advice from citizens advice bureaux.

  Mr. Leigh
  Citizens advice bureaux have had to deal with a number of inquiries arising from the introduction of the community charge, just as they used to on rates. The number of inquiries on the community charge, rose in 1989–90 compared to 1988–89, but there was no significant change in the total number of inquiries dealt with by bureaux in 1989–90 compared to 1988–89. Figures relating to the current financial year are not yet available.

  The Department of Environment has agreed to give the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux £36,000 this year to help with the costs of training bureaux workers to deal with these inquiries. The Scottish Office has also given Citizens Advice Scotland £36,000 over the last two years for the same purpose.

  Smoked Salmon
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the duties placed on(a) fresh and (b) smoked salmon from (i) Norway and (ii) Canada, when imported into (1) EC countries and (2) the United States of America.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The duty payable under the common customs tariff—CTT—on imports into EC countries of fresh salmon from Norway and Canada is 2 per cent. The CTT duty rate on imports into EC countries of smoked salmon from Norway and Canada is 13 per cent.

  The duties payable on imports into the United States of America of smoked salmon from Norway and Canada are 5 and 2 per cent. respectively. All imports of fresh salmon into the United States of America are free of customs duty. However, as a result of a preliminary determination, fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon imported from Norway into the United States of America is currently subject to anti-dumping duties ranging from 15·65 to 31·81 per cent.

  Germany (Trade Balance)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will initiate inquiries into the reason for the adverse trade balance with Germany.
  436
  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have no plans to initiate inquiries. Last year our exports to Germany increased by 18·5 per cent. in value over 1989.

SCOTLAND

  Historic Buildings Council
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the commercial relationships between Mr. Marc Ellington and Mr. Richard Emerson of the Historic Buildings Council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Mr. Marc Ellington is a member of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, a statutory advisory body appointed by my right hon. Friend. Mr. Richard Emerson is not a member of the council; he is a principal inspector of historic buildings in Historic Buildings and Monuments, Scotland, which is part of the Scottish Environment Department. Mr. Ellington and Mr. Emerson have had no commercial dealings in any official capacity.

  My right hon.Friend is aware that reference was made in a television programme broadcast on Channel 4 on 10 March to the purchase by Mr. Emerson from Mr. Ellington of a plot of land at Crovie in 1985. This was an entirely proper private transaction between two individuals. Their public duties did not overlap, and Mr. Emerson informed his senior officer of his intentions in 1985. Mr. Ellington and Mr. Emerson both retain the complete confidence of my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will obtain for his Department's library a copy of the "Scottish Eye" programme on Channel 4, broadcast on 10 March.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps his Department is taking to monitor and evaluate the continuing care of patients discharged from psychiatric hospital into the community, further to paragraph 1.29 of "Community Care into the Next Decade and Beyond";

  (2) what steps he is taking to monitor and evaluate the continuing care of mentally ill people resident in the community.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 places a duty on local authorities and health boards jointly to prepare and publish, by 1 April 1992, in consultation with health boards, community care plans. We intend to monitor carefully the implementation of these plans, including the care of people with mental health problems discharged from psychiatric hospitals and resident in the community. The plans should define objectives and targets and include procedures for monitoring the achievement of effective community care.

  Health boards will shortly be consulted on draft guidance on the introduction of care programmes for people with a mental illness. The main purpose of care programmes is to ensure that no person who has been treated for long-term mental illness is discharged from hospital without proper arrangements being made for his

  437
  or her continuing care in the community. It will be for health boards and local authorities to satisfy themselves that there are relevant community-based health and social work services to allow each discharged person to live satisfactorily in the community.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each health board(a) the number of patients discharged from psychiatric hospitals and (b) the number of readmissions to psychiatric hospitals, for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Mental illness hospitals and psychiatric units

  Area of residence

  All discharges

  Re-admissions

  1987

  Argyll and Clyde

  2,569

  1,533

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,629

  860

  Borders

  455

  273

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,075

  840

  Fife

  1,796

  1,028

  Forth Valley

  1,237

  773

  Grampian

  2,453

  1,549

  Greater Glasgow

  6,245

  3,858

  Highlands

  1,203

  800

  Lanarkshire

  2,437

  1,388

  Lothian

  4,270

  2,682

  Orkney

  36

  12

  Shetland

  58

  20

  Tayside

  2,208

  1,309

  Western Isles

  78

  41

  Others

  644

  375

  All Areas

  28,393

  17,341

  1988

  Argyll and Clyde

  2,711

  1,596

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,948

  1,053

  Borders

  503

  269

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,020

  826

  Fife

  1,819

  992

  Forth Valley

  1,243

  752

  Grampian

  2,481

  1,430

  Greater Glasgow

  6,617

  3,818

  Highland

  1,086

  686

  Lanarkshire

  2,461

  1,434

  Lothian

  4,357

  2,812

  Orkney

  37

  17

  Shetland

  42

  25

  Tayside

  2,336

  1,365

  Western Isles

  85

  47

  Others

  661

  392

  All Areas

  29,407

  17,514

  1989

  Argyll and Clyde

  2,702

  1,600

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,083

  1,159

  Borders

  492

  337

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,016

  794

  Fife

  1,692

  1,049

  Forth Valley

  1,262

  811

  Grampian

  2,513

  1,461

  Greater Glasgow

  6,461

  3,879

  Highland

  954

  632

  Lanarkshire

  2,372

  1,398

  Lothian

  4,664

  3,047

  Orkney

  38

  17

  Shetland

  55

  34

  Tayside

  2,367

  1,425

  Western Isles

  97

  52

  Others

  719

  415

  All Areas

  29,487

  18,110

  Educational Visits
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy on educational visits for schoolchidren.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for education authorities.

  Crime
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of(a) total crimes and (b) violent crimes in each police force area in Scotland in 1979 and 1990 or the most recently available date and the percentage increase, in each authority area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Number of crimes1, crimes and offences2 and violent crimes3 recorded in police force areas in 1979 and 1989 and the percentage change.

  Police Force Area

  1979

  1989

  Percent age change 1979–89

  Central

  Crimes

  13,844

  21,066

  52

  Crimes and offences

  28,398

  44,493

  57

  Violent crimes

  1,271

  3,006

  137

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Crimes

  4,835

  6,733

  39

  Crimes and offences

  17,934

  18,514

  3

  Violent crimes

  404

  1,037

  157

  Fife

  Crimes

  14,257

  27,690

  94

  Crimes and offences

  31,779

  53,411

  68

  Violent crimes

  1,580

  3,164

  100

  Grampian

  Crimes

  22,821

  34,034

  49

  Crimes and offences

  50,604

  76,538

  51

  Violent crimes

  3,088

  5,348

  73

  Lothian and Borders

  Crimes

  62,502

  78,301

  25

  Crimes and offences

  116,828

  141,039

  21

  Violent crimes

  4,757

  8,489

  78

  Northern

  Crimes

  8,711

  11,841

  36

  Crimes and offences

  27,104

  32,591

  20

  Violent crimes

  1,231

  1,896

  54

  Strathclyde

  Crimes

  195,485

  275,134

  41

  Crimes and offences

  351,269

  465,187

  32

  Violent crimes

  16,625

  31,018

  87

  Tayside

  Crimes

  24,225

  38,586

  59

  Crimes and offences

  50,039

  70,258

  40

  Violent crimes

  1,767

  3,574

  102

  Notes:

  1 Comprises groups 1–5 of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department (SOHHD) classification of crimes and offences.

  2 Comprises groups 1–7 of the SOHHD classification of crimes and offences.

  3 Comprises group 1 (non-sexual crimes of violence), the sexual assault category from group 2 (crimes of indecency) and the petty assault category from group 6 (miscellaneous offences) of the SOHHD classification of crimes and offences.
  439
  Details of the SOHHD classification are given in the SOHHD statistical bulletin "Recorded crime in Scotland, 1989", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will revise the code of guidance on homelessness legislation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We issued a revised draft of the code of guidance on the homelessness legislation for consultation in October 1990. A large number of responses were received; these have now been carefully considered and the revised code will be published soon.

  Fisheries Enforcement
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his plans to establish the Scottish fisheries enforcement services as a "next steps" agency.

  Mr. Lang
  I informed the House on 28 February of my intention to establish the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency as an executive agency on 1 April 1991. My noble Friend will preside at a launch ceremony on 12 April.

  For the 1991–92 financial year I have set the agency the following targets:

  Targets

  Aerial surveillance—per cent, of hours flown on task

  78 per cent.

  Cost per aircraft sighting

  £137

  Marine surveillance—number of boardings at sea

  2,750

  Marine surveillance—cost per boarding

  £2,263

  Sea Fisheries Inspectorate—cost per £1 million of fish landed

  £4,838

  50 per cent, of cases for prosecution to be reported within 4 weeks of offence taking place and 90 per cent, within 6 weeks

  Number of cases where court proceedings are taken as percentage of offences reported for prosecution

  75 per cent.

  In order to ensure that the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency uses its resources efficiently, I have set it a target to achieve cash-releasing efficiency gains of at least 1·5 per cent. and its running cost limit for 1991–92 has been set on that basis.

  The agency chief executive will be directly accountable to me for the agency's achievements of these targets, which will be reported in the agency's published annual report.

  I will place a copy of the agency's framework document in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Historic Scotland
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his plans to establish Historic Scotland as an executive agency.

  Mr. Lang
  I informed the House on 28 February of my intention to establish Historic Scotland as an executive agency on 1 April. I can now confirm that the agency will indeed be set up on that date and that I shall preside at a launch ceremony on 8 April.

  For 1991–92, the first year of operation, I have set the following key performance targets for Historic Scotland:
  440
  Number of monuments newly scheduled. The target is to schedule 280 monuments in 1991–92, in addition to the 4,800 already scheduled.

  Number of completed units of the resurvey of listed buildings. The target is to complete 200 survey units in 1991–92.

  Number of general historic building repair grant cases in payment. The target is to effect payment to 400 cases in 1991–92, giving priority to the most important buildings.

  Number of visitors to monuments in care where an admission charge is made. The target is to increase visitor numbers by 4·5 per cent. to 2·71 million in 1991–92.

  Total income. The target is to increase income to £6 million in 1991–92.

  Conservation backlog on monuments in care. The target is to contain, and if possible to reduce, the backlog of overdue maintenance.

  Value for money savings on maintenance of monuments in care. A target will be developed for 1992–93.

  Surplus on commercial activities. A target will be developed for 1992–93.

  Exchequer contribution to Historic Scotland's work. The target for 1991–92 is to keep the increase in the call on the Exchequer for net current expenditure at or below the level of inflation.

  In order to ensure that Historic Scotland uses its domestic resources efficiently, I have set it a target to achieve cash-releasing efficiency gains of 1·5 per cent. And its running cost limit for 1991–92 has been set on that basis.

  The director of Historic Scotland, as the agency's chief executive, will be directly accountable to me for the achievement of these targets, which will be reported in the agency's published annual report.

  I will place a copy of the agency's framework document in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he is making to publish the management statement for Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Scottish Enterprise management statement sets out the financial, managerial and operational framework within which Scottish Enterprise will operate.

  I am arranging for copies to be laid in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Community Health
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the results of the research project "Community Health Promotion in a Deprived Area" funded by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: Copies of a report on a pilot project "Royston Wardieburn Community Health Project" and one on "Community Health Promotion in a Deprived Area" have been placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Single Parents
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what improvements Her Majesty's Government have introduced to help the single parent obtain maintenance payments.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have taken a number of steps to help parents obtain maintenance for their
  441
  children. This Department has enhanced its action on recovery of maintenance for those claiming income support. For instance, we have improved our instructions on the interviewing of mothers who have never been married about the identity of the absent father. We have also introduced a number of measures that apply to all lone parents, whether divorced, separated or never married. We have strengthened the basis on which local social security offices assess absent parents' ability to pay maintenance. We have improved our ability to trace missing parents by reaching an agreement with the Inland Revenue to provide the address of an absent parent and the absent parent's employer. The Social Security Act 1990 gave the Department new powers to seek to include the costs of caring for children in orders obtained by the DSS for children, to transfer an order for a child obtained by the Department to a caring parent who leaves income support, and to enforce a caring parent's own private maintenance order. We have made clear the importance to be attached to this work in local offices and set targets to increase the amount recovered. In addition, the Home Office has introduced the Maintenance Enforcement Bill, which seeks to improve arrangements for paying maintenance under the current system.

  For the future, we have introduced the Child Support Bill, which aims to replace the present child maintenance system, which is fragmented, uncertain in its results, slow and ineffective, with a Child Support Agency which will use a formula to calculate child maintenance. This will be available to all seeking child maintenance and it is hoped that it will be fully operational by 1995.

  Single person (aged 25 or over)

  £ per week

  Assumed rent

  19·15

  Assumed community charge

  6·61

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  60·00

  0·55

  2·18

  57·27

  9·03

  2·95

  69·25

  43·49

  80·00

  5·55

  3·98

  70·47

  0·00

  0·97

  71·44

  45·68

  100·00

  10·55

  5·78

  83·67

  0·00

  0·00

  83·67

  57·91

  120·00

  15·55

  7·58

  96·87

  0·00

  0·00

  96·87

  71·11

  140·00

  20·55

  9·38

  110·07

  0·00

  0·00

  110·07

  84·31

  160·00

  25·55

  11·18

  123·27

  0·00

  0·00

  123·27

  97·57

  180·00

  30·55

  12·98

  136·47

  0·00

  0·00

  136·47

  110·71

  200·00

  35·55

  14·78

  149·67

  0·00

  0·00

  149·67

  123·91

  Married couple

  £ per week

  Assumed rent

  19·15

  Assumed community charge

  13·22

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  19·15

  10·58

  87·55

  55·18

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  13·68

  9·31

  99·01

  66·64

  100·00

  2·28

  5·78

  91·94

  3·33

  6·93

  102·20

  69·83

  120·00

  7·28

  7·58

  105·14

  0·00

  4·95

  110·09

  77·72

  140·00

  12·28

  9·38

  118·34

  0·00

  2·97

  121·31

  88·94

  160·00

  17·28

  11·18

  131·54

  0·00

  0·99

  132·53

  100·16

  180·00

  22·28

  12·98

  144·74

  0·00

  0·00

  144·74

  112·37

  200·00

  27·28

  14·78

  157·94

  0·00

  0·00

  157·94

  125·57

  Incomes
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables similar to his Department's tax/benefit model table showing the net weekly spending power for each of(a) a single person, (b) a married couple with no children, (c) a couple with a child aged 11 years (d) a couple with two children aged eight and 11 years, (e) a couple with three children aged eight, 11 and 15 years, (f) a couple with four children aged three, eight, 11 and 15 years with weekly earnings of (i) £60, (ii) £80, (iii) £100, (iv) £120, (v) £140, (vi) £160, (vii) £180 and (viii) £200 under the existing tax and benefit system.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is set out in the tables. All assumptions are as set out in the published tax/benefit model tables. Each family is assumed to live in council property appropriate to its size and to pay estimated average rent and community charge.

  It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use hypothetical rents, so they do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can pay.

  The figures are for the system before the Budget proposals come into effect and do not reflect the effect of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill presently before Parliament.
  443

  Married couple with one child aged 11

  £ per week

  Child benefit

  7·25

  Assumed rent

  21·41

  Assumed community charge

  13·22

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  50·35

  6·97

  7·24

  129·63

  95·00

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  37·61

  3·42

  6·42

  130·72

  96·09

  100·00

  2·28

  5·78

  91·94

  26·46

  0·00

  5·71

  131·36

  96·73

  120·00

  7·28

  7·58

  105·14

  17·22

  0·00

  5·11

  134·72

  100·09

  140·00

  12·28

  9·38

  118·34

  7·98

  0·00

  4·52

  138·09

  103·46

  160·00

  17·28

  11·18

  131·54

  0·00

  0·00

  3·74

  142·53

  107·90

  180·00

  22·28

  12·98

  144·74

  0·00

  0·00

  1·76

  153·75

  119·12

  200·00

  27·28

  14·78

  157·94

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  165·19

  130·56

  Married couple with two children aged 8 and 11.

  £ per week

  Child Benefit

  14·50

  Assumed rent

  23·43

  Assumed community charge

  13·22

  Gross earnings Charge

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  58·60

  6·94

  6·77

  144·63

  107·98

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  45·86

  3·39

  5·95

  145·72

  109·07

  100·00

  2·28

  5·78

  91·94

  34·71

  0·00

  5·24

  146·39

  109·74

  120·00

  7·28

  7·58

  105·14

  25·47

  0·00

  4·64

  149·75

  113·10

  140·00

  12·28

  9·38

  118·34

  16·23

  0·00

  4·05

  153·12

  116·47

  160·00

  17·28

  11·18

  131·54

  6·99

  0·00

  3·45

  156·48

  119·83

  180·00

  22·28

  12·98

  144·74

  0·00

  0·00

  2·52

  161·76

  125·11

  200·00

  27·28

  14·78

  157·94

  0·00

  0·00

  0·54

  172·98

  136·33

  Married couple with three children aged 8,11 and 15

  £ per week

  Child Benefit

  21·75

  Assumed rent

  23·43

  Assumed community charge

  13·22

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Family Credit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  72·75

  4·89

  6·30

  163·51

  126·86

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  60·01

  1·35

  5·48

  164·61

  127·96

  100·00

  2·28

  5·78

  91·94

  48·86

  0·00

  4·76

  167·31

  130·66

  120·00

  7·28

  7·58

  105·14

  39·62

  0·00

  4·17

  170·68

  134·03

  140·00

  12·28

  9·38

  118·34

  30·38

  0·00

  5·58

  174·05

  137·40

  160·00

  17·28

  11·18

  131·54

  21·14

  0·00

  2·98

  177·41

  140·76

  180·00

  22·28

  12·98

  144·74

  11·90

  0·00

  2·39

  180·78

  144·13

  200·00

  27·28

  14·78

  157·94

  2·66

  0·00

  1·79

  184·14

  147·49

  Married couple with four children aged 3, 8, 11 and 15

  £ per week

  Child benefit

  29·00

  Assumed rent

  23·43

  Assumed community charge

  13·22

  444 445

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  £ per week

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  81·00

  2·85

  5·83

  176·50

  139·85

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  68·26

  0·00

  5·01

  178·29

  141·64

  100·00

  2·28

  5·78

  91·94

  57·11

  0·00

  4·29

  182·34

  145·69

  120·00

  7·28

  7·58

  105·14

  47·87

  0·

  3·70

  185·71

  149·06

  140·00

  12·28

  9·38

  118·34

  38·63

  0·00

  3·10

  189·07

  152·42

  160·00

  17·28

  11·18

  131·54

  29·39

  0·00

  2·51

  192·44

  155·79

  180·00

  22·28

  12·98

  144·74

  20·15

  0·00

  1·91

  195·80

  159·15

  200·00

  27·28

  14·78

  157·94

  10·91

  0·00

  1·32

  199·17

  162·52

  Widows' Benefits
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will identify the cost of extending widow's related benefits to widowers; and if he will provide the costing for extending each of these benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The annual costs would be approximately as follows:

  £ million

  Widowers' £1,000 payment

  25

  Widowed father's allowance

  90

  Widowers pension (widowers aged 45–65)

  300

  Total

  415

  Fraud
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social security claimants have been(a) prosecuted and (b) found guilty of claiming benefit while working and receiving wages during each year from 1978–79 to the latest available date in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Scotland.

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

  Supplementary Benefits
  Mr. Ralph Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of people, including children, dependent on supplementary benefit for 1979 and 1990; what is the projected number for 1991; and what was the number of supplementary benefit recipients for each of the years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information for 1990 is not available. Figures are given for 1979 and 1989, together with those projected for 1991–92.

  Year

  Claimants plus dependants

  Claimants

  000s

  000s

  1979 Supplementary Benefit

  4,370

  2,855

  1989 Income Support

  7,023

  4,161

  1991–92 Income support

  7,157

  4,240

  Sources Annual Statistical Enquiries for 1979 and 1989. Estimates based on Departmental Report (Cm. 1514).

  Carers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give details of the social security benefits available to carers; and what steps his Department is taking to publicise the benefits;
  446
  (2) whether he will introduce a special payment for carers; and if he will make a statement on the financial position of carers.

  Mr. Scott
  All social security benefits are available to carers provided that they satisfy the relevant entitlement conditions. Invalid care allowance is the benefit specifically designed for carers. It is available to someone who has forgone the opportunity of full-time work in order to provide regular and substantial care to a severely disabled person. From 8 April 1991 the basic rate of invalid care allowance will be £31·25 each week. In addition, from October 1990, a carer premium of £10 a week, increasing to £10·80 in April 1991, was introduced in the income-related benefits, income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit for those receiving, or with an underlying entitlement to, invalid care allowance.

  Information about invalid care allowance is contained in leaflet NI212, a revised and improved version of which will be available shortly. A leaflet about the carer premium (IS7) is available for professional advisers and the Department is currently working on the production of a leaflet detailing all benefits for carers which will be published later this year.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the oral answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 422, if he will publish the number of people on full social security benefit who were reimbursed for (a) the full 20 per cent. and (b) part of the 20 per cent. poll tax minimum payment in the current financial year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no specific amount for the community charge in any one individual's benefit. The amount originally included in income support rates towards the 20 per cent. contribution was based on the average amount claimants were expected to have to pay. This now forms an integral part of overall rates.

  Benefits and Contributions Agencies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will make an announcement about the establishment of the benefits and contributions agencies.

  Mr. Newton
  These agencies will come into being from April 1991 and I shall be formally launching them on 10 April. I am arranging for framework documents and business plans for both agencies to be placed in the Library.

  Benefits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claim each benefit payable(a) at each of the Nottingham social security offices and (b) in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 March 1991]: Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Information for the Nottingham area and for Great Britain is

  Nottingham area1

  Great Britain1

  Income support2

  51,490

  4,492,000

  Sickness benefit/Invalidity benefit

  14,960

  1,623,000

  Maternity allowance

  227

  19,590

  Severe disability allowance

  2,817

  382,600

  1All data relates to 30 November 1990 and are provisional and subject to amendment.

  2Derived from 100 per cent, count of cases in action, which include a number where payment has ceased but other action is continuing.

HEALTH

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what immediate assistance is being offered by his Department to(a) Kuwait and (b) Iraq to combat the outbreak of infections arising from the damage done to water purification systems in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The International Committee of the Red Cross sanitation teams are helping to restore the distribution of purified water in Iraq. On 14 March 1991 their first two water purification units began producing potable water in Baghdad. The United Kingdom supports the International Committee of the Red Cross work and has contributed £2·5 million to its Gulf appeal. The Government of Kuwait have made arrangements for the supply of purified water to the population in Kuwait. The United Kingdom Government have also contributed US$1 million to the United Nations and agencies through the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation for their work in both these countries. We will be offering full collaboration to the United Nations and agencies for the supply of foodstuffs and medical supplies.

  Haemophilia
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 86, (1) from what date the imported unlicensed high purity product from Kabi will be available to the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control for testing; and what is the anticipated release date for patient treatment using this product;

  (2) on the Bio Products Laboratory, what assurances have been given by the Medicines Control Agency as to the safety of the unlicensed product due to be imported from Sweden relative to the licensed product available for the United Kingdom;

  (3) what assurance has been given that the Medicines Control Agency will be provided with full details of the
  448
  patients and doctors involved in the name-patient import of the unlicensed high purity factor VIII produce from Sweden.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In my reply to the hon. Member of 19 February at column 86, I explained that the Bio Products Laboratory's high purity product will be covered by arrangements leading to the removal of Crown immunity and is currently the subject of a full licensing application. The Medicines Control Agency will be considering this application. The product has already been tested by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control and is now available to clinicians under these arrangements and not on a named patient basis.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions are in place to ensure that when Crown immunity ceases the Bio Products Laboratory will have to conform in all respects to the same controls of the Medicines Act and to the same fair trading and free competition practices as currently apply to the commercial plasma industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Officials of the Medicines Control Agency have for some months provided guidance and advice not only to Bio Products Laboratory, but to others in the NHS affected by the cessation of Crown immunity and the controls of the Medicines Act. This advice service will continue after Crown immunity ceases, and subject to the transitional arrangements for the removal of Crown immunity, the BPL will be treated under the Medicines Act in the same way as other pharmaceutical manufacturers.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 86, on the Bio Products Laboratory if he will indicate which products and facilities are currently licenced under cover of the licensing requirements of the Medicines Act.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested in respect of Bio Products Laboratory is confidential by virtue of the restrictions on disclosure contained in section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968.

  In accordance with article 12 of the EC directive 65/65, the licensing authority publishes any grant of marketing authorisation in the Official Gazettes.

  South Lincolnshire Health Authority
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors, (b) consultants and (c) nurses were employed by the South Lincolnshire health authority in March 1979 and in March 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows information up to the latest available date, which is 30 September 1989.

  South Lincolnshire Health Authority Staff in Post at 30 September each year.

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Junior Staff1

  1979

  l,7203

  2n/a

  1982

  1,8004

  61·1

  1989

  2,100

  80·0

  Junior Staff

  1Grades include Registrars, Senior House Officers, House Officers and Other Staff. Numbers of staff at Senior doctor level are available by region only since the contracts for these staff are held by their regional Headquarters.
  449
  21979 and 1991 figures are not available.

  3Figures not adjusted to take account of the reduction in nurses' working hours during 1980–81 (from 40 to 37·5 hours per week).

  4Reorganisation of District Health Authorities took place in 1982. Figures for 1979 are therefore not directly comparable.

  NHS Estate Directorate
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress establishing his Department's NHS estate directorate as an executive agency.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am pleased to announce that the estates directorate will be established as the NHS estate management and health building agency on 1 April, the first executive agency in the Department of Health. The agency's roles are(a) to provide Ministers, the NHS management executive and the NHS with professional and technical policy advice and support in the fields of NHS estate management and health building, and (b) to develop and make available to NHS authorities, trusts and others a range of specialist guidance and other products and services which embody key national policies and standards and reflect current best NHS practice. The agency's detailed aims, objectives and functions are set out in a framework document, copies of which are available in the Library. In accordance with "next steps" principles the agency will be free to propose further adaptations to it if changing circumstances make this appropriate.

  The chief executive has been set the following key performance targets for 1991–92:
  To keep within the 1991–92 agreed public expenditure survey baseline.
  To make at least a 2 per cent. efficiency saving on the operating costs that are within this control.
  To deliver 80 per cent. of all contracts on time and within estimated costs, which will then act as the baseline for further improvements in succeeding years.
  To agree the business plan and key performance targets with Ministers by 30 June 1991.

  Over the next four years, in keeping with the spirit of the wider NHS reforms, I will be setting the agency a range of key performance targets to ensure that it delivers progressive improvements in the quality and efficiency of its services to the NHS.

  Census
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are being made in the 1991 census to protect the confidentiality of forms for households where the enumerator is known to them.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Census officers have been given a general instruction not to place enumerators in enumeration districts where they are likely to be widely known. However, there are some places where—because of the geography of the area or the shortage of applicants—it is impossible to do otherwise. More particularly, in some remote rural areas it may be necessary to appoint an enumerator who lives in the locality.

  The Census Regulations 1990 provide a facility to cover such situations: the form filler may ask for an envelope in which the completed form may be sealed before it is collected; the enumerator is prohibited from opening it. Enumerators are instructed to offer a sealed return envelope if they come across anyone they know.

  The same facility is available under the Census (Scotland) Regulations 1990.
  450
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in deciding which small voluntary follow-up surveys will use the 1991 census as the sampling frame.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Initial proposals for such surveys were given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health in December 1989 during the debate on the draft Census Order, cols. 10–11, Report of Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. The state of progress on each of the surveys mentioned in these initial proposals is given later. No others are proposed.

  Plans are well advanced for surveys to check the accuracy of census information, the completeness of electoral registers and vacant accommodation in Scotland.

  A research proposal has been produced for the Department of Environment on the proposed surveys in England on households occupying privately rented accommodation and households sharing accommodation. If these surveys go ahead, the field work will be carried out in late 1991 and early 1992.

  Discussions are also being held with relevant departments on follow-up surveys of people with nursing qualifications and paramedical qualifications but not employed in these specialisms and of persons with social work and probation officer qualifications. Decisions on whether these surveys should go ahead will be made in early 1992. The census will not now be used as the sampling frame for a survey of out-of-service teachers.

  The information leaflet to be delivered to each household with the census form in the 10 days before the census on 21 April includes the following statement:
  "A very small sample of people and households will be asked to take part in one of several voluntary surveys. One survey will help the Census Offices check how well the Census itself worked. The other surveys will gather fuller information than it is possible to collect in a Census. Information gathered in any such survey will be handled entirely within the Census Offices. It will be treated in the same strict confidence as information given on the Census form."

  The confidentiality of information collected in these surveys will now be covered by the Census Act 1920, as amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991, which received Royal Assent on 7 March.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his statement of 4 December 1990,Official Report,columns 173–74, on expressions of interest in national health service trust status, whether he has received any further expressions of interest in proceeding to develop their plans for national health service trust status for April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have now agreed that Southampton University hospital, which has expressed an interest in trust status, can proceed to work up an application to become a trust on 1 April 1992.

  Hospital Beds (Children)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in district health authority hospitals in the North West region were set aside for children in(a)1979, (b)1986 and (c)

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is provided in the following table. Before 1987–88, information collected
  451
  centrally on bed availability related to consultant department and did not show all beds set aside for children. Bed figures are now collected centrally by type of ward.

  Number of average daily available children's beds

  National health service hospitals

  North Western regional health authority

  1979

  1986

  1989–90

  Speciality/department

  Paediatrics

  723

  639

  —

  Special care baby unit

  385

  328

  —

  Psychiatry children

  53

  79

  —

  Paediatric surgery

  0

  93

  —

  TOTAL

  1,161

  1,139

  —

  Ward classification

  General patients

  —

  —

  1,256

  Neonates:

  Regionally designated intensive

  —

  —

  59

  Non-maternity

  —

  —

  275

  Maternity

  —

  —

  534

  Mental illness (short stay)

  —

  —

  76

  Mental handicap (short stay)

  —

  —

  3

  TOTAL

  2,203

  For more comprehensive information the hon. Member may wish to write to Mr. B. Martin, the chairman of the North Western regional health authority.

  Carers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take to monitor the effect on carers of the return of patients to the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Finished hospital stays and finished consultant episodes for patients with a mental illness after an ordinary admission

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Regional health authority

  Finished hospital stays

  Finished consultant episodes

  Finished hospital stays

  Finished consultant episodes

  Finished consultant episodes

  Northern

  13,796

  14,076

  14,064

  13,845

  14,257

  Yorkshire

  17,851

  19,285

  17,223

  17,933

  16,989

  Trent

  16,116

  16,432

  16,808

  16,958

  16,830

  East Anglian

  8,155

  7,990

  8,166

  8,102

  8,453

  North West Thames

  14,577

  13,474

  15,487

  15,316

  14,961

  North East Thames

  13,139

  14,432

  13,932

  15,968

  16,113

  South East Thames

  14,401

  15,253

  13,965

  14,986

  15,900

  South West Thames

  12,371

  11,269

  11,707

  14,563

  14,170

  Wessex

  13,928

  11,120

  13,450

  13,461

  13,703

  Oxford

  8,423

  8,091

  8,119

  8,347

  8,876

  South Western

  16,958

  17,435

  16,123

  17,591

  16,269

  West Midlands

  19,856

  20,905

  19,317

  20,284

  20,870

  Mersey

  12,979

  11,694

  12,823

  12,349

  13,623

  North Western

  19,673

  20,034

  19,744

  20,721

  21,754

  Special health authorities

  1,750

  1,989

  1,698

  1,781

  1,791

  England total

  203,973

  203,479

  202,626

  212,205

  214,559

  Source: SMI2C-SH3A and KP7O.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to monitor and evaluate the continuing care of patients discharged from psychiatric hospital into the community in accordance with paragraph 1.29 of "Community Care into the Next Decade and Beyond".
  452
  Mr. Dorrell
  Local authorities, health authorities and family health services authorities will be expected to assess the community care needs of their residents and to show, in their community care plans, how they intend meeting them. We will be monitoring the implementation of their plans, through the Department's social services inspectorate and the NHS regional review process.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each regional health authority(a) the number of patients discharged from psychiatric hospitals and (b) the number of readmissions to psychiatric hospitals for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information available on discharges, after an ordinary admission, from national health service hospitals and hospital units in England is contained in the table. All figures exclude day cases.

  Figures on hospital stays are available only for the years 1987–88 and 1988–89. A finished hospital stay is defined here as a discharge from a hospital, or death in hospital, or transfer to another hospital, after a period of care in one of the mental illness specialities.

  Figures for finished consultant episodes are also provided for 1989–90. A finished consultant episode is defined here as the period a patient is under the care of a particular consultant in one of the mental illness specialities. A consultant episode may finish when either a patient changes consultant, dies, is discharged into the community, or is transferred to another hospital outside the existing district health authority of treatment.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave concerning figures by admission status to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 13 February at column 417.

  Mr. Dorrell
  New arrangements for the discharge of patients from psychiatric hospitals, known as the care programme approach, come into effect on 1 April. We have asked regional health authorities to confirm by 30 April that the new arrangements are in place. We also intend to commission research into the operation of the care programme approach.

  Baby Units
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of special care baby units available in hospitals in England and Wales and the total number of places, for each year that figures are available since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: The available information is given in the table. It should be noted that some health authorities provide intensive care facilities within maternity units. Information in respect of hospitals in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Special care baby units NHS hospitals, England

  Year

  Number of units (Provisional)

  Average daily number of cots

  1979

  237

  3,945

  1980

  236

  3,959

  1981

  231

  3,940

  1982

  227

  3,902

  1983

  230

  3,898

  1984

  228

  3,872

  1985

  225

  3,754

  1986

  221

  3,651

  1987–88

  206

  3,567

  1988–89

  219

  3,513

  1989–90

  213

  3,451

ENVIRONMENT

  Rents to Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the pilot schemes to test the conversion of rents to mortgages for local authority tenants.

  Sir George Young
  Pilot schemes have been launched for new town tenants in Basildon and Milton Keynes. When the results are available, we will consider carefully whether to propose legislation extending rents to mortgages to local authority tenants.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total expenditure planned by the Rural Development Commission for the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Rural Development Commission estimates that its main programme expenditure on the Isle of Wight during the financial year 1991–92 will be around £800,000. This will be spent on workspace provision and a range of projects likely to help the local economy and the local community. In addition, the Commission's redundant building grant scheme and its business advisory service are available on the island.

  Environmental Protection Act 1990
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with local authority associations on the implementation of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  Implementation of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was one of a number of topics 454
  discussed at the first meeting of the Local and Central Government Environment Forum which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chaired on 4 March. All three associations were present. Many meetings at official level have been held with the associations on particular parts of the Act which affect local authorities.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of people who will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme(a) nationally and (b) in the area covered by Kirklees council.

  Mr. Key
  Our recent announcement means that every charge payer will first benefit from a cut in their bill of £140 after which community charge reductions and benefit are calculated. Our estimate of the number of people in England who will both get a £140 general reduction and a rates-related reduction is 8·2 million. Figures on the number of charge-payers in each area who will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme will be available once charging authorities have returned their grant claim forms to my Department.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the workings of the community charge reduction scheme in relation to properties which were not individually rated.

  Mr. Key
  For practical reasons the community charge reduction scheme works by reference to the formerly rateable property and if a considerable number of people occupy the property, they receive little or no relief. However, such charge payers will all benefit from the 140 general reduction announced last week.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to abolish the community charge by April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet water industry chiefs to discuss progress on implementing the EC directive on bathing water quality.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are fully committed to meeting the standards set in the directive as soon as is practicable and we maintain regular contacts with water companies about progress on their compliance programmes.

  Estuaries
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council regarding the impact of the Leybucht Bay judgment in the European Court of Justice on the conservation of Britain's estuaries.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to seek a form of local government taxation that costs the least amount to raise and to administer.

  Mr. Portillo
  As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement to the House on 21 March, ease of collection is one of the principles underlying our proposals for a new local tax.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his study of reforms of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I have nothing to add at this stage to my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 21 March.

  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the Government's review of the poll tax.

  Government Grants to Local Authorities

  Additional grant needed to bring percentage to 1978–79 level

  Government grants1as a percentage of local authority expenditure

  Cash

  Real terms (1978–79 prices)

  Per cent.

  £ billion

  £ billion

  1978–792

  61

  0

  0

  1979–802

  59

  0·36

  0·31

  1980–812

  59

  0·54

  0·39

  1981–82

  55

  1·21

  0·80

  1982–83

  52

  1·96

  1·21

  1983–84

  52

  2·12

  1·25

  1984–85

  52

  2·15

  1·21

  1985–86

  51

  2·35

  1·25

  1986–87

  48

  3·51

  1·81

  1987–88

  46

  4·12

  2·01

  1988–89

  44

  5·13

  2·33

  1989–90

  42

  6·22

  2·66

  1990–91

  38

  8·10

  3·21

  1991–92

  51

  3·94

  1·46

  1For the years 1978–89 to 1989–90 Government grants comprises aggregate Exchequer grant and rate rebate grants (excluding domestic rate rebates). For 1990–91 Government grants include revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance and transitional relief grant, but excludes community charge benefits. Government grants for 1991–92 are the same as 1990–91 except for the addition of Community charge grant.

  2England and Wales—Community charge payers receive additional help through community charge benefit. In 1991–92 this is likely to be worth £1 billion (over £2·5 billions in 1978–79 prices).

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he estimates will be the cost to local authorities of the delay in sending out community charge invoices in the current year.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer Tuesday 26 March 1991]: None. The profile of payments to local authorities from the distributable amount of the non-domestic rate will be changed to increase the amounts paid in the early months of 1991–92. This will compensate authorities for the temporary cash shortfall likely to result from the proposals in the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill and related measures.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what actions he has taken to help alleviate Gulf oil slicks and oil well fires since 15 March.
  456
  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has met representatives of the Social and Liberal Democratic party, the Scottish Nationalist party, Plaid Cymru and the Ulster Unionist party as well as the local authority associations. Further meetings will be arranged as appropriate. In addition, we continue to receive a large volume of correspondence from hon. and right hon. Members of this House, representations from various institutions and organisations, and letters from the general public.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of total local government current expenditure, excluding grants for domestic rate rebates, was accounted for by central Government revenue grant in each year from 1978–79 to the current year 1991–92; and what additional amount of Government grant would have been necessary to bring the percentage of Government grant in total local authority current expenditure up to the 1978–79 level.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: The information for the English local authorities is as follows:

  Mr. Baldry
  We will endeavour to respond positively to requests we receive from the Gulf states wherever we are in a position to do so.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the Official Report, 15 March, column 1384, what response he has had from the Kuwaiti Government about Dr. Nigel Downing's proposals for protecting coral atolls.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 March 1991]: Dr. Downing's recommendations for minimising ecological damage to offshore coral reefs within the Gulf war zone have been passed both to the military authorities and, following the restoration of the Government of Kuwait, to them. I will write to the hon. Member when I have substantive news.
  457

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the highest, lowest and average increase in spending levels by local authorities over the three years 1988–89 to 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Comparing budgets in 1990–91 with comparable figures in 1988–89 for each local authority gives the highest increase as 320 per cent. in Labour controlled Southampton; and
  the lowest increase as minus 74 per cent. in Conservative controlled Runnymede.

  The average increase for England as a whole is 20 per cent.

  Homelessness
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any new proposals to deal with the shortage of hostel bed spaces for homeless people in major cities.

  Sir George Young
  Of the latest figures available, housing associations provide a total of 50,000 hostel bed spaces in England, of which some 20,000 are in London. The Government have allocated £96 million over three years to provide additional hostel and longer-term accommodation for single homeless people in London. We are considering how this programme might be extended to other major cities in the future.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the Government's initiative on homelessness.

  Sir George Young
  [pursuant to the reply of 22 January 1991, Official Report, column 155]: I have today approved additional allocations totalling £115 million to 106 authorities in London and the south-east. The schemes should provide more than 6,000 extra lettings for the homeless, reducing the need to use temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Priority has been given to bringing empty properties back into use and cash incentive schemes. Today's announcement brings the total allocated to local authorities under the two year initiative to £227 million. Full details of individual allocations to local authorities are set out in a press release which has been placed in the Library.

  Defective Property
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to extend the numbers or types of property covered by the defects liability legislation.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. The Building Research Establishment's comprehensive study of all non-traditional house types has identified no further types which would merit designation under the housing defects legislation.

  London Boroughs (Statutory Burdens)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will examine the scope for additional departmental assistance to outer London boroughs incurring unavoidable additional expenditure outlays from additional statutory burdens since 1987.
  458
  Mr. Portillo
  New responsibilities falling to local authorities are taken into account in the annual local authority finance settlement and are reflected in standard spending assessments for individual authorities.

  For 1991–92 total standard spending assessments for outer London boroughs will increase by 21·5 per cent. and total external support by an estimated 36 per cent. including an estimated 20 per cent. in respect of the new community charge grant announced by my right hon. Friend on 19 March.

  Lambeth Council
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will respond to a request to meet the hon. Member for Norwood to discuss the budget, poll tax and debt write-off of Lambeth council.

  Mr. Key
  I have replied to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the housing investment programme allocations for Lambeth for each of the last five years; to what extent the approved programme has been achieved in Lambeth in each year; and what will be the programme for 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  The total housing capital allocations made to the London borough of Lambeth by central Government for each of the last five years are set out below. Actual expenditure on the housing investment programme is also given; this includes reinvestment of capital receipts. Copies of the council's housing strategy statements, which set out in detail the extent to which expenditure on each element of the proposed programme accorded with the council's original plans, have been placed in the Library of the House. The housing investment programme allocation for the year 1991–92 is £33·2 million—the extent to which the council will incur expenditure above this level is likely to depend on its ability to generate receipts particularly from the right to buy.

  £ million

  Housing capital allocations—total

  Housing investment programme expenditure

  1986–87

  35·6

  56·2

  1987–88

  34·0

  56·6

  1988–89

  30·7

  37·1

  1989–90

  23·5

  68·3

  1990–91

  230·6

  144·7

  1Estimate

  2excludes further resources of approximately £7 million earmarked but not yet allocated

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the urban aid programme allocation for Lambeth for each of the last five years; to what extent it has been taken up by Lambeth in each year; and what will be the allocation for 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The following table gives full details of the London borough of Lambeth's urban programme allocation and outturn figures, excluding the DHA allocation, for the last five years, and the provisional allocation for 1991–92.

  £ million

  Year

  Allocation

  Outturn

  1986–87

  12·566

  10·930

  1987–88

  11·170

  6·421

  1988–89

  9·745

  7·640

  459

  Year

  Allocation

  Outturn

  1989–90

  8·825

  8·563

  1990–91

  8·648

  n/a

  1991–92

  8·434

  n/a

  Environmental Information
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to update Pollution Paper No. 23 (1986) on "Public Access to Environmental Information."

  Mr. Trippier
  No. The paper was the report of an interdepartmental working party. The Government accepted its broad thrust. It also fully supports the EC directive of 7 June 1990 on freedom of access to information on the environment.

  Millbank, London
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer given by the Lord President of the Council on 7 March,Official Report, columns 624–25, about the possible leasing of 7 Millbank, London SW1, for use as offices for hon. Members and staff, how many rooms are available; on what dates in 1991 the offices will become available; what rent is being requested; what length of lease is being sought; and whether any office furniture or catering facilities will be included in any deal.

  Mr. Yeo
  While No. 7 Millbank remains one of a number of properties under consideration there is nothing I can add usefully to the information given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Councils.

  Housing
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total expenditure by his Department on publicising the Homes scheme during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; what steps he has taken to ensure that the rate of expenditure is sufficient to communicate effectively with the section of the community at which it is aimed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  A major part of Homes activity is the general promotion and publicity, throughout the UK, of housing mobility and exchange schemes to local authorities and housing associations, and their tenants. Regular financial and monitoring reports on this work are submitted to the Department. In the current financial year Government funding of Homes is £1·55 million, of which £1·48 million is contributed by the Department of the Environment. £50,000 of this total budget relates specifically to the costs of publicity materials such as application forms, information leaflets and posters.

  Right To Buy
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses and flats were sold in Ealing in each of the past six years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Tables giving the annual total of sales for each English local authority since 1979–80 are in the Library.
  460
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet made a decision in relation to the right to buy of residents of elderly persons' dwellings at Arden close in Weston-super-Mare referred to in letters from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare dated 6 September 1990, 4 December 1990 and 27 February 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  A decision has now been made and I have written to my hon. Friend.

  Nitrogen Oxide
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to put in the Library the final report into evaluation of nitrogen oxide abatement technologies for large combustion plants which he anticipated receiving early in autumn 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  A report on NOx abatement technologies was received by my Department late in 1990. It is still being considered.

  Wandsworth (Housing)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the London borough of Wandsworth to increase the provision of low-cost housing in the borough; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  My Department discusses housing policy issues each year with individual local authorities through the housing investment programme meetings. The London regional office maintains regular contact with the London borough of Wandsworth and other London authorities on all aspects of housing policy. The Housing Corporation also holds discussions about allocations under its approved development programme.

  Environmental Statistics
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the next digest of environmental protection and water statistics.

  Mr. Trippier
  The 13th annual digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Detergents
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report of the study he has commissioned into the problems that may be caused by pollutants in detergents; and what further steps he intends to take.

  Mr. Trippier
  A report "Pollutants in Cleaning Agents" has now been received from Consultants in Environmental Sciences Ltd. and copies are being placed in the Library. We will now be consulting widely on the findings of that study.

  West Yorkshire Residuary Body
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the West Yorkshire residuary body will be dissolved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The West Yorkshire body will formally be dissolved on 31 March 1991 by an order made under
  461
  section 67 of the Local Government Act 1985. The order transfers the remainder of the residuary body's property, functions, rights and liabilities to successor authorities. The residuary body's final report and accounts will be laid before Parliament in due course.

  During the five years since abolition the record of the residuary body has been impressive. It inherited well over 25,000 property interests, as well as numerous other complex rights and liabilities from the former West Yorkshire metropolitan county council. In identifying property which was surplus and successfully bringing it on to the market it showed how unused and underused public assets can be released. As a result the body has been able to distribute to the West Yorkshire districts some £50 million from surplus property sales and revenue balances for the benefit of the local charge payers. This is a remarkable achievement and much credit goes to all concerned for a job well done. I wish to pay tribute to the chairman, Sir Tom McDonald, the board members and staff for the part they have played in this highly successful operation.

  All six metropolitan residuary bodies have now completed their work. This effectively draws to a close a chapter of local government re-organisation.

  West Midlands Residuary Body
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the West Midlands residuary body will be dissolved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The West Midlands residuary body will formally be dissolved on 31 March 1991 by an order made under section 67 of the Local Government Act 1985. The order transfers the remainder of the residuary body's property, functions, rights and liabilities to successor authorities. The residuary body's final report and accounts will be laid before Parliament in due course.

  On abolition the residuary body inherited some 5,000 former county council property interests. Surplus properties of substantial value have been identified and successfully disposed of on the market while those needed for continuing functions have been transferred to the district councils. The residuary body has been able to distribute some £110 million to successors from property sales and revenue balances for the benefit of the local charge payers. It is a credit to all concerned that the residuary body's tasks have been successfully completed within the statutory timescale. I would like to pay tribute to the chairman, Sir Tom McDonald, his predecessor, Dr. Malcolm Skillcorn, the board members and the staff for their contribution to this achievement.

  Economically active and unemployed by social class

  Great Britain, Spring 1990

  Economically active2

  Unemployed3

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  All persons1

  28,037

  100

  1,869

  100

  Professional and Intermediate Occupations

  8,283

  30

  187

  10

  Skilled Occupations

  13,117

  47

  604

  32

  Partly skilled Occupations

  4,315

  15

  300

  16

  Unskilled Occupations

  1,373

  5

  133

  7

  1Includes some who did not adequately describe their occupation or who were not asked.

  2Includes those in employment and the unemployed.

  462
  All six metropolitan residuary bodies have now completed their work. This effectively draws to a close a chapter of local government reorganisation.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to modify the transitional arrangements for non-domestic rates.

  Mr. Key
  We have today issued a consultation paper on proposals which would mean that private sector companies winning contracts to carry out defined activities would, when the previous occupier of the premises was the local authority, be eligible for transitional relief under the new non-domestic rating system.

  These proposals are intended to restore competitiveness for private sector companies bidding for local authority contracts under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Under the present rules, transitional relief is generally lost when there is a change of occupier of a building. This means that private sector firms tendering to take over work previously done by a local authority would have to include the higher costs of the full rates bill in their bid. The new rules would put them on an equal footing.

  It would not be necessary for an authority's direct services organisation to participate in the tendering process for a firm to qualify for relief, but relief would cease if there were any further change of occupation.

  We would propose to introduce the necessary regulations as soon as possible after consultation. I have placed a copy of the consultation paper in the Library.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is carrying out a similar exercise and a copy of his consultation paper has also been placed in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of(a) unskilled, (b) semi-skilled and (c) skilled persons (i) in the entire work force and (ii) classified as unemployed in Britain; and what information he has on conparable figures in other Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development countries, showing in each case the actual figure and percentage of the total work force.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Great Britain labour force survey provides estimates of people in skilled occupations. Preliminary results from the 1990 labour force survey are shown in the following table:
  463
  3The social class of the unemployed is based on their previous occupation, except for those who left their last job more than three years ago, or who have never had a job, who are not asked about their previous occupation.

  Source: 1990 Labour Force Survey, preliminary results.

  This does not exactly equate to skilled persons. For instance, skilled people working in unskilled occupations will be classified as unskilled. No reliable comparable figures are available for other OECD countries.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are employed in all aspects of paying unemployment benefit and dealing with tribunals and fraud; and how many separate premises they occupy.

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

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are employed in(a) unemployment benefit offices, (b) job centres, (c) the Training Agency and (d) the remainder of his Department; and how many separate buildings are occupied for each.

  Mr. Jackson
  I regret that the information is not readily available in the form requested. As at 1 January 1991 there were 26,040 people employed in the Employment Service local office network which comprises unemployment benefit offices and jobcentres. There were 990 staff employed in the training, enterprise and education directorate, formerly the Training Agency headquarters, and 8,266 in the ED headquarters regions, formerly the Training Agency regions. There were 14,909 staff employed in the remainder of the ED group.

  There are 676 buildings occupied by unemployment benefit offices, 680 by jobcentres and 300 by integrated offices. There are 107 buildings occupied by TEED and ED headquarters regional offices. The remainder of the ED group occupies 282 buildings.

  Employment Training, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to enable Bradford and District training and enterprise council to assist the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders employment training centre in Bradford to continue; how many trainees are currently receiving training at NACRO in Bradford; what training is available; what alternative training will be offered to NACRO trainees if the Bradford centre closes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The responsibility for identifying and meeting local training and enterprise needs in Bradford rests with Bradford and District training and enterprise council. It is for Bradford TEC to use its resources to decide which organisations it contracts with to ensure that these needs are met, and I cannot intervene in their contracting decisions.

  NACRO in Bradford provides employment training in clerical, secretarial and elementary occupations, and also initial training via a subcontractor. As at 1 March 1991, 79 ET trainees were in training.

  Bradford and District TEC has offered NACRO three contract closure options. NACRO has expressed a
  464
  preference for a residual contract to 30 June 1991 at new funding rates and are currently giving this further consideration. This would enable most trainees to complete their ET with NACRO.

  There are many other local training providers offering similar training to that provided by NACRO. Bradford and District TEC will seek to minimise any disruption caused to those trainees who are required to transfer to another training provider to complete their training.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the report by the Robens Institute at Surrey university into accidents in the youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

  We have recently been given further attention to the needs of trainees in the new training environment created by the advent of training and enterprise councils, and other initiatives such as the introduction of employment training, youth training and training credits.

  Our policy for the health and safety of trainees has been in place for a number of years, as the youth opportunities programme and youth training schemes followed by ET and YT, have evolved. The foundations of this policy are that the primary legal and moral responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of trainees rests with those who are providing the training, whether in a college or in the workplace. To this end we have provided in the Health and Safety (Training for Employment) Regulations 1990 for unemployed trainees in training with an employer to have the same legal protection under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as they would if they were employees. The Government will use their best endeavours to ensure that those responsible for arranging and delivering training understand their obligations and are given appropriate help and support in carrying them out.

  It is our aim to promote quality training programmes which enjoy the full confidence of the public. This includes firm policies for accident prevention and occupational health protection. As part of the training objective we aim to provide each trainee with health and safety skills and knowledge which they can carry forward into their working life.

  Through their contracts with my Department TECs are contractually bound to have satisfactory systems to ensure their providers and their sub-contractors have adequate health and safety arrangements. My Department, through its regional offices, appraises TEC proposals in these respects and monitors performance when contracts are signed. To enhance the ability of the regional offices to perform this task their professional resources—regional safety advisers—are being strengthened overall.

  We are also embarking on a range of other new measures. The existing publications and training materials provided by the Department are being reviewed, evaluated and then revised to provide relevant and up-to-date support and guidance to trainers and trainees alike. Gaps in existing provision will be identified and new products developed.
  465
  For TECs we will be examining a targeted approach to their health and safety activities. Our aim is to establish standards to which they can work and by which their performance can be measured.

  With the Health and Safety Executive we will be looking at the consequences of coming European Community legislation for health and safety training and the health and safety content of national vocational qualifications.

  Finally, taking into account the recommendations of the Robens Institute report a working group including representative of TECs is looking at the need of accident data collection in relation to employment training and youth training in the TEC era.

  Altogether this represents a very considerable commitment of public resources to the health and safety of trainees.

  Regional Offices (Expenditure)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table of expenditure showing the cost of running each regional office of his Department and the cost of running sub-regional offices aggregated by region and with London shown separately, for 1989–90 and excluding the funding programmes operated by the offices.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Financial year 1989–90

  Outturn

  Region

  Regional office

  Area office

  Total

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  South East

  2,985

  9,548

  12,534

  London

  4,586

  9,558

  14,144

  South West

  1,816

  5,919

  7,735

  West Midlands

  3,450

  7,624

  11,074

  East Midlands

  2,251

  7,680

  9,931

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,959

  6,759

  9,719

  North West

  2,866

  11,671

  14,537

  Northern

  2,322

  5,859

  8,181

  Wales

  1,975

  5,306

  7,282

  Scotland

  3,876

  8,469

  12,345

  TOTAL

  29,087

  78,393

  107,480

  Note: All figures are £'000s and show the cost of former Training Agency offices.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Overseas Electors Scheme
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost, broken down into all expenditure heads, of the implementation of the overseas electors scheme.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The main extra costs involved in implementing the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1989 are set out in the table. The staffing costs were absorbed within existing provision and are not separately identifiable.
  466

  £

  Advertising campaign (Home Office)

  480,000

  Leaflets and posters (including distribution costs)

  63,000

  Application forms

  40,000

  Advertising campaign (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

  250,000

  Administration costs (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

  100,000

  Costs to local authorities (1990–91)

  '86,000

  Total

  1,019,000

  1Estimate.

  Volunteer Centre UK
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Volunteer Centre UK to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am glad to lend my support to such an exhibition, which will encourage attention to the value of volunteering and to the contribution which the Volunteer Centre UK makes in promoting it. I understand that the exhibition will take place from 24 to 28 June and I look forward to visiting it.

  Legislation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the differences between the legislation in force in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) England and Wales with respect to (i) the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, (ii) the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and (iii) codes of practice made under these Acts, and similar legislation applying to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 extends to the whole of the United Kingdom with the exception of the provisions listed in section 28(2) of the Act. The differences between the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 were set out in the explanatory document to the 1989 order, a copy of which was sent to the hon. Member in July 1988. The main difference between the four codes of practice issued under article 65 of the 1989 order and the four codes issued under section 66 of the 1984 Act which came into force in England and Wales on 1 January 1986 is that the Northern Ireland codes of practice do not apply to the exercise of powers conferred by or under the Prevention of Terrorism Act or to arrest or detention under that Act. In addition, the Northern Ireland code C for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers reflects the provisions of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 which has no equivalent in England and Wales.

  Business Corruption
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory provisions that relate to the offer of corrupt inducements to employees.

  Mr. John Patten
  In England and Wales the principal legislative provisions relating to the bribery of employees
  467
  are the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1906 and 1916. Bribery of a public official is also an offence at common law.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to seek to amend the law relating to business corruption.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any new appointments have been made to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Miss Beryl Wallis, who retired from a senior post in IBM United Kingdom Ltd. in February 1991, has accepted my invitation to serve as a member of the Police Complaints Authority. She will take up her post on 29 April 1991.

  Brigadier Anthony Vivian, who was until 4 March 1990 colonel of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, has accepted my invitation to serve as a member of the Police Complaints Authority. He will take up his post on 2 April 1991.

  Forensic Science Agency
  Sir Gerrard Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards establishing the forensic science service as an executive agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am pleased to announce that the Forensic Science Service will be established on 1 April 1991 as an executive agency of the Home Office. The FSS plays a vital role in the administration of justice principally by providing scientific support in the investigation of crime and expert evidence to the courts.

  From 1 April the FSS will recover its full costs through charging its customers direct for the services it provides. In preparation for this the FSS last year made substantial changes in its organisation and style of operation. Agency status will give the FSS the managerial and financial freedom it needs to continue improving its efficiency and effectiveness thereby giving its customers better value for money. It will also enable the FSS to maintain its high standards of scientific work and quality. I have set the agency challenging performance targets including recovery of full costs, a unit cost of £579·50 and a unit cost productivity gain of 1·75 per cent. in 1991–92.

  I have appointed Dr. Janet Thompson, the director general of the FSS, as its first chief executive. Details of the

  Applications 12received for asylum in the United Kingdom, by location3of application and nationality: 1989–90

  1989

  1990

  Q3

  Q4

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Made on Entry

  Made after entry

  Made on entry

  Made after entry

  Made on entry

  Made after entry

  Made on entry

  Made after entry

  Made on entry

  Made after entry

  Europe

  Czechoslovakia

  5

  30

  *

  5

  —

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hungary

  —

  5

  *

  *

  —

  *

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Poland

  —

  15

  *

  10

  —

  5

  —

  5

  —

  *

  Romania

  —

  *

  —

  5

  —

  5

  —

  20

  *

  75

  Turkey

  10

  125

  20

  105

  10

  125

  40

  170

  170

  80

  Yugoslavia

  5

  5

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  *

  *

  Others

  *

  25

  5

  15

  5

  20

  5

  30

  5

  60

  Total

  25

  210

  30

  145

  20

  155

  45

  230

  180

  220

  468
  principles by which the FSS will operate are set out in the framework document, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Passport Department
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards establishing the passport department as an executive agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am pleased to announce that the passport department of the Home Office will be established as an executive agency on 2 April. The full title of the agency will be the United Kingdom Passport Agency. I shall be placing a copy of the agency's framework document in the Library.

  The main aim of the passport agency will be to provide passport services to British nationals promptly and economically. The agency will be starting from a sound base in fulfilling this aim. I am confident that the enhanced freedoms and responsibilities which the framework document grants to it will enable it to deliver further improvements in its service to customers while providing better value for money.

  The key targets which I have set the agency for its first year of operation are:

  (i) to reduce the time taken to process properly completed, straightforward applications to a maximum of 20 working days in the period of peak demand from January to July and to a maximum of 10 working days at other times.

  (ii) to reduce unit costs by at least 2.3 per cent. in real terms.

  The chief executive will be directly accountable to me for the performance of the passport agency. An advisory board including two private sector members with experience of delivering services to the public will help me to assess the agency's performance.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum, by nationality, were made(a) on entry and (b) after entry to the United Kingdom in each month since June 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: The readily available information is given in the following table. Some of the figures for 1990 will understate because of delays in recording. Reliable figures for the fourth quarter of 1990 are not yet available.
  469

  1989

  1990

  Q3

  Q4

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Made on Entry

  Made after entry

  Made on entry

  Made after entry

  Made on entry

  Made after entry

  Made on entry

  Made after entry

  Made on entry

  Made after entry

  Americas

  Chile

  *

  5

  —

  5

  —

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Colombia

  15

  10

  10

  15

  10

  10

  25

  25

  15

  15

  Others

  —

  5

  —

  5

  5

  10

  5

  10

  5

  10

  Total

  20

  20

  10

  25

  15

  20

  30

  35

  15

  20

  Africa

  Angola

  25

  65

  20

  70

  65

  75

  95

  135

  65

  100

  Ethiopia

  100

  125

  140

  105

  75

  120

  225

  160

  490

  460

  Ghana

  5

  85

  20

  120

  30

  190

  25

  140

  20

  385

  Libya

  —

  5

  —

  5

  —

  *

  *

  5

  —

  5

  Seychelles

  *

  10

  5

  10

  *

  10

  —

  5

  *

  *

  Somalia

  795

  205

  815

  110

  400

  75

  315

  195

  600

  505

  South Africa

  *

  5

  5

  *

  *

  10

  *

  5

  *

  *

  Sudan

  5

  45

  *

  60

  —

  60

  —

  40

  —

  40

  Uganda

  295

  195

  330

  215

  250

  210

  320

  230

  410

  540

  Zaire

  5

  190

  50

  275

  5

  420

  40

  400

  80

  1,140

  Others

  *

  35

  5

  25

  25

  60

  25

  35

  35

  35

  Total

  1,230

  960

  1,390

  990

  855

  1,235

  1,045

  1,350

  1,700

  3,215

  Middle East

  Iran

  35

  90

  50

  70

  65

  45

  40

  50

  60

  75

  Iraq

  65

  55

  75

  25

  135

  25

  145

  55

  395

  135

  Lebanon

  20

  35

  65

  35

  60

  40

  45

  15

  165

  115

  Syria

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  *

  5

  —

  *

  *

  Others

  *

  5

  —

  20

  *

  10

  5

  5

  *

  15

  Total

  120

  195

  190

  160

  260

  120

  240

  120

  625

  340

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  25

  5

  20

  5

  20

  5

  35

  20

  45

  30

  Bangladesh

  *

  —

  —

  *

  *

  5

  5

  10

  *

  5

  India

  *

  175

  *

  245

  5

  335

  —

  330

  5

  410

  Pakistan

  —

  70

  *

  135

  10

  185

  5

  165

  15

  415

  Sri Lanka

  270

  275

  760

  285

  560

  220

  510

  200

  540

  305

  Others

  5

  45

  5

  35

  10

  30

  —

  20

  —

  55

  Total

  300

  565

  785

  710

  600

  780

  555

  740

  605

  1,225

  Other and unknown nationality

  25

  40

  65

  25

  50

  25

  65

  20

  75

  25

  Grand Total

  1,715

  1,985

  2,470

  2,050

  1,800

  2,340

  1,980

  2,495

  3,200

  5,040

  1Provisional and estimated figures: some of those for 1990 will understate because of delays in recording. Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = less than 3.

  2Including dependants applying with the principal applicant, and those, to date, arriving subsequently but before the principal application was decided. Figures are tabulated by the date and location of the principal application.

  3Excluding applications made from overseas.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing how many cattle in the past three years have been certified as suffering from BSE; of these how many were(a) cows of generally recognised milk breeds and (b) cows of generally recognised beef breeds; how many of the cows in each case were (i) under three years old, (ii) between three and six years old, (iii) between six and nine years old and (iv) over nine years; and how many cattle so certified were (1) maiden heifers of milk breeds, (2) maiden heifers of beef breeds, (3) bulls (A) under and (B) over three years, (4) steers and (5) calves.

  Mr. Maclean
  From when the disease was first identified in November 1986 up to and including 18 M arch 1991 the total number of confirmed cases of BSE in the United Kingdom was 25,826. Out of these, 24 were in cattle whose dams were themselves affected and 23 of these were born before the introduction, in July 1988, of the ban on the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants, and were 470
  exposed to a source of food-borne infection. The single remaining case was born in November 1988, after the imposition of the feed ban. This one animal should not have been fed on ruminant-derived protein and its feeding regime, and other possible sources of infection, are being investigated. The possibility of maternal transmission is one that will have to be examined.

  In a MAFF research project studying under controlled conditions 316 calves of cows affected with BSE, no animal has yet succumbed to BSE, even though 262 of them are older than the single case already mentioned. Even if this were a case of maternal transmission, it would have no significance for public health. The measures taken to deal with BSE (the slaughter and destruction of suspect animals, and a ban on the use for human or animal consumption of those tissues that might harbour the agent in pre-clinical cases) apply in all cases, regardless of how infection might have been acquired. The only significance for animal health might be that if maternal transmission were found to occur in some cases, eradication of BSE might take rather longer than would otherwise be the case. This was a point addressed by Dr. David Tyrell in his

  471
  advice to the Government. He concluded that no Government action was necessary to control the use for breeding of the offspring of cattle affected by BSE.

  The rest of the information requested is as follows (excluding unattributable cases):

  Dairy mixed herds

  Beef herds

  Calves

  0

  0

  Maiden heifers

  0

  0

  Under 3 years

  Cows

  101

  11

  Bulls

  0

  1

  3 to 5 years inclusive

  Cows

  17,542

  1,050

  Bulls

  32

  14

  Steers

  1

  0

  6 to 9 years inclusive

  Cows

  4,440

  334

  Bulls

  11

  3

  10 years and over

  Cows

  46

  13

  Bulls

  0

  0

  United Kingdom usage of:

  million tonnes

  Wheat

  All cereals (excluding rice)

  Human consumption

  Animal feed

  1Other processes

  Losses

  Human consumption

  Animal feed

  1Other processes

  Losses

  1979–80

  51·(1·2)

  3·9 (0·9)

  0·3 (0·0)

  0·1 (0·0)

  6·4 (0·5)

  11·6·(1·0)

  3·5(0·3)

  0·3(0·0)

  1980–81

  5·0(1·1)

  3·6(0·8)

  0·3(0·0)

  0·1(0·0)

  6·2(0·5)

  10·7(0·9)

  3·1(0·3)

  0·3(0·0)

  1981–82

  4·8 (1·0)

  3·-4(0·7)

  0·3(0·0)

  0·2(0·0)

  6·2(0·5)

  9·6(0·8)

  3·0(0·2)

  0·3(0·0)

  1982–83

  4·9(1·0)

  3·9(0·8)

  0·3(0·0)

  0·2(0·0)

  6·3(0·5)

  10·2(0·8)

  3·0(0·2)

  0·4(0·0)

  1983–84

  5·0(1·0)

  4·0(0·8)

  0·3(0·0)

  0·2(0·0)

  6·3(0·5)

  10·2(0·9)

  3·1(0·3)

  0·4(0·0)

  1984–85

  4·8(0·9)

  4·9(0·9)

  0·5(0·1)

  0·2(0·0)

  6·0(0·4)

  10·0(0·7)

  2·8(0·2)

  0·5(0·0)

  1985–86

  4·9(1·0)

  5·5(1·1)

  0·6(0·1)

  0·2(0·0)

  6·1(0·4)

  10·3(0·7)

  2·7(0·2)

  0·4(0·0)

  1986–87

  4·9(0·9)

  6·2(1·1)

  0·7(0·1)

  0·3(0·0)

  6·2(0·4)

  11·2(0·8)

  2·7(0·2)

  0·5(0·0)

  1987–88

  5·7(1·1)

  5·7(1·1)

  0·8(0·2)

  0·2(0·0)

  6·5(0·5)

  10·5(0·8)

  2·9(0·2)

  0·4(0·0)

  1988–89

  5·4(1·0)

  5·2(1·0)

  0·9(0· 2)

  0·2(0·0)

  6·5(0·5)

  10·0(0·8)

  3·0(0·2)

  0·4(0·0)

  1989–90

  5·1(0·9)

  5·4(1·0)

  0·9(0·2)

  0·3(0·0)

  6·5(0·5)

  10·0(0·7)

  3·4(0·2)

  0·4(0·0)

  1Industrial uses, including grains for malting, plus seeds.

  Notes:

  Figures in parenthesis are quantities used as percentage of world production. (0·0) Negligible.

  Source: MAFF.

  European Community1Usage of

  million tonnes

  Wheat (including durum)

  All Cereals (excluding rice)

  Human Consumption

  Animal Feed

  2Other Processes

  Losses

  Human Consumption

  Animal Feed

  2Other Processes

  Losses

  1979–80

  28·0 (6·5)

  12·4 (2·9)

  2·6 (0·6)

  0·6(0·1)

  30·7 (2·6)

  72·9 (6·2)

  15·0(1·3)

  1·7(0·1)

  1980–81

  32·2 (7·2)

  13·8(3·1)

  3·2 (0·7)

  0·6 (0·1)

  35·5 (3·0)

  86·5 (7·4)

  —

  1·9 (0·2)

  1981–82

  31·8 (7·0)

  14·2(3·1)

  3·2 (0·7)

  0·6(0·1)

  35·2 (2·8)

  85·7 (6·9)

  —

  1·8(0·1)

  1982–83

  30·7 (6·4)

  15·5 (3·2)

  3·4 (0·7)

  0·7 (0·1)

  35·4 (2·8)

  86·1 (6·7)

  —

  1·9(0·1)

  1983–84

  30·7 (6·2)

  21·2 (4·3)

  3·7 (0·7)

  0·8 (0·2)

  35·5 (3·0)

  87·4 (7·3)

  —

  1·8 (0·2)

  1984–85

  31·5 (6·1)

  23·0 (4·4)

  3·9 (0·8)

  0·9 (0·2)

  36·6 (2·7)

  90·3 (6·8)

  15·6 (1·2)

  2·2 (0·2)

  1985–86

  31·7 (6·3)

  22·5 (4·4)

  4·1 (0·8)

  0·9 (0·2)

  36·7 (2·7)

  87·8 (6·4)

  15·8 (1·2)

  2·1 (0·2)

  1986–87

  31·6 (5·9)

  23·5 (4·4)

  4·3 (0·8)

  0·9 (0·2)

  36·6 (2·6)

  84·8 (6·1)

  15·5 (1·1)

  2·1 (0·2)

  1987–88

  31·9 (6·2)

  21·1 (4·1)

  4·4 (0·9)

  0·9 (0·2)

  37·0 (2·8)

  80·3 (6·1)

  16·0 (1·2)

  2·0 (0·2)

  1988–89

  31·6 (6·2)

  21·2 (4·2)

  4·9 (1·0)

  0·9 (0·2)

  36·7 (2·9)

  80·7 (6·4)

  16·3 (1·3)

  2·1 (0·2)

  1989–90

  31·3 (5·8)

  21·6 (4·0)

  5·0 (0·9)

  0·4(0·1)

  35·6 (2·6)

  78·2 (5·7)

  16·6 (1·2)

  1·1 (0·1)

  1EC 10 for 1979–80; EC 12 from 1980–81 to 1989–90.

  2Industrial usage and seed.

  Notes:

  Figures in parenthesis are quantities used as percentage of world production. MAFF estimates using FAO data or world production. — Not available.

  Sources: Eurostat and Commission of the European Communities.

  Cereals
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity of(a) wheat and (b) all cereals produced in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the EEC, (iii) north America, and (iv) the rest of the world has been used in each year since 1979 (1) for human consumption, (2) for animal feed, (3) for other processes, and (4) destroyed; and if he will give these figures as a percentage of world production in each case.

  Mr. Curry
  The information, where readily available, is shown in the tables, the coverage of which varies according to sources. No information is available on the destruction of grain, but data on losses are shown where recorded. Information on the rest of the world as a whole is not readily available in the form requested.
  473

  United States cereals usage

  million tonnes

  Wheat

  1All cereals

  2Food

  Seed

  Animal feed

  2Food, alcohol, seed

  Animal feed

  1979–80

  16·6 (3·9)

  2·7 (0·6)

  2·3 (0·5)

  39·8 (3·4)

  142·2 (12·1)

  1980–81

  16·6 (3·7)

  3·1 (0·7)

  1·6 (0·4)

  39·5 (3·4)

  125·6 (10·8)

  1981–82

  16·4 (3·6)

  2·9 (0·6)

  3·7 (0·8)

  41·1 (3·3)

  131·3 (10·6)

  1982–83

  16·7 (3·5)

  2·6 (0·5)

  5·3 (1·1)

  47·5 (3·7)

  144·6 (11·2)

  1983–84

  17·5 (3·5)

  2·7 (0·5)

  10·0 (2·0)

  50·3 (4·2)

  130·0 (10·9)

  1984–85

  17·7 (3·4)

  2·7 (0·5)

  11·0 (2·1)

  53·5 (4·0)

  141·6 (10·6)

  1985–86

  18·4 (3·6)

  2·5 (0·5)

  7·4 (1·5)

  56·2 (4·1)

  142·5 (10·4)

  1986–87

  19·7 (3·7)

  2·3 (0·4)

  10·5 (2·0)

  57·6 (4·2)

  155·9 (11·3)

  1987–88

  19·55 (3·8)

  2·3 (0·5)

  7·8 (1·5)

  58·9 (4·4)

  153·6 (11·6)

  1988–89

  22·25 (4·4)

  4·3 (0·8)

  60·0 (4·8)

  124·1 (9·9)

  1989–90

  22·63 (4·2)

  4·3 (0·8)

  61·6 (4·5)

  138·8 (10·1)

  1Covers wheat, maize, barley, oats, sorghum, rye but excludes
  rice.

  2No disaggregation between usage for direct human consumption and
  industrial processes available.

  Notes:

  Figures in parenthesis are quantities used as percentage of world production. MAFF estimates
  using FAO data on world production.

  Sources: USDA Agricultural Statistics 1989 and Agricultural Outlook, March 1991.

  Usage of cereals in Canada

  Million tonnes

  Wheat (including durum)

  All cereals

  Year

  Food and industrial use

  Animal feed

  Seed

  Food and industrial use

  Feed, seed and losses

  1979–80

  1·9 (0·4)

  2·7 (0·6)

  1·0 (0·2)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1980–81

  1·8 (0·4)

  2·2 (0·5)

  1·1 (0·2)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1981–82

  1·9 (0·4)

  2·1 (0·5)

  1·1 (0·2)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1982–83

  2·0 (0·4)

  1·8 (0·4)

  1·2 (0·2)

  3·6 (0·3)

  20·0 (1·6)

  1983–84

  2·0 (0·4)

  2·3 (0·5)

  1·2 (0·2)

  3·7 (0·3)

  20·5 (1·7)

  1984–85

  2·0 (0·4)

  2·0 (0·4)

  1·3 (0·3)

  3·6 (0·3)

  20·1 (1·5)

  1985–86

  2·1 (0·4)

  2·1 (0·4)

  1·3 (0·3)

  3·9 (0·3)

  20·7 (1·5)

  1986–87

  2·0 (0·4)

  2·4 (0·4)

  1·1 (0·2)

  4·0 (0·3)

  21·4 (1· 5)

  1987–88

  2·2 (0·4)

  4·5 (0·9)

  1·2 (0·2)

  4·0 (0·3)

  23·9 (1·8)

  1988–89

  2·2 (0·4)

  2·0 (0·4)

  1·3 (0·3)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1989–90

  2·3 (0·4)

  1·9 (0·4)

  1·3 (0·2)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Notes:

  Figures in parenthesis are quantities used as percentage of world production. MAFF estimates using FAO data on world production. n.a. Not available.

  Sources:International Wheat Council and Agriculture Canada.

  Water Supplies, Kuwait
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance scientists from his Department are offering to Kuwait to(a) seal off chemicals from bombed chemical plants to prevent them from getting into the water table, (b) mitigate the effects of faecal-oral infection from damaged sewerage systems and (c) restore irrigation and water course systems damaged by military action in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Curry
  We have had no requests from Gulf states for assistance with these matters. The requests the Government have received have focused on the priority tasks of tackling oil and atmospheric pollution and we have of course responded urgently and positively by providing manpower, equipment and funds. The Government are also ready to help in identifying appropriate United Kingdom science expertise in relation to Gulf environmental problems.

  EC Food Surpluses
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that the EC food mountains are redistributed to those in need, particularly in the third world; and if he will make a statement.
  474
  Mr. Curry
  The European Community sends surplus food as short-term aid to famine areas, but it is often more cost effective to purchase food supplies from sources nearby. In the longer term, food aid is not an effective solution to food shortages, as it can hinder the development of local food production by depressing agricultural markets and increasing demand for imported products. The Government's policy is to supply cash, expertise, machinery and seeds to developing countries in order to improve their ability to feed themselves. The Government are also committed to securing overall reductions in the level of support and protection for Community agriculture, which would be of benefit to development countries.

  Manpower Statistics
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the changes in the manpower numbers and manpower costs that are expected for each of the directorate of fisheries research, the sea fisheries inspectorate and the marine environmental protection division, and the reasons for those changes, between 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows:
  475

  1989–90

  1990–911

  1991–922

  (a) Directorate of fisheries research

  (i) Average staff-in-post

  423·5

  417

  419

  (ii) Total pay costs £'000

  6,425

  7,032

  7,736

  (b) Sea fisheries inspectorate

  (i) Average staff-in-post

  92

  96

  99

  (ii) Total pay costs £'000

  1,228

  1,401

  1,636

  (c) Marine environmental protection division

  (i) Average staff-in-post

  20

  22·5

  23

  (ii) Total pay costs £'000

  327

  411

  439

  1Estimate.

  2Forecast.

  Variations in numbers of staff in post in the directorate and inspectorate reflect in the main difficulties in recruitment of staff to fill vacancies. Additional staff were appointed to the marine environmental protection division to ensure effective administration of licensing controls.

  Waste (Sea Disposal)
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what cost increase identified in his recent departmental audit will be reflected in increased fees charged for work connected with the licensing of the sea disposal of waste.

  Mr. Curry
  A departmental audit showed that departmental overhead expenditure had not hitherto been fully reflected in standard departmental costs used in the calculation of all its chargeable operations including licence fees for sea disposal. Necessary changes in central London accommodation also served to increase overheads.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reasons he has for assuming 8 per cent. inflation for the fiscal year 1991–92 when assessing fees charged for work connected with the licensing of the sea disposal of waste.

  Mr. Curry
  The 8 per cent. figure was not intended to be a forecast of the general rate of inflation over the coming year. It is a planning figure which the Department has used as a realistic estimate of the likely increase in the cost of certain elements, including pay costs, which are included in the calculations of our fees for sea disposal licences.

  Nobel House
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reason for moving part of the Ministry from Great Westminster house to Nobel house, including the cost effects of that move.

  Mr. Curry
  The move of some 1,100 staff of this Ministry from Great Westminster house at the end of 1988 was necessary because the lease had expired and the building was to be demolished. For reasons of working efficiency it was decided that the displaced staff should be rehoused in central London reasonably close to our Whitehall offices. The only suitable accommodation which the PSA were able to provide was in Nobel house and part of the adjacent building, Ergon house.

  The costs falling to this Ministry for refurbishment, construction and fitting out of both buildings, which was
  476
  managed by the PSA, totalled approximately £14 million, with a further £484,000 for IT cabling and £97,000 for removals. Annual accommodation charges increased by some £5 million from the relatively low level the Ministry was paying for poor quality accommodation on a long lease. This is offset to a degree by a significant decrease in maintenance and fuel and utilities costs.

  Horticulture Research International
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 21 March, if he will list the sources and amounts of funding of Horticulture Research International; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Horticulture Research International is funded by its annual research commissions with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, grant in aid from the Agricultural and Food Research Council, and research contracts with a range of customers including the United Kingdom horticulture industry. In 1991–92 this funding is expected to amount to some £12·7 million, £3·0 million, and £2·9 million respectively.

  Sheep Variable Premium
  Sir Michael Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has reached a decision on the future of the sheep variable premium scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The reformed EC sheepmeat regime adopted in 1989 provided for sheep variable premium, which operates in Great Britain only, to be phased out by the end of the 1992 marketing year at the latest. In the negotiations on the review of the regime the United Kingdom secured the right to end the scheme before that date. Last summer, Ministers decided that variable premium should continue to operate in 1991 but that the arrangements for 1992 should be reviewed early in 1991.

  My right hon. Friend and I have now carried out that review, taking account of the views of interested parties. In the light of comments received and the experience of the phasing out process so far, we have concluded that the sheep variable premium should be terminated at the end of the 1991 marketing year.

  With the ending of variable premium, support to producers in Great Britain under the sheep regime will switch entirely to the sheep annual premium, which will no longer suffer a reduction to take account of variable premium. At the same time the clawback charge on exports of lamb from Great Britain to the rest of the Community will be abolished. From then on support in Great Britain will be on the same basis as in Northern Ireland and the rest of the European Community with a unified system for calculating sheep premium applying in all member states.

  The Government are announcing the end of variable premium well in advance of the effective date to remove uncertainty about the future arrangements and to allow all concerned time to adjust to the new circumstances that will apply from the beginning of the 1992 marketing year. Sheep producers will then have the opportunity and challenges of a more open market. I am sure they will respond with the quality produce which makes British lamb such an excellent product.

  Scrapie
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there is a vaccine available for the prevention of scrapie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held on 25 and 26 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), Parliamentary Secretary in my Department.

  Discussion concentrated on the Commission's proposals for the 1991 price fixing. Most member states argued that the agricultural guideline should be increased purportedly to take account of German unification. This would allow for a laxer settlement and temporarily enable the Council to avoid some of the difficult issues. I argued strongly, with support from my Netherlands colleague, that the major problems stemmed from market imbalance in several sectors and that these should be addressed as a matter of urgency, so that a decision fully compatible with the guideline could be reached. The Commission also remained firmly of this view.

  I also argued that substantial steps should be taken towards eliminating monetary compensatory amounts by adjusting green currencies, including the full alignment of the rate for the green pound. This is necessary to allow the single market to function effectively and to ensure fair competition between producers and traders in all member states.

  I also raised the continuing problem of low-priced imports of soft fruit from eastern Europe. Despite initial hesitations the Commission indicated that they would extend the present safeguard measures until 31 July.

DEFENCE

  The Gulf
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of his departmental investigations into friendly fire incidents between allied troops in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes, when our investigations are complete.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the firms employed to transport by sea, ammunition, explosives and detonators to the Army in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For reasons of operational security it is not the practice to disclose the arrangements for transporting ammunition and similar items to Northern Ireland.

  Rainfall
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what was the measurement of rainfall during the 24 hours at(a) Ballycastle district on 27–28 October 1990 and (b) Strangford lough area on 5–6 January.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In the 24-hour period starting 0900 on 27 October 1990, 72·8mm of rainfall was recorded at Ballycastle Glenowen and 71·5mm at Ballycastle Magherintemple. In the 24-hour period starting 0900 on 5 January 1991, 12·8mm of rainfall was recorded at Hare island, in the Strangford area.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers commanding officers in Territorial Army units have(a) currently and (b) as envisaged under the new management strategy to appoint and dismiss civilian employees such as secretaries, clerks and storemen; and whether under NMS such commanding officers will be allowed to transfer funds between civilian posts and other options, such as buying secretarial services from an agency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Currently, commanding officers of Territorial Army units may appoint industrial employees only within complement and funding limits. No powers of dismissal are delegated below rank of Colonel. No change in these personnel management arrangements is planned under NMS, but funds may be transferred by a budget holder between a range of resources to enable a service to be provided in the most efficient manner. Commanding officers of Territorial Army units will not be budget holders under NMS and will not, therefore, have powers to transfer funds.

  HMS Endurance
  Sir Geoffrey Finsherg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with regard to the programming and design for the replacement of HMS Endurance; when the relevant studies commenced; and when is it expected that a definitive conclusion will be reached.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Studies into the requirement for replacing HMS Endurance commenced last year and are continuing.

  RAF Waddington
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what complaints have been received by the base commander at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire about noise; and what action has been taken.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Currently RAF Waddington does not house any operational squadrons and therefore receives only occasional noise complaints. Each complaint is dealt with as appropriate to the particular case.

  Plymouth (Empty Properties)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's residential properties are empty within the city of Plymouth; for how long they have been empty; and whether he will transfer them to the local authority or housing association for local use.
  479
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, 406 married quarters and 11 Ministry of Defence civilian properties in the Plymouth area were vacant. Of the married quarters 29 had been vacant for over a year and 377 for under a year; of the civilian properties seven had been vacant for over six months and four for less than six months. In addition, 275 dwellings were in the process of being sold. Not all empty properties are surplus to requirements, many are either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some are already allotted to service families who are due to move in shortly and others are being considered for disposal. Surplus dwellings are normally offered for sale to service personnel through the services' discount scheme or sold by competitive tender. It is therefore not possible to transfer empty dwellings to local authorities or housing associations.

  Nuclear Tests
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department was informed of the leak of Zenon 133 from the nuclear test conducted by the United Kingdom in Nevada in November 1990; what reporting arrangements exist with the United States authorities to inform Her Majesty's Government of radioactive releases from British tests; and what health dangers were posed arising from the leak.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have recently ascertained that there was an extremely minor leak of radioactive gas from the joint UK-US Houston nuclear test carried out at the Nevada test site in November 1990. All information which the MOD receives on such tests is channelled through the United States department of energy in Washington DC. The release posed no danger to the health of people either on or off the site.

  Directorate-General of Military Survey
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the directorate-general of military survey is to become a defence support agency as foreshadowed in his statement to the House on 18 October 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The military survey will become a defence support agency (DSA) on 1 April 1991. Its first chief executive will be Major-General R. Wood.

  Military survey is an integral part of the Ministry of Defence and will continue to act as the MOD's specialist authority on all geographic support matters, other than hydrographic aspects. Geographic support embraces the provision of maps, surveys and other geographical materials as well as direct support in the field, and technical services and advice, all of which are essential to the capability of the armed forces to plan, train and fight.

  The agency will seek to achieve progressive improvements in operational effectiveness, standards of service,
  480
  quality, cost effectiveness and efficiency. The chief executive has initially been set the following key performance objectives:

  Delivery of the programme

  1. To meet 95 per cent. of the agreed targets for geographic support commitments, production, development and training in 1991–92 to timescale, quantity and standard.

  2. To maintain the operational effectiveness of all military survey units to the required Army standards.

  3. To develop and introduce by 1 April 1992:

  (a) improved customer/supplier procedures;

  (b) improved procedures for costing products and services;

  and thereafter to meet progressively more demanding annual targets for geographic support, production, development and training for future years to timescale, quantity, standard and cost.

  Use of resources

  4. To achieve outturn within the agreed annual cash budget allocation, subject to agreed carry over flexibilities.

  5. To achieve a 1·5 per cent. increase in efficiency in 1991–92, and to develop plans to achieve future improvements in efficiency which meet targets set by the MOD.

  6. To develop and introduce progressively total quality practices designed to improve efficiency in all areas of DSA activity.

  Management systems

  7.To review the management structure of the agency and to implement appropriate changes by 1 April 1992.

  8. To review future requirements for management information and accounting systems and to prepare an implementation plan by 1 April 1992.

  9. To produce and develop a corporate plan, and to produce an annual management plan covering year 1 in detail and years 2–4 in outline.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the withdrawal of British forces from the Gulf.

  Mr. Tom King
  We do not intend to retain a permanent ground force capability in the area. The withdrawal of our forces is well under way, and by the end of this week some 28,000 out of 45,000 will have returned to the United Kingdom and Germany. We expect the main withdrawals to be completed by mid-April. Up to 5,000 personnel are being deployed to Saudi Arabia to manage the return of equipment and stores to the United Kingdom and Germany. This is likely to take a number of months to complete. The remaining elements of 4 Brigade are operating as a battlegroup. While their equipment is in the Gulf and we review progress towards a formal ceasefire, we shall deploy some 1,500 personnel to replace those in this battlegroup and take advantage of training opportunities. My expectation is that the battle group will not remain beyond June.

  A squadron of GR1 Tornados will also remain in Bahrain for the time being. The Armilla patrol will continue to provide a frigate/destroyer presence in the region; and a number of mine counter-measures vessels will also remain, to contribute to multinational mine clearance operations, for about six months.

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

EC Duty-Free Sales: Future
Lord Parry Lord Parry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy to support proposals designed to eliminate duty-free sales within the European Community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the European Commission has made clear its view that, as a consequence of the completion of the single market, duty-free shopping for travellers within the Community should cease. The Government understand the Commission's view but equally are aware of the significance of the duty-free trade for UK producers, vendors and the transport industry in general. Ministers have met representatives of the trade on a number of occasions and are examining the issue very carefully before coming to a final view.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that helpful and constructive Answer. Will he agree with me that as there will be differing regimes—12 in fact—within the EC for a considerable period after 1992, it may be wiser for the Government to tie the duty-free question to fiscal areas rather than to the simple line of the customs union? In that case, will the Government assure us that they will not do away prematurely with what is a very valuable industry to this country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall not come to any premature decision. We accept, as the noble Lord said, that the industry is very valuable to this country. As I said in my original Answer, we are examining the issue very carefully. It is rather early for me to say whether or not I agree with the noble Lord's suggestion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend and his colleagues bear in mind that the duty-free arrangements are often of decisive importance to the smaller airlines in as much as they make the difference between a profit and a loss? Will he take care that the zeal of the European Community does not destroy British airlines?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we accept that the trade can be important to some operators. There can be a degree of cross-subsidy by smokers and drinkers subsidising non-smokers and non-drinkers. Therefore, we accept that the matter is important. We shall take into consideration the points raised by my noble friend.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in many cases, although not all, duty-free sales do little more than persuade our wives to buy goods at prices far in excess of those at which they can
1064
be bought in the local supermarket? Does he accept also that to label a point of sale "duty-free" when the remitted duty is used to increase the profits of the seller rather than the price to the purchaser could constitute a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that duty-free sales are possibly not as much of a bargain as they often appear to be. However, that is a matter for the operators and not for the Government. As regards the noble Lord's first point, I heard cries from parts of the Chamber that the arguments which he was putting forward were somewhat sexist. Perhaps he will take up that matter with the deputy leader of his party.
Lord Rees: My Lords, while I understand that my noble friend is unable to give a direct answer to the Question at this stage, will he accept that even the theoretical case for the abolition of duty-free goods must depend on a much closer approximation of indirect tax rates inside the EC than exists at present? Will lie ensure that before the Council of Ministers is asked to consider the question, the European Community provides a full and thorough study of the implications of the abolition of duty-free allowance as required by the overwhelming majority of Members of the European Parliament?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the decision of the European Parliament. I hope that the Commission and, later on, the Council of Ministers will take particular note of those anxieties.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in their continuing thoughts on this matter, will the Government bear in mind the damage which the end of duty-free trading will do to the Scotch whisky industry? Is the Minister aware that the industry believes that £40 million worth of sales of Scotch whisky products will be lost every year because of the abolition of duty-free trading? That loss could not be replaced by sales on the home market.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that there may be loss of sales, particularly as regards luxury brands. I believe that most of those could be offset by increases in tax-paid sales.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the Minister find the interventions of his noble friends a trifle puzzling? Is it not government policy that British industry, notably the private sector, should stand on its own two feet and should not require subsidy in any form? Is there any economic case of which he knows for continuing duty-free sales?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I obviously failed to make clear that there are arguments on both sides and the fact that the Government are considering those arguments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the subject of economics interests me. Can he give me any of the arguments on the other side? What is the case for subsidising private industry in this way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that I had made that quite clear. Certain industries might suffer if

1065
duty-free sales disappeared. At the same time I accept that there are arguments for getting rid of duty-free sales.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, as long as the so-called duty-free shops exist at airports, will the Minister consider changing the rules so that passengers are allowed to buy goods on arrival instead of when leaving an airport?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspect that those selling duty-free goods might prefer to sell them on departure rather than on arrival for the very sensible reason that they might be able to sell more.
Lord Parry: My Lords, given the interest aroused in the House and the rather negative help that I have received from my Front Bench, perhaps the House will indulge me. Does the Minister agree that one of the economic arguments is the fact that one-quarter of all European sales of duty-free goods are British goods? Have the Government considered the vendor-control system which seems to work very well in the Nordic countries and Australia?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord makes. Four of the top six duty-free outlets are in this country.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was not seeking to undermine my noble friend: I was simply trying to discover what has happened to the Government's economic policy. For several years I have sat here and been told that industry must stand on its own two feet. Can the Minister say whether it is now the Government's view that that is no longer the case? Can industry now begin to ask for all kinds of hand-outs?
Lord Parry Lord Parry: The apology is accepted.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is another question. I accept that the noble Lord was not necessarily intending to undermine his noble friend's Question, but he certainly seemed to be trying his best.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that he considered Scotch whisky to be a luxury? For many of us it is a necessity of life.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am the first to agree with the noble Earl. However, there are some brands of Scotch whisky which are considered to be luxury products as opposed to the more usual brands.

Forestry: New Planting.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for achieving the target of 33,000 hectares of new planting of trees annually, and what are the annual planting figures for the past three years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the
1066
Government have recently announced significant increases in the supplement for planting on better quality land, and woodland management grants will be introduced next year. We expect both these initiatives to lead to an increase in the area of new planting. Total new planting in each of the past three financial years, made up of private planting for which grants were paid and planting by the Forestry Commission, was as follows, rounded to the nearest 100 hectares: in 1987–88, 28,800 hectares; in 1988–89, 29,100 hectares (including 100 hectares under the farm woodland scheme); and for 1989–90, 19,500 hectares (including 2,600 hectares under the farm woodland scheme). The total area of new planting in the current financial year is expected to show little change from last year.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the drop from the target of 33,000 hectares to 19,000 hectares in the past year is fairly alarming considering that this country imports £7 billion worth of timber and timber products each year? Does he further agree that if that tendency continues it will have very serious consequences for our balance of payments?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I would not say that the situation is alarming, but I certainly agree that it is disappointing in that the past few years have seen a downturn in planting which has been mainly due to the change in taxation after the 1988 Budget. I believe that the position will recover. Forestry already plays an important part in our balance of payments. I have every confidence that the industry itself will increase the number of plantings in the course of the next few years.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this rather arbitrary target will never be reached until one of two things happens? The first alternative is that grants for both planting and management should be realistic and indexed so that they are not eroded by inflation. The second alternative is a return to something like the previous tax regime for the planting of trees. Will the Minister consider those two alternatives?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not think that it will be any great surprise to my noble friend when I say that I do not think there is any prospect of returning to the tax regime that we had prior to 1988. We continually review the grant position. My noble friend will have noted from my original reply that we have substantially increased the rate of grant in better land areas. We shall continue to review the grant situation and see whether it needs changing as a result of the consultations that we have with the industry.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, since the Forestry Commission is vitally concerned with this programme, can the Minister say whether there is any danger of the commission itself being unable to produce and train the necessary foresters who will make the scheme a success? Can that aspect of the matter be looked at?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no prospect of that
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Government consider treating corporate bodies investing in forestry as though they were individuals for tax purposes so that they can pay dividends without being subject to income tax and so that the sale of their shares will not affect capital gains on any profits realised?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is well aware of the noble Lady's point of view.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, if forestry is to be tax-neutral, does my noble friend believe that it should be taken out of the realms of inheritance tax, particularly in view of the recent experience of storms and the long growing time of hardwoods which are now being encouraged?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that, too, is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that he is looking carefully at the views expressed in the last two questions.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister still of the opinion that he gave to me in answer to a Question a month or two ago that the Forestry Commission is not in any way inhibited in its actions? He should know that it is allowed to plant only 4,000 hectares a year. Over and above that it has to sell plantable land to raise money. Perhaps I may ask another question. Does he adhere to the statement made by the then Secretary of State for Scotland in 1988 that there is no question of the Forestry Commission being privatised in any shape or form? I have the statement if the Minister would like to see it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not think there is any question of the Forestry Commission being inhibited in any way. Of course it is limited to a significant extent in increasing its planting because the private sector, generally speaking, is quite happy to do so. There are sales of Forestry Commission land on the basis of rationalisation of its main plantations. As for the question of privatisation, that is not on the agenda at the moment.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we planted last year 2.5 hectares of broad-leaved hardwood forest trees and that my husband and I spent our last wedding anniversary planting oak trees?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is particularly to my farsighted friend that our policies are aimed. Those who enjoy small scale forestry can see not only the economic benefit but the aesthetic benefit too.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, with regard to the forest now planted by private interests with grants from the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, are any rights of access by the public built into the grants when they are made?
Lord Strathclyde: No, My Lords. When the private sector accepts grants from the Forestry Commission it
1068
is obliged in some cases to discuss with local authorities the prospect of access. But it is not a prerequisite.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that £700 million has been invested in Britain, largely from overseas, over the past few years in the most advanced technologies of timber processing? This has been based largely on the faith placed in government announcements that forestry production during the next decades would swell production to an extent which justified such great investment. But this will clearly not take place unless the Government's announced target of 33,000 hectares per annum of new planting is to be achieved. What has my noble friend to say about this aspect of the matter? I hope that we are not content to let these investors down.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. There has been substantial investment to the tune of close on £1 billion over the past 10 years in down-the-line production. That has tremendous spin-offs in terms of economic activity and employment in relatively fragile areas. But that production was put in place at a time when it was forecast that there would be an increase in the amount of trees harvested of some 50 per cent. to 9 million cubic metres by the end of this century. That figure will not change. Nor will that figure have changed investment decisions. I am confident that over the next 30 to 40 years we shall make up the shortfall in planting over the past two or three years so that we shall see increased production.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the Republic of Ireland this year probably more trees will be planted than in Scotland, Wales and England put together? Will he seek the advice of the Irish Government on how this is achieved, and will the Government, in this case, follow that example?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is of course the Irish who are following our example over the past few years. In relation to our land area we have done more to build up our forestry area than almost any other country in the world. That is a record of which we are very proud.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, it is my duty to point to the clock. We must keep enough time for the next two Questions.

Hospital Authorities: Contracts Overseas
2.55 p.m.
Lord Johnston of Rockport: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper. The Question was as follows:
Whether hospital authorities are entitled to contract out part of their waiting lists for certain operations to hospitals in Europe; and, if so, on what scale this is happening
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, in my reply to a Question on 27th February, I said that health authorities here have no powers to enter into contracts directly with overseas providers for the treatment of patients ordinarily resident in England and Wales. That remains the case.
Lord Johnston of Rockport: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Perhaps I may ask three short questions. In view of the fact that health authorities do not have powers to make general contracts for the treatment overseas of patients, what is the likelihood of the European Community seeking recourse to the International Court of Justice to reverse this decision? Secondly, in the past people from abroad have made good use of our health scheme in obtaining spectacles, teeth and much medical aid for little or no cost. Is it not time that the tables were reversed so that hospitals may reduce their waiting lists? Finally, how do such arrangements apply to the private sector?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as yet, no concrete proposal has been received from a health authority. If ever we receive one we shall of course study all the legal implications. We already follow the procedures of the European Community social security regulations, which enable the competent authorities in member states to authorise individual patients entitled to health care in their member states to receive treatment in another, subject to certain conditions. This is known as the E112 procedure. The competent authority in the United Kingdom is the Department of Health. Almost 300 cases were so authorised in 1990. There is nothing to stop any individual choosing to seek private treatment, as with the much publicised case of Mr. Robert Davies. The private sector providers of health care are free to set up in business on either side of the Channel.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a sister associated with the London Hospital is present today especially to hear the Answer to this Question? I cannot talk to her about her views until afterwards but, if they coincide with my own, she will have thought the reply pretty appalling.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret that I did not quite take the point of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is some confusion over this issue? Can she be absolutely clear that a health authority which has opted out or a hospital with trust status is not allowed to have a contract with an overseas hospital to provide treatment? Is she aware that recently on television the director of the Boulogne General Hospital said that fleets of ambulances were ready, a helicopter was available for urgent cases, a chef had been trained to prepare English breakfasts and that the doctors had undergone a two-year English language course in order to be ready for this eventuality? The hospital was offering the chance for people to go over on the ferry, have the operation and return the same day. Is the Minister saying that the
1070
health authority concerned—the Medway Health Authority—is not allowed to enter into a contract with the Boulogne General Hospital?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only repeat that local health authorities have no powers to contract outside of the United Kingdom. As a consequence of the previous Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on 27th February, I understand that the health authorities which have been considering this possibility have, for the first time, realised that they may be considering something that would be ultra vires.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as far as concerns contracts, am I right in thinking that this country has a continuing obligation to provide medical care under the National Health Service for citizens from the European Community as and when the need arises? I believe that the Minister's previous answer confirmed that fact. II I am correct, can she tell us how the balance now stands? For example, are we doing more for them or are they doing more for us?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are two ways in which we provide treatment for residents of other member states within the European Community. One way is under the emergency treatment arrangements; that is, the so-called E111 arrangements whereby anyone who is travelling abroad who has an accident is entitled to be treated in the other country and arrangements are ultimately made for the payment of costs. The other way comes under the El 12 procedure to which I have already referred, whereby individual cases for treatment can be referred overseas by the Department of Health on individual application. I believe that the balance is about even.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether any hospital authorities have contracted out to the voluntary and private sector for specialist treatment as they are entitled to do? If not, can she say what the department is doing to encourage them to take out such contracts?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend well knows, government policy is to encourage co-operation between the National Health Service and the private sector, especially when that involves a cost-effective way of providing or extending services. So long as there is no prejudice to NHS services, local health authorities are able to enter into contractual arrangements to meet the needs of their patients. Further, they have a discretion as to what use is made of independent health care facilities. We are aware of many such arrangements which already exist.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to be so heavy handed this afternoon, but I am told that I ought to intervene at this stage; otherwise there will be less than five minutes left to deal with the last Question on the Order Paper.

Farm Animal Carcasses: Disposal
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to help those who are experiencing increasing difficulty in the hygienic disposal of farm animal carcasses, particularly those of horses and ponies belonging to children and people with no land for burial, given the closure of many knackers' yards and the increasing costs involved.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, we are conscious of the potential problems of fallen animals and are helping in several ways. In particular, we have ensured that the animal by-products sector is now eligible for EC marketing grants; we have agreed with the NRA advice to farmers on safe disposal to avoid pollution; and, we are funding a programme of research. There are adequate outlets for disposal of animal carcasses, but anyone experiencing difficulties with disposal should contact their waste disposal authority, which will be able to advise.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, is she aware that there is great concern about the matter throughout Scotland, England and Wales? Is she further aware that there could he a great public health problem as regards anthrax, Weil's Disease and various other diseases £even the plague £if carcasses are buried in the soil and consequently affect our water facilities?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware that there are worries about this matter. However, I must tell the noble Baroness that it remains the owner's responsibility to dispose of dead animals wherever they lie. But, if they become a public health risk, the local environmental health authority has powers to arrange for the disposal and the recovery of costs from the owner where that is possible.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is only due to the action of local hunts in many parts of the country that the collection and disposal of fallen livestock has become possible, thus reducing the danger to public health and to the environment?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the hunts move in harmony with the farmers on the matter.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that the latest EC directive classifies fallen animals as "high risk waste"? Can the Minister say how many establishments suitable for the disposal of high risk waste are available to farmers? Further, can she say whether they are spread geographically in such a way as to be easily accessible? If not, would it not be helpful for the Government to make some arrangement for collection until the knackers' yards get back into business?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if it had not been for the successful outcome which we achieved in Brussels over the EC directive on the disposal of animal waste, the UK knacker industry would not have been permitted to continue. We averted that threat to our knacker industry. I should point out that there are still about 110 knackers in the United Kingdom. They are all facing difficulties, but most of them are finding ways of covering their running costs in order to stay in business.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I trust that the Minister will recall sending me a copy of her right honourable friend's letter of 31st January last regarding fallen animals. She will no doubt recall that that letter acknowledged the problems which currently exist for knackers and renderers. However, since that time the difficulties have increased because BSE remains and with it the resultant restrictions which were imposed. Can the noble Baroness say whether the major research project to which she referred this afternoon, and to which the letter also referred, is likely to produce a solution to the problem in the near future? If that is not the case, will she ask her right honourable friend to consider the introduction of an insurance scheme for the disposal of fallen animals?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as regards the last part of the noble Lord's question, the answer is no. As to the first part, I can tell him that about £465,000 has been allocated to research funded by MAFF, the industry and the EC Commission into possible ways of deactivating the agent causing BSE. If that is successful, it will increase the value of rendered products and hence improve the viability of the industry.
Noble-Lords Noble-Lords: Order!
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it does not please me to have to intervene on three occasions in one afternoon. However, 30 minutes have now elapsed since we started Question Time.

Deer Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to deer, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Foreign Corporations Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about the status in the United Kingdom of bodies incorporated or formerly

1073
incorporated under the laws of certain territories outside of the United Kingdom. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 9,
Schedule 1,
uses 10 to 12,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 13 to 42,
Schedule 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Waddington.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Bill is now presented to this House in exactly the same form as it was when it left the House of Commons; that is, without having been reprinted. I rise to raise the question of the status of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum in the light of the ministerial Statement made at 11 p.m. on Monday evening, after the Bill had originally been printed and after the production of the print which is now before your Lordships this afternoon.
Mr. Portillo, speaking on behalf of the Government at 11 o'clock on Monday evening, announced fairly significant changes to the community charge reduction scheme which is referred to in the financial memorandum. I shall not tax the House with the details of his statement which will no doubt arise in discussion of the Bill. He ended by saying:
"The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum needs to be read in the light of the remarks that I have just made".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/91; Col. 729.]
In other words, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is wrong. Yet it has not been changed. I must ask the Government what explanation they have for not producing an Explanatory and Financial Memorandum before this House which reflects the true state of affairs.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, this Bill has arrived here having received an unopposed Second and Third Reading in another place. Any points on the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum can clearly be raised during the debate on Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 25th March):
3.10 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I wish to repeat at the outset what I said the other day. I regret having had to ask your Lordships to waive standing orders so that all stages of the Bill may be taken today. It is a most unusual procedure which I am sure should be used only very rarely indeed. However, the Bill is very limited in scope and the circumstances are exceptional. It is certainly very much in the interests of those who will benefit from its terms that it should be enacted without delay.
We are not setting out in this Bill to reform local government. I suspect that that will require a much longer measure than the one before your Lordships today. However, it reflects that part of the Budget Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week in which he said that local taxes were being asked to bear too large a share of the cost of local government activities. This resulted in too high a community charge. He therefore proposed to make a substantial switch from local to central taxation and bring down the charge for the coming year.
That therefore is the purpose of the Bill. The amount set by a charging authority for its personal community charge in 1991–92 is to be reduced by £140, except in the case of an authority where the community charge is below £140. In the latter case, the charge will be reduced to zero. Extra grant goes to local authorities to pay for this. The overall effect of the measure will be that the average headline charge will come down from £392 to £252, which is £105 less than the average headline charge of £357 this year and £22 less than the average rate bill per adult under the old rating system.
For many people the amount they pay will of course be considerably less than the headline charge due to the assistance available under the community charge rebate scheme and the community charge reduction scheme. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor made clear in another place, it is the aim of the measures that the Government are now introducing—the £140 reduction and the improvements to the community charge reduction scheme announced on Monday —that charge payers should on average next year pay less than £175.
The Bill deals with the £140 and provides for reimbursement to local authorities of the cost of it. Strictly speaking, we are concerned with no more than that. However, it would not be right for me to give the impression that we intend the change in the balance between national and local taxation to be only for next year. My right honourable friend the Chancellor and

1075
my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have both made it clear that we are talking of a fundamental shift in that balance, which in the years beyond 1991–92 will reduce local taxation, whatever form it takes, to a more acceptable level than its level in 1990–91.
Perhaps I may now briefly go through the Bill. Clause 1 provides that the community charges which authorities have set for 1991–92 are replaced the day after the Bill's enactment by new charges which are £140 lower. Councils will not need to meet to set the new charges, but the charges will be treated in all respects as though they were set by authorities in the usual way.
Clause 1(4) means that there can be no possibility of the reduced charge being held to be unlawful on grounds of insufficiency. Clause 1(5) suspends a person's liability to pay any charge for 1991–92 until he or she receives a new bill reflecting the new lower amount. Clause 1(6) enables the billing regulations to reflect the £140 reduction.
The provision allowing the regulations to have retrospective effect is merely to guard against the possibility of their not being made before 1st April. However, it is our intention to see that they are made before then.
Clause 2 deals with special cases such as a local authority which first sets its charge for the coming year after the Act is passed. The clause says that the charge will not he lawfully set if account is taken, in so doing, of the £140 in the Bill. Clause 3 sets out the appropriate reductions in Scotland and Clause 4 empowers the Secretary of State—
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether in considering the provisions for Scotland account is taken of the fact that the Scots have suffered the poll tax for two years? Consequently, provision should be made for £280 and not £140.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not believe that that is logical. We could have a long argument about the level of the poll tax in Scotland compared with the level in England and Wales due to the much larger support per capita which is granted to people in Scotland.
Clause 3 sets out the appropriate reductions in Scotland. Clause 4 empowers the Secretary of State to pay grants to local authorities to make good the loss of income resulting from the reduction in charges and also to cover the additional administrative costs arising as a consequence of the Bill.
It is important that everyone liable to community charge should know where he or she stands as soon as possible. It is also important that local authorities should start collecting next year's charge as early as possible in the financial year. I hope that as a result of the decision of this House today many authorities will be able to issue new bills and begin to get the money in as soon as possible after the start of the financial year.
In order to keep authorities in the picture and help them in their preparations, the Department of the Environment wrote to all of them last Tuesday
1076
explaining in broad terms the effect of the proposed legislation. Yesterday, the department wrote with copies of the Bill and the draft regulations. Also explained was the effect of the improvement in the community charge reduction scheme announced on Monday. It is hoped that tomorrow authorities will he sent all the regulations needed to put these new measures into effect. They will then have all they need to prepare the new bills.
We are also adjusting our payments from the non-domestic rates pool to compensate for any delay in raising charge income so that the cash flow of authorities will not suffer.
I have introduced the Bill briefly, not because it is unimportant—it is very important—but because it is narrow in scope and comes to us, as I said a short while ago, from another place where it received an unopposed Second Reading, was unamended in Committee and thereafter received an unopposed Third Reading. I hope that your Lordships will also find it acceptable.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Waddington.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal was quite right to start his introduction of the Bill by pointing out that it is a most unusual precedent for your Lordships to be asked to take all the stages of a controversial Bill of this kind on one day. We on these Benches will not oppose the passage of the Bill. When the matter was put to us, we were persuaded that it would be wrong for us to oppose the proposal that the Bill should be taken on one day for two reasons. First of all, if the Bill were delayed until after Easter, that would mean a delay in the ability of local authorities to send out their poll tax demands. As a result local authorities would not only lose revenue because of the timing problem, but, as experience showed last year, when demands are sent out late, the collection rate is also reduced. We felt that from the point of view of local authorities alone, if the Bill were to be approved it should be approved rapidly.
The second reason why we were persuaded not to oppose this proposal was a technical one. If the Bill did not become law before 1st April, strictly speaking we would all become liable for the poll tax on 1st April and then subsequently, with the passage of the Bill, we would no longer be liable for it. That would clearly cause considerable confusion, difficulty and further expense. For those reasons we have waived what would otherwise be the strongest possible objections to a Bill of this importance—the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal mentioned that—being considered in this way.
The precedent is of great significance. If it is now possible for the Government to deal with controversial Bills in this way, it is possible for other governments to adopt the same course with other controversial Bills. Mr. Alan Beith said that very clearly in another place. I pay tribute to him for his clarity. Under those circumstances there is no reason why we should not put forward a Bill to renationalise

1077
British Telecom, or why the Liberal Party should not put forward a Bill for local income tax, or why the Government should not themselves put forward important Bills and expect them to be passed in one day. This is a dangerous precedent and the House should be well aware of the difficulties which it may cause for our procedures and for our credibility as a revising Chamber in agreeing to this kind of procedure.
Having agreed to it, the more I think about the Bill the more I am convinced that the real reason for pushing it through has nothing to do with anyone's convenience, or with constitutional principle, but is simply the result of political expediency. With greater rapidity than I have ever before witnessed on the part of any government, this Government have got themselves into a state of utter confusion as regards what to do with local authority finance. I shall illustrate later on how the Government are still making up policy as they go along. However, the events of last week speak for themselves.
Last Monday the Government started the process with a rumour inspired by a member of the environment team in another place which suggested that radical changes would be made to the poll tax, to the structure of local authorities and to all aspects of the functions, structure and finance of local government. In his Budget Statement only eight days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it seems like a lifetime ago, and no doubt seems like even more of a lifetime to noble Lords opposite—introduced a new provision to bribe electors with their own money. In other words, the electors are to have money taken from them in the form of the value added tax and given back to them in the form of a reduction in the poll tax. In a few minutes we shall discover the economic effects of that. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Peston will have a few comments to make about that.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he care to invite the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to make a speech now, if that is his intention, rather than continue to interrupt from a sedentary position as he has done throughout the whole of the present speech?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are noble Lords on the Government Front Bench who find it difficult to restrain themselves. I understand their difficulties and I feel sympathetic towards them. However, I do not think it would be appropriate to invite the noble Lord to expose his intellectual problems to the whole House for everyone to hear.
When we come to consider the political expediency, on mature reflection it becomes very clear. The Government want to get this so-called gift to the poll tax payers out before the May elections. That is the major reason for the measure. The Government are hoping that the electorate will forget that over the whole of the year, and no doubt in years to come, they will be paying more for everything they buy, other than certain essentials, as a result of value added tax, whereas the apparent effect of the reduction in the poll
1078
tax will appear when .the first bills are issued. The Government are hoping that under those circumstances local government electors will he foolish enough to mistake a single gift in the month of April for a real gift, whereas the real payment will come from them over the year and over the years to come. During the passage of this Bill we shall have a few words to say about the cost of this whole ludicrous exercise of the poll tax over the past few years.
We have here a little Bill which arises, frankly, from panic measures on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Department of the Environment, and now it appears also from No. 10 Downing Street. What we have might politely have been called political economy, but it is really a matter of electoral economics. The whole thinking behind this Bill is to seek to get the Government out of the hole they have dug themselves into as regards the poll tax. We shall see that over and over again as we consider the details of the Bill.
We on these Benches will not permit the Bill to be examined in the absence of a proper consideration of the future of the poll tax. It seems to us utterly improper for a government to put forward a Bill, the effects of which are to last for one year, which is not designed to deal with the problem of the poll tax but to cover up the smell of the poll tax. That is the real objective behind it. Medieval ladies and gentlemen rather than wash themselves used to cover themselves with pomade and paint. They applied heavy spices and heavy perfumes to conceal the fact that their whole bodies stank. Instead of a cleansing of the poll tax, the Government are covering it up with paint, spices and perfumes. That will not work. I nearly said it will not wash. The Government's measure is not intended to wash, but to persuade us of something that is clearly not the case. We on these Benches will table amendments in Committee which will seek to ensure that when the Bill comes to an end—it is only meant to last one year—there is introduced a fairer system of local government finance immediately without waiting the two, three or four years which constitute the period of reform promised to us by the Secretary of State.
Even if the Bill were acceptable on constitutional grounds, and even if it were acceptable as a first stage to a proper reform of local government finance, it is profoundly defective. I remind the House of the context in which we are considering this matter. Over the whole period of office of the former Labour Government, central government support for local government provided, give or take a few per cent. either way, 62 per cent. of local government finance. Since that time the support has decreased—the Secretary of State confirmed this in his speech yesterday—by approximately 2 per cent. a year until we have reached the stage where central government cover from their grant only 33 per cent. of the costs of local government finance. It is now proposed that at a stroke we should go back not to the figure of 62 per cent. but at least to the level of central government support which was a feature of local government for

1079
many years and which was deliberately departed from, mainly by the present Secretary of State in his first incarnation.
However, it is worse than that. When we go back to a higher level of central government support that central government support does not come from income tax revenue, it does not come from a progressive tax; it comes from VAT. That is an expenditure tax and therefore bears more heavily than income tax on poorer people. It bears more heavily on poorer people, as a percentage of their disposable income, than on richer people. So what is being taken from the people of this country in order to pay for the reduction in the poll tax is being taken from them in an unfair way.
It is then being given out in an unfair way. Instead of the money being given to local authorities in such a way that those most in need will benefit from the reduction in the poll tax, it is being given on the basis of a flat rate per head in the same way as the poll tax. However, it is not even a flat rate per head. The Government have allowed it to appear that everybody will receive £140 off their poll tax Bill. That has been expressed as the average when government Ministers are being particularly conscientious and exact, but the impression has been allowed to gain ground that the figure is £140. That is the significance of the £140.
Of course the amount is not £140. It is not even £140 off each bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who now appears to he prepared to go on the record, is happy to say. No, my Lords, it is £140 for those who have one home and who do not benefit from rebates or from a transitional scheme. Those who pay only 20 per cent. because they receive rebates—and those are the people who are most in need in our community and on whose needs we spent many hours of debate when we considered the 1988 Bill—will receive only 20 per cent. of the rebated amount. They will receive only £28 of the £140. Yet those people who have more than one home and who pay a single personal community charge on their residence and a standard community charge on their second residence will not receive £140 —they will receive £280; or if they pay a double standard community charge they will receive £420.
That is the true measure of what is being given back. The rich will receive up to £420 and the poor will receive £28, yet it is all presented as if it is a flat rate of £140. What is being taken from people unfairly in the form of VAT is being given hack to other people even more unfairly, as the Bill has been drafted. I said that that is bribing electors with their own money. That in itself is enough of a nerve. However, to do it in such a blatantly unjust way is beyond belief. Needless to say we have prepared significant groups of amendments which attempt to deal with that problem and to make the Bill fairer.
A further major consideration which we have to take into account is the administrative cost of the exercise. We must do so in the light of the constant statements made by the Secretary of State over the last few months (since he returned to his office in Marsham Street) that the balance between central government finance and local government expenditure was about right. He has now turned round 100 per cent. He now
1080
says that what he said between November and 19th March was all wrong and now the Government think that the balance between the central government contribution and the local government contribution to local authority expenditure was all wrong and now has to be changed dramatically. He can be excused for not commenting on the fact that it is now going back to almost what it was under a Labour government.
The effect has been that this wildly expensive exercise, for which the preparation and implementation has been taking place since 1987 in Scotland and 1988 in England and Wales, will now cost even more. We have all seen pictures in the newspapers of the bills which have already been prepared and which will have to be shredded. We have all seen the estimates, which have been made by people who have no reason to over-estimate, of the costs resulting from the fact that the change took place after the poll tax figures had been declared and most of the preparatory work had been done. Those local authorities which were the most provident, most advanced and most likely to get their bills out by 1st April in order that they could take effect by 15th April are suffering the most. There is an entire clause—Clause 2 —which is designed to make sure that no one conceivably benefits.
The classic example of what is happening now is the case of the city of Gloucester. I am told that the local authority in the city of Gloucester was very wise. It had not printed its bills before the Budget and therefore immediately set to work to print its bills to take account of the £140 reduction. The authority thought that it had done really well by its poll tax payers and everything was hunky-dory. However, at 11 o'clock on Monday night Mr. Portillo announced changes to the community charge reduction scheme; namely, the transitional arrangements. Those are very dramatic and major changes. As a result, all of the authority's newly printed bills went out of the window and it had to start again from scratch.
If the cost of the re-billing exercise is less than £100 million I shall be astonished, because it does not only involve reprinting and new postage; following Mr. Portillo's statement it also involves the complete rewriting of the software on which the rebate system was based.
I have said that the Government are making their policy up as they go along. They made up one story on Monday of last week, another story on Tuesday of last week, a further story with the Secretary of State's Statement on Thursday, and they made up a fourth story with Mr. Portillo's statement on Monday of this week.
I fear that that is still going on. I wonder whether the Lord Privy Seal or the Minister would care to tell the House when they conclude the debate whether it is true that the Department of Social Security is now proposing to make changes to the tapers and to the minimum levels of rebate. We understand that changes are now proposed which would force local authorities to rewrite their rebate calculation software before the bills go out. I am not asking that the department should not do so because any changes to the taper and the minimum amount would be very valuable, but at least the Government should have

1081
made up their mind before now. They should not come before this House with a Bill which is so patently incomplete and ill thought out. Noble Lords can count on it that this will not be the end of the story. When we pass the Bill later tonight further changes will be required for local government finance within the course of 1991–92.
All of this has been presented to noble Lords without a single word of apology from the Government, either to us for the waste of our time, which is a petty matter, or, much more importantly, to the people of this country. The House is being treated with profound disrespect. We are being asked to rubber-stamp legislation which was ill thought out at the beginning, and which has been exposed as being inadequate, unsustainable and incapable of gaining the confidence of members of the public. Yet it is members of the public who are being blamed for that failure and not the Government.
It is your Lordships who have the unpleasant task of seeing the Bill through. I regret that we shall not be able to oppose it. It is with a heavy heart that we do not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.
3.40 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we are back where we started. In 1979, introducing the first Budget of this Government, Sir Geoffrey Howe offered taxpayers income tax cuts with which to pay their VAT. Now, introducing what may well prove to be this Government's last Budget, Mr Lamont offers them poll tax cuts with which to pay their VAT. The process, as Sir Geoffrey Howe's phrase illustrates clearly, is an inherently circular one.
It is important to be clear. This is not a tax reduction Bill; it is a tax redistribution Bill. For that reason it can only be justified if the Government admit a good deal more clearly than they have done hitherto that the reason for the Bill is that the method of imposition of charges under the community charge was unacceptable and unjust. That is why we have the Bill which is in front of us.
Thinking of the implications, I am reminded of a fairy story. It concerns two Czech peasants, so poor that my noble kinsman Lord Henley would instantly concede that they were at subsistence level. They were struggling to keep body and soul together. A fairy appeared and offered them three wishes—anything in the world that they might desire. He said, "I would like a black pudding." She said, "What a stupid wish. I hope it sticks to the end of your nose." It did. So they had to use the third wish to get it off again. Noble Lords will understand why I have come to think of this Bill as the Black Pudding Removal Bill.
Like the Czech peasants, we recognise that the black pudding must be removed. In so far —I stress the qualification—as we consider the Bill an efficient instrument for that purpose, the Liberal Democrats will support it. Like the Czech peasants, we feel that we should not have started from here in the first place. We think, as the Czech peasants might well have thought if they had been modern ones, that if the charter—in this case Charter 88—had been in place,
1082
none of this would have been necessary. The whole sorry story is in part a measure of the weakness of our Parliament.
Many noble Lords will remember that 183 Peers followed Lord Chelwood into the Lobby against the flat rate principle. It is not often that 183 Peers vote against the Government. But it did not result in a victory. One might reflect that it may be a misfortune for a party to have too loyal followers. Thinking about that, rather than reaching in my Roget for synonyms for humiliation, I asked myself when a government last suffered an equally great humiliation in matters of taxation. One does not have to go back to the reign of Richard II. I think that the last equivalent occasion was when this House quashed the judgment in Rex v. John Hampden and therefore administered the coup de grâce to ship-money. By a happy coincidence the 350th anniversary of that day fell a week before polling day in Ribble Valley.
The parallel is worth thought in a great many respects. I shall not dwell on the fact that ship-money was originally intended to be introduced with a pilot scheme in Scotland, for that government, unlike this one, was persuaded to think better of the idea. I shall dwell on the fact that both schemes were abandoned not because the governments were convinced that they were wrong but because of defeat, because of force majeure I do not intend to allude to the strength of the Prime Minister's personality.
Recent statements from the Government Front Bench do not appear to indicate great regret. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal at Question Time on 14th March said:
"This is not a matter of repentance … We are learning from experience". [Official Report, 14/3/91: col. 292.]
It is not only a matter, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, remarked, of saying that they are sorry. When a government make a mistake on this scale it is important that they should understand what mistake they have made so that we can be reasonably sure that they will not make it again.
It so happens that a considerable debate has been taking place among my colleagues over ship-money —about whether the grievance was simply that the burden of tax was too heavy or whether its imposition was regarded as inherently unjust. Nobody says that it does not matter how heavy a tax is, but within that limit the weight of academic opinion has swung heavily in favour of the view that the main reason for objection was the sense that it was unjust.
We believe that the Government have reached the wrong conclusion about what mistake they made. In the passage quoted by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he concluded that the mistake was that the level of tax was too high. No doubt that was resented. It always is. But the two big mistakes made by the Government were, first, introducing a flat rate tax and, secondly, attempting to introduce a tax which everybody pays. Those two actions have been done only once before in a thousand years of English history. When the Local Government Finance Bill had its Second Reading in this House, I said that it seemed that those who do not

1083
know history are compelled to repeat it. They have done so. I hope that it is the last time in the history of this country that it happens.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about the timetable of the Bill. I understand the points about the financial year and about the secrecy of the Budget. What I do not understand is why it would not have been possible to have had the Budget a week earlier, therefore giving us a little more time to attempt to improve a Bill which needs improvement. If the answer is that the Government had not thought of the measure, it just illustrates my point; namely, that this is something cobbled together and rushed through in a hurry.
For some reason I have never thought of the Secretary of State for the Environment as Salome. Yet here we have a Dance of the Seven Veils, and this is only the second or third veil. We do not know what the conclusion will be. Until these proposals are fully unveiled before us, we cannot decide how far, if at all, we may wish to embrace them.
Nevertheless there are points which call for comment. The Bill has had the effect of distorting the retail prices index. The reason why that has happened is that the £140 rebates—I agree by the way with all that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about it not being £140 in some cases—are included but previous rebates and schemes are not included. The average net reduction in fact is £108. So the actual reduction in prices is 0.9 per cent. But the reduction in the retail prices index is 1.3 per cent. At a time when the City is expressing concern because the retail prices index has come down by 0.2 per cent., less than expected, a distortion of 0.4 per cent. is in fact quite significant. I entirely acquit the Government and the statisticians of any evil intent. The statistical methods were fixed before this measure was dreamt up. I think that seeing an opportunity they took it.
I notice that in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the effect on the retail prices index and not to the effect on prices. He worded his Statement with such care that I am sure he understood the point. That illustrates a weakness in the principle of performance indicators. They create a temptation to mistake the symbol for the substance, to concentrate on the performance indicator and not on the performance. If the Government have fallen victim to this temptation, is it not possible that many others —whether the police, academics, railways or the Public Record Office —may fall victim also? Is it not a danger in the use of performance indicators?
The full circle is not complete. It is the circle that I used to draw at the age of six when I first used compasses and they slipped. It does not quite meet. People on income support, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, are receiving only £28. Yet they pay VAT in full. Institutions pay VAT. The charities complain that they lose about £33 million under the Bill. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals makes a tentative estimate of a loss of between £30 million and £40 million and will not get that back in the £140 reduction.
I deeply regret that the opportunity has not been taken to do anything about the uniform business rate.
1084
If this country wishes to make its living, it must do something about the uniform business rate and do it urgently.
On billing and administrative costs, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. I am tempted to use a phrase which is normally used as the alternative to conspiracy. However, when it was last used in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, it was maintained that it was out of order. I hope therefore that I may be within order if I refer to the confusion created as an indiscreet elevation.
We are told that the administrative costs will be £60 million. When the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal replies, perhaps he will explain precisely how that figure was arrived at. Did it take account of distribution costs? Did it take account of printing costs? Did it take account of reproduction and the price of paper?
I deeply regret also—it is a matter that we shall discuss at Committee stage —that the Government have not taken the chance to abandon the principle that everybody pays. That was the central evil of the poll tax. It is something that no government have yet managed to achieve in 1,000 years of English history. There have always been considerable numbers of people who simply could not pay taxes. The effect of trying to make them do so is a vast administrative cost and very little yield in revenue, to say nothing of the question of justice.
I am not happy with the wording of Clause 4 of the Bill. The Secretary of State is empowered to pay to local authorities such amounts as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine. In fixing those amounts, he is required by the Bill to have regard to the cost to the local authorities of paying out these sums. I am reminded of the wording of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Banks on child benefit which was passed in 1988. That required the Secretary of State to review child benefit having regard to the level of the retail prices index. Of course the Secretary of State always said that he had done so, but nothing happened. Does the Bill mean that the Secretary of State is bound to pay the local authorities the full amount of the £140? Or is he entitled to say that he will pay only 95 per cent. or only 35 per cent of it? By leaving the Bill loosely worded, do we leave him completely free to act in that way?
I am worried by the wording of Clause 4(3) on setting conditions. I do not understand what conditions are meant. I do not want the clause to be used by this or any future administration as a way of setting out on a witch-hunt against local authorities that they do not like. I would welcome reassurances on the matter.
The most important point is the one which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal kindly spelt out, namely, that he would not wish us to have the impression that this shift from local to central taxation is intended to last for one year only. The autonomy of local government is a matter about which we on these Benches care deeply. Local government is not only about efficiency; it is about liberty, consent and political pluralism. I think that Members opposite

1085
have forgotten during the past 12 years how difficult government by consent may be. Those who were Members in 1945 may recall it after thought.
If one finds giving consent repugnant, and many of us often do, it matters that one has a local authority which expresses the values current in one's area, whose principles are different, and which may help to bind up the wounds caused by the effort made in giving that consent. It is vital that accountability should be to the local electors and not to the Treasury. We are not sure that the Bill satisfies that point. It is a matter to which we shall return in Committee later today.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal was appropriately apologetic at the beginning of his speech on the subject of the procedure that is being followed on the Bill. It is, I am afraid, true that this House has not been very well treated in that respect and that particular regard has not been shown to its revising function. I fully understand the Government's timetable difficulties. However, it would have been possible, if the Government's business managers had so wished, to take the Bill earlier at the cost of deferring part of the Budget debate in another place in order to bring the Bill to this Chamber earlier this week and allow perhaps a couple of days for its debate. However, the Government's business managers preferred the convenience of another place to the position in which they were going to place this House. I. for one. regret that.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that it created a precedent. It is not an entirely new precedent. I understand that the Labour Government did something of the kind in 1977. The noble Lord therefore need not be so self-righteous about it. However, it is a further precedent. Indeed, in the words of The Merchant of Venice:
"Twill be recorded for a precedent,
And many an error by the same example
Will rush into the state".
If we were, for example, to have the misfortune of having a government of the party of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I do not have the slightest doubt that they would do the same. It is therefore a pity that we are presenting such a precedent to them when it would have been possible, by inflicting modest inconvenience on another place, to save this House from that situation. It certainly makes it difficult, in debating what my noble friend rightly described as an important Bill, to justify that situation.
I wish to ask my noble friend one question of fact. Why is the figure £140? How was it arrived at? It is not the conventional figure that £150 might have been. Is it based on some immensely subtle calculation of the needs of local authorities; or is it a case of, "Think of a number. £140. All right". I believe that before passing such a Bill your Lordships' House is entitled to be told how the figure—which is the key element in the proposal—has been arrived at. It is an extremely important aspect of the matter.
1086
I had some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. When standing at the Dispatch Box he waxed furious about the Bill. With his characteristic vigour he denounced the Government and then announced that he and his noble friends would not vote against the Bill. That was perhaps something of an anti-climax. He is right in that respect because your Lordships will recall—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I were to say the opposite, could we hear the noble Lord's speech denouncing us for denying the electorate the benefit of the reduction? I should he glad to change my tack for a moment in order to hear the noble Lord waxing furious about how irresponsible we are for opposing the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am flattered to know that the noble Lord wants to hear another speech from me but I doubt whether the House as a whole will support his request. I must deal with the noble Lord on the assumption that he meant what he said. Perhaps that is a wrong assumption.
The noble Lord said that he would not oppose the Bill. That is a most interesting aspect of the matter and all the more so because your Lordships will recall that his speech contained not a word of what he, his noble friends and his party would do if they were faced with the circumstances which now face the Government. When opposing a government measure on a matter of great importance it is more usual to bring out one's alternative measure, if one has one, and point out how good it is. The fact that the noble Lord, who is such an expert debater and orator on behalf on his party, made not one single mention of what his party would do in the circumstances only confirms what one has learnt in other directions: that the Labour Party has not the faintest idea what it would do in this situation if it were responsible—
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, of course. I am sure that the noble Lord will speak for the Labour Party, but whether Members of his Front Bench will enjoy that, I do not know!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his generosity. We would have no particular policy on such an incident because we would never have allowed our nation to get into the thorough mess that the Conservative Party has got it into.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not know whether that comment is made on behalf of the Labour Party but it means that the noble Lord does not have the faintest idea about what to do in this situation. I believe that in that respect he speaks for his party; it does not know what it would do. Therefore, one must judge a measure of this kind on the basis that the official Opposition, which claims to be capable of taking over government at any time, has no alternative to offer. However doubtful one may have been in the first instance, that fact makes one look at the proposals in a somewhat different light.

1087
Some measure is plainly needed in order to prepare for the study and for the development of further policies in respect of local government finance. Indeed, my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal made an interesting statement that I had not previously heard. He said that it is intended to make a fundamental shift in the balance between local and central government finance. I wish to ask the noble Baroness to amplify that statement in her reply. Is it proposed that the shift will be effected as it is being effected in this Bill for the coming year; that is, by placing on the general taxpayer a large part of the burden which otherwise would have fallen on the local ratepayer? Or is it intended to give relief to the local ratepayer or community taxpayer by transferring the cost of certain functions from local to central government?
That is an important issue because the great merit of the community charge—and I have always seen it as the most powerful argument in its favour—was that it sought to secure that those who voted in local authority elections could vote for high expenditure if they were prepared to pay for it. I maintain the view that the old rating system was completely indefensible because in most local areas a large majority of the voters voted for high expenditure knowing that the costs would fall on the limited number of ratepayers. That was the great justification for the community charge.
I hope that, in the developments that will take place as a result of the study being carried out, some element of that approach will be preserved. If local authorities are to behave responsibly we must introduce the discipline whereby those who must pay are those who are entitled to vote. Obviously there must be exceptions in respect of people at the lowest end of the economic scale. However, generally the great majority of those who are allowed to vote must pay if they vote for excessive expenditures, or even for fairly substantial expenditures. That was the great merit of the community charge and I do not resile from my support of it in this House and outside. Obviously the difficulties that have arisen justify the Government reviewing the matter, but I hope that they will attach importance to that element and seek to preserve It—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord intend to extend that important principle to national government? Will the principle that people will not get representation without taxation at a local level also be applied at the national level?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that applies automatically. There is no individual in the country who does not pay national taxation in one form or another. It may be by way of duty on cigarettes and beer, VAT and various other taxes that fall. If the noble Lord can identify to me a citizen who pays no national taxation I should be most grateful because I should seek to adapt my style of living entirely towards that highly desirable end. I doubt whether the noble Lord can identify such a citizen. The difference is that to a greater or lesser extent national taxation falls on everyone, whereas under the old system of
1088
rates local taxation was limited to a minority of people. It was limited to a larger section, although not a complete section, by the community charge.
I wish to hear more about that issue from the noble Baroness in her reply. I also wish to hear how it is proposed to effect the shift of cost away from local authorities to central government. I hope that will not take the form of simply stepping up central government grants. Obviously the measure must be taken this year to ensure that local government carries on during the period of the review. However, as regards the long-term future, if the cost of local government is to be reduced and more put on central government, it follows that central government should assume more of the responsibilities that are currently exercised by local authorities. Nothing would be more harmful than for the Government to supply taxpayers' money in substantial sums to local authorities which are free to decide how it should be spent.
It is my understanding of the Government's statement that the £140—more than £4 billion in total —which is being spent in order to support local authorities will be found by increasing VAT. VAT is a tax with very considerable defects. I do not know whether it is intended that the increase should be permanent or merely temporary—we have not been told that that is so, but I profoundly hope that it is temporary—to deal with the £4 billion required this year for the support of local authorities. But if it is to be increased its defects become even more important.
I shall not weary the House at any length with a commentary on VAT, save to say that it is untrue, as has been stated in the press, that VAT does not fall on food. It certainly does fall on food, one classic example being the fact that if you buy a chocolate biscuit you pay VAT, but if you buy a chocolate cake you do not. What conceivable difference of principle decides whether VAT should fall on one or the other, I cannot say. But it is a very good symptom of the defects of the system.
The VAT system is highly inflationary. There is no doubt that increasing it to 17½ per cent. will have some inflationary effect because it falls on so many of the necessities of life, and therefore compares very badly in that respect with the old purchase tax which, as your Lordships may recall, fell mainly on luxuries and had very little effect, if any, on the cost of living.
VAT is a bad tax and we are to rely on it even more. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Government to secure that the working of the VAT system is reviewed. VAT emerged from the purlieus of Brussels and bears many of the marks of the meddlesome muddle which one should perhaps expect from that quarter. But when it is to be applied as British taxation, and applied now in so important a proportion of British taxation, then indeed it is very important that the Government, and Her Majesty's Treasury in particular, should look at it very carefully indeed.
It is generally agreed—it is agreed even by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—that in these circumstances your Lordships' House has no option but to pass this Bill into law, however unhappy we may be about the procedure which, in my view

1089
somewhat unnecessarily, the Government have seen fit to adopt for its passage. What matters now is what is to be evolved for the future.
I do not know whether it is too early—it probably is—for the noble Baroness to give us some of the ideas that must be in the Government's mind for a future and more reliable situation. I hope, as I have said before, that the new system will still preserve some of the elements of accountability—that is to say that those standing for local authorities and implementing their policies shall be answerable to their electors who will have to meet some of the cost. I am sure that one can do nothing other than wish Her Majesty's Government, and particularly those in the departments concerned, the best of good fortune in what is probably one of the most difficult tasks that has faced a British Government for a great many years.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, can normally be relied upon to find something good in almost anything that the Government introduce, but even he with his great debating skills found it extremely difficult today, and understandably so. He asked one particular question about VAT. I fear that the Government Front Bench is unlikely to have too many answers for him, but I think that the real answer as to why the figure is £140 is simply that that is how the Treasury add these things up. It wanted the 2½ per cent. VAT increase to do it, as he said, and he thought that it might one day come down again—I doubt it very much, because once it has got it, it will hold on to it—but that raised £4.3 billion approximately, and that was approximately £140 a head. I fear that that is likely to be the simple calculation that was done by my old friends in the Treasury.
Let me refer to one other point that was raised from both Front Benches about the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum and the cost of £60 million for administrative expenses. In the memorandum we are told that there will not be any significant manpower effect. That is very interesting. I do not know how the Treasury has decided what is significant in these terms—perhaps things have changed since my days —but to spend £60 million without any significant manpower effect and no particular goods passing, I should have thought, might be a little difficult. Maybe it has just assumed that it would not cost anything to change envelopes in computer systems and so on, but I find it a little hard to understand that explanation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one of the explanations may well be that Mr. Portillo's statement on Monday night, particularly the statement which said that the transitional relief will be allowed for every adult in the house, involves not only changing the figures used to calculate the rebate but rewriting all the software. That means that there will be a huge amount of expenditure on data processing without
1090
any particular increase in manpower. It also means, by the way, that no local authority will conceivably get its revised poll tax bills out before the May elections.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord may be right. I am not privy to the reason for that. But I want to begin my brief remarks with a confession. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I started to cut the central government grant to local authority expenditure during the years 1974 to 1979 in order to attempt to squeeze local authority expenditure. I am bound to tell your Lordships that I was not very successful in that effort. Local authority expenditure rose from £11,382 million in 1973–74 to £26,220 million in 1979–80. However, I was a little more successful in cutting the percentage of local authority expenditure covered by central government from a high of 48.1 per cent. in 1977–78 to 45.4 per cent. when I left at the start of 1979–80.
The present Government have tried to cut initially, as I did, by squeezing local authority expenditure and the net result is that the level of local authority expenditure that they inherited in 1979–80 has risen to £66,300 million in 1991–92. Indeed they increased the central government grant from 45.4 per cent. to 51.2 per cent. in 1986–87. It then fell, by not quite as much as in 1979–80, to 48.1 per cent. in 1991. Now with this Bill it has risen again to 57.8 per cent.
I confess that my way was not really a good way of deciding what should he an appropriate level of central and local government expenditure. As a one-off means of reducing the burden on local taxpayers, this Bill must surely be, equally, not a good way of doing that particular job. It would be nice if today the Minister would also confess that the Government do not think this is a good way to do things. Indeed I noted that the Lord Privy Seal, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, confirmed that beyond 1991–92 the Government intend, if they are still in office, to continue with a higher central government grant towards local government expenditure.
I wonder whether he, or the noble Baroness who is to reply, will tell us whether that means that policy within the Treasury has changed to such a degree that hypothecation will become the order of the day in the interim years—I do not think it will just be the one year—before the poll tax is wholly abolished. It would be very good to know. Because of the current mess and past failures of all governments, new instant solutions are being sought and this Bill is one of them.
But surely, instead of seeking this kind of instant solution, it would have been better to take a little time to think through the serious mess that we are in with local and central government expenditure in this area. I know that it would have upset Mr. Nigel Lawson, but as the Government have already done that, there is no harm in continuing to do it a little more.
The central question that needs to he faced is whether we want a local democracy. This is what it is all about. I hope the answer to that is yes from all sides of your Lordships' House. Certain questions follow. What should be the proportion of central government grant, whichever way it is done? The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not like it being done by way of

1091
grant, but what proportion should be financed by central government and what proportion by local government? What services should or should not be financed from local taxation? What is the correct structure of local government? That at least we know the Government are taking some time over because there is to be a Royal Commission. On the other hand, the structure cannot be divorced from everything else and dealt with in a vacuum; it is necessary to know how the new structure is to be financed. This is a crazy way of setting about clearing up the mess we are in and trying to put something better in its place.
My answer to those questions is coloured by the fact that basically I agree that central government must have overall responsibility for control of the economy. I would not dispute that in any way. Anybody who has ever had anything to do with handling the national economy knows that you cannot take it out of the hands of central government. Certainly no government could allow large unlimited increases in local authority expenditure. No government have done that in the past and I do not believe any government would in the future.
That is why I tried to squeeze local authority expenditure by cutting the grant. I failed. That is why the present Government tried first, squeezing local authority expenditure and, when that again failed, capping local authority expenditure. When that was not enough, they added the poll tax to allow accountability to the electors. That was the basic argument: the electors would then help to keep down the level of local authority expenditure. It failed in that respect, as indeed it manifestly deserved to do, because of the huge unfairness of the poll tax system. I can remember on one occasion in your Lordships' House a noble Duke or an Earl from the Conservative Benches making a very short statement: "Somehow it doesn't seem fair that I and my gamekeeper should pay the same tax". I was not absolutely sure whether he meant that he should not pay as much, but I assume it was the other way round. However, to cap as well, as the Government have done, makes a nonsense of the argument about accountability, as is generally recognised now. Where then is the accountability of local authorities to their electors?
I do not pretend that there is a miracle solution; there is not. The subject is too big and too complex to be solved by the Bill we are discussing today or indeed by any other single Bill. I very much doubt whether the Government between now and the autumn will be able to consult and then give the parliamentary draftsman a clear indication of what kind of Bill they are to introduce and get through both Houses—unless they intend again to guillotine it and push it through in a day or two. I hope they will not attempt to do that. I know they want to scrap the poll tax, although there are some who think they are going to scrap it only partially; but I very much doubt whether they can have a Bill ready by the end of this year which is at all sensible. I hope they will not try. It would be better if they took more time, even if it turned out to be 1st April 1994 or 1995. At least we could then have something sensible in place rather than another rushed Bill in the autumn of this year.
1092
Meanwhile, I assume that the Government are serious about consultation, and therefore I should like to put in my own "two penn'orth", as we say in Lancashire. Let me say at once that personally I am delighted that the Government are not rushing into this. I was astonished that Nigel Lawson attacked them in this area. Again, I hate to rush to the defence of the Government, but I find it odd that the right honourable gentleman, of whom I have had some experience in debate, should have called in aid a French socialist prime minister, and not a particularly good one at that, during his final bitter attack on the Government. So I do not blame the Government for being a bit upset about it; but that is an aside.
I start from where we are. I assume that the Bill will become an Act and that, as it stands, local authorities will be financing, as we are told in the red book, only some 11 per cent. of local government expenditure through the poll tax. That has led some people to argue, including some very seriousness honourable gentlemen in another place, that, therefore, as it is so low, it is too low and so we should not bother; we should do away with local authority taxation altogether. I see that a man I have a great deal of respect for, the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee and a former Treasury Minister, Terence Higgins, has said the same thing. However, I hope that nobody will take that argument seriously because to do that would effectively abolish any semblance of local democracy.
I cannot believe that the present Government, though they have moved a long way in a short time, would wish to do that. The That cherite principle of accountability would be thrown right out of the window—and about as far as you can get. If you do not have any local taxation at all there would effectively he no local democracy. So I hope nobody will work on the assumption that if, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, we are to keep the central government grant high in one way or another, we do not need local taxation. I hope it will be recognised that we must have some form of local taxation if we are to have some form of local democracy.
So I return to the fundamental conflict between central government desire for overall economic control and local government desire for democratic freedom to decide its own levels of expenditure. That is the nub of the problem. I have made my position clear: central government can never give up power over the economy, and particularly not in so large an area as the £66 billion of local government expenditure. Central government are bound to be interested in expenditure of that size. That is the problem; and neither the government in which I had the honour to serve nor their successors over the past 12 years have managed to go a long way towards dealing with the fundamental problem.
Today when I speak to local councillors of all parties I find that what frustrates them is how little they can do. They have no real power. There are very few decisions they can make; everything is on the tiniest of tiny margins. That has led some people to conclude that not only should we abolish local

1093
authority taxation but we should remove all powers from local councillors. Again, I hope that is not the conclusion that will he reached.
My own conclusion is that before we despair and destroy local democracy altogether we should give it a chance to work, albeit within more limited boundaries. Therefore I would finance centrally the major areas of expenditure such as the police and education, where local authorities in any case have very little control. Levels of pay, size and policy are all decided centrally and local authorities have very little to do in those respects. I hope that there would still be co-operation between local and central government, and I believe there could be. But with the removal of that financing, we would be dealing with a much smaller and more manageable level of local government expenditure. Incidentally, this Bill certainly does not deal with the problem, and the way the Government are proceeding with it does not help. But if that was done, and if more thought was given to a fair system of local taxation to finance a smaller and more manageable level of expenditure, we should be able to get the co-operation of local authorities.
Also we should not forget not forget that the vast majority of local councillors are perfectly reasonable and sensible people, who desperately want to do a decent job for their people. There always will be a few exceptions. Noble Lords opposite will always be able to quote a few "nutters", and I have come across them myself. But we should not even have to go to the trouble of capping if that more manageable level of expenditure was left to local authorities to decide for themselves and if they were made genuinely accountable to their local electors. That is not an ideal solution. As I have said, there is no such thing, but it seems to me that it is a darn sight better than the instant thoughts we are now having and the instant solutions we have in the Bill. I hope that something along those lines can eventually be provided.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that what we require is a more respectful attitude towards the importance of local government in this country and that that means a careful, unhurried look at the functions that it should perform and how those functions should be financed. The mistake made in the past few years has been to look at the finance before we decide on the functions. That is wrong. The functions should be decided first, and the finance must follow therefrom.
What we are discussing is not the long-term future of local government, which is an enormously complex and important task, but what the noble Lord the Leader of the House called the exceptional circumstances of the Bill. They are indeed exceptional, for the reasons to which my noble friend Lord Russell referred. We are discussing one of the great political fiascos of this century. My noble friend described events going back to the 17th century. I do not claim to be able to tick off the fiascos century by century in the way that he does. But certainly an astonishing
1094
series of events led to the Bill coming before the House at the last moment and to our being asked to put it through in one day. That is what is being put to your Lordships in relation to a measure which has proved almost everything that a measure should not be. It has proved to be extremely expensive; it has proved to be extremely unfair; and it has proved to be extremely unpopular.
The measure arose from a major error of judgment on the part of the Government who claimed that they would not be a government which made U-turns. They have not made a U-turn today; they have turned a somersault. I cannot think of any change of policy more violent, more obvious and more humiliating than the one we are witnessing today. The flagship has been scuttled. The lady left the bridge some time ago. One person—I regret to say that he is not here today —remains aboard, almost alone. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, like Mrs. Hemans's boy on the burning deck, still stands defending the poll tax as being in his own words,
"the fairest scheme that could be devised".
There can be few people who agree with that statement now.
Your Lordships have been asked to do something to help the Government get themselves out of the booby-trap they laid for themselves. It is not as if they were not warned. It is necessary before we pass on and let the Government have the Bill, which we shall do, to remind them of the warnings they received. They were warned in 1976 by the Layfield Committee; in 1981 by the Green Paper on Alternatives to Domestic Rates; in 1982 by the Environment Select Committee of the other place; and, in 1983 by the White Paper on Rates. They found that they had support for their scheme from not one local authority association. Even the Conservative-dominated Association of County I Councils opposed it. One would have thought that advice from so many quarters, which could not be called unqualified or ignorant, might have had some effect. Not at all. They did not listen. Therefore the consequence that we see today is the consequence of a style of government which has proved dangerously fallible. It has not proved to be merely dangerously fallible, but enormously expensive, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out.
Quite apart from being unfair and unpopular, to be so expensive is a sad comment on the Government's everyday competence. Various estimates of the total cost have been given. Goodness knows how those estimates are arrived at. According to what I have seen, they range from £4 billion to £10 billion and from £100 a head to £200 a head. I do not know whether these estimates are true, but the exercise has been hugely expensive.
The Conservative Party's reputation as the party which could be trusted with the prudent management of public money has hardly been enhanced by the recession, inflation, unemployment, and the interest rates which this country is now described as enjoying. That record of incompetence has now been compounded by the cost of the poll tax and the cost of

1095
unravelling the poll tax, which make the financial record of some of the dottier Labour councils look like models of financial sobriety.
We welcome the demise of the poll tax and claim some responsibility for that happy event. However we cannot welcome the way that the Bill was passed in the other place nor the process by which it will be passed in your Lordships' House, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rightly pointed out. The Bill was whipped and guillotined in the first instance through the other place. As my noble friend Lord Russell said, your Lordships will remember the debate we had here on 23rd May 1988 on the late Lord Chelwood's amendment. That amendment, as my noble friend said, was defeated by no fewer than 317 votes to 183 —a vote which hardly added to the reputation of this House as a revising chamber. I remember a bewildered Peer from the backwoods of the City of London asking one of my noble friends how he could vote for the Government. My noble friend, being a gallant gentleman, gave him the advice that he wanted, which is more than I would have done.
Yesterday in another place, and here today, we are asked to rectify a catalogue of errors by passing a Bill published last Thursday, forced through another place yesterday unamended with the Second Reading guillotined, and with one hour put aside to consider Lords' amendments. Such procedures, for the reasons given by my honourable friend Mr. Beith in another place, do not add to the reputation of parliamentary democracy. The finance of local government, as my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said; the relationship between local and central government; and the degree of local autonomy which local government has, and which is reflected in those financial arrangements, are crucially important to the country if it is to be governed by consent. Government by consent is what we believe in, as my noble friend said.
To bulldoze through legislation of this kind on matters of this importance and of this complexity—the complexity and importance were brought out by the speeches of both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett —puts at risk the reputation of our parliamentary institutions. That is very serious.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the procedure by which we are discussing this Bill makes it difficult to do justice to it. It is not something that we wish to do very often, but noble Lords have accepted that that is the procedure which we are now using.
We must not allow any anxiety about the procedure and the lack of discussion which is forced upon us to mask the importance and urgency of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, did not mention just how important and urgent this Bill is for hard pressed poll tax payers whose interests Parliament exists to serve and as a first stage of the Government's current review of local finance.
1096
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that it was very important that the Government should take time to get their thinking and the financial system right. I believe that I understood the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to say that the Labour Government would not take time but would introduce the scheme quickly and just go ahead with it. There is rather a difference there. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was listening hard to the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches.
Clearly, the Government's review will take time. There will be a consultation document after Easter, the collection and consideration of views on that document, the publication of firm proposals and subsequent legislation for and implementation of the new scheme.
During that time our local councils must continue to be financed. Had the poll tax levels been reasonable in all council areas, the present system, with its rebates, could have continued at least until the new system was ready and, perhaps, indefinitely. Now that is simply not possible. Some high spending authorities have set impossibly high poll tax levels which are made higher because some Members of Parliament, councillors and other political activists have not paid and have persuaded others that they need not pay. It seems to me that if an apology is called for in this debate, it may be from those people.
In Scotland, where many local authorities are highly responsible, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, the increase last year in the poll tax was 5 per cent. across Scotland, whereas this year it is 30 per cent. in spite of a government grant increased well above the rate of inflation. There is something wrong there.
The burden thrust by councils on conscientious, law-abiding charge payers had to be alleviated and had to he alleviated now because the charge bills must be reduced before people pay, and at the same time councils must be compensated for what they have lost. The Bill simply sets the legal framework for achieving that. Because of the way in which VAT operates, it may involve more people eating cake than biscuits, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. The amount of VAT that one pays depends on how much one spends. There is a great deal to be said for that. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, there is a desire by government to increase VAT as part of the taxation package in any event and this measure fits in with that desire.
I should like to say a few words in response to those who describe time for consultation and consideration as dithering and who say—as, surprisingly, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did—that they will fight the Government's proposals every step of the way. That is what he said last Thursday, although today he does not seem to be fighting them but merely trying to amend them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, last Thursday I was talking about the Heseltine proposals and not about this Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour; My Lords, the noble Lord had not seen the Bill but was talking about its timetable, although I do not have his words in front of me.
Such people should bear in mind that local government is unlikely to survive at all if political parties continue, as they have done over the past three or four years, to use the system of local government finance as a constant opportunity for party political warfare. As I said in a recent debate, if no agreement can be reached across the political parties for a system of local government finance, it seems to me that the only answer is 100 per cent. funding by central government. There are many disadvantages in that but there would also be many advantages. I hope that that possibility will not be lost in the whole discussion.
Whatever new system Parliament eventually decides upon, if local government is to survive there will need to be acceptance by Parliament, the political parties and by local councils, and that acceptance will not come about without a degree of co-operation and consultation taking place. This Bill gives a breathing space and times for those consultations to take place. During that time it will make the present system tolerable for charge payers and for councils. That is what it is for. It may turn out to be a permanent shift in the balance of funding, but at present that is what the Bill is about. It deserves our support. I am glad that we are having this kind of debate and not the kind which we had the other day, because this is far more constructive and far more likely to get a good Bill on the statute book.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, because both she and I share a common interest in and experience of local government. We appreciate the complexity of the issue of the relationship between local and central government.
That appeared very simple to me at the age of 22 when I entered Glasgow City Council. The first thing I did was to table a resolution that the city council should petition Her Majesty's Government to have a local income tax established in Scottish rating. That did not carry and since that time I have learnt a great deal about the subject.
However, when I saw the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on the list to speak today, I reflected that the last time we had a serious discussion on this matter it was in the presence of a very formidable spokesman of this House—and I refer to Lord Ross of Marnock, who would have been delighted to have been here today as we bury the poll tax. I recall very well that we sat late on a number of Committee sittings in March and April 1987. The Government ultimately imposed the poll tax on Scotland. At that time we argued that it was unfair, socially unjust, complicated, difficult to operate and very expensive. However, perhaps I may say that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on that occasion, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whom I am delighted to see is now on the Front Bench, and by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson,
1098
assured us that our fears were exaggerated and that none of those prophecies would be fulfilled in the fact. Now we come today to bury the poll tax. I believe that a little humility is called for and some apology for the colossal blunder which has been made by the Government and which has caused not only massive hardship but the constitutional difficulties which have been discussed already.
I did not mind Scotland being used as a guinea-pig. However, one of the things that Scots resent is that the iniquity of the poll tax became an important national issue only when it hit England. We suffered a year of this tax. We discussed in this House some of the inequities and unfairness of the tax in Scotland, but those views were not heeded. Anyway, the tax has now hit England. I would have thought that the experiment of a year of the tax in Scotland would have convinced the Government—that is why you conduct a limited experiment—how unworkable and undesirable this measure was.
Here are the consequences of it in Scotland: at the moment there are 3.8 million people in Scotland liable to pay the tax. Of that number summary warrants have been issued for non-payment against 1.25 million people. At present 730,000 cases are before the sheriffs. That is a serious matter because many of these people are unable to pay. For the first time in their lives the sheriff's officer is knocking at the door; for the first time in their lives they have got into debt and for the first time in their lives this debt marks against their credit rating and affects their ability to raise a mortgage or any other credit they may require. That is a very serious matter, but it is a consequence of imposing this measure on Scotland for the past two years.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, present. At the moment in the Strathclyde region, 46 per cent. of the people have not so far paid the poll tax this year. Some of them have a socially justifiable reason, but for others it is a form of political protest. I am not justifying breaking the law. In a sense the protest has diminished respect for the law. It is a bad law. When people who arc normally law-abiding citizens break the law to this extent it brings the law into disrepute.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, will the noble Lord recognise that it was out of pure political expediency that the unelected supporters of his party and the Members of Parliament itself, besides local councillors, refused to pay the tax? That was done for purely petty political reasons. Will the noble Lord support those who have paid up?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I will. As I said before, I am in favour of observing the law. It is not my view of constitutional democracy to disobey the law. You can work to change it. I paid the tax. It was a very small minority of Labour Party members in the other place and in local government who disobeyed the law and refused to pay. In a way, the non-payers are now claiming victory, which is very unfortunate if you break the law. It was an unjust tax and in some cases the non-payers felt that non-payment was a justifiable form of protest.

1099
What is happening now? Because the tax is difficult to collect and because this particular piece of legislation is in disrepute, money is not coming into the local authorities. The Government have made some adjustments and given limited allowance for that, but not enough. Many local authorities such as Strathclyde have now to borrow in order to make up the deficiency. They have had to cut very drastically the local authority services particularly in education. They have had to cut back on road expenditure and on the donations and support for the voluntary sector which are so important for social services. That is bad.
What do we do now? I would remove the tax on students. At present they have a liability of £60 a year; the collection charges for that £60 are very substantial. We are talking about £6 million. It will be sensible, socially just and good economics for students to be exempt from paying this tax. I would also take out the 500,000 people in Scotland who are on income support. In that regard one is pursuing people who cannot afford to pay. The cost there would be about £40 million, which is small money compared to the cost involved in the new legislation.
As regards the future structure of local government, I notice that England is to have an independent commission to look at this difficult subject. In the case of Scotland the Secretary of State is to consult. There is a difference, because an independent commission is an independent commission. The Secretary of State for Scotland is a political leader of the Government. I suggest that this matter should be looked at again. I very much support the Bill before us which will be universally welcomed in Scotland. My only regret is that the warnings of Lord Ross of Marnock, my noble friend Lord Carmichael and myself were not heeded at the time.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe and other noble Lords have referred to the demise of the poll tax. I fear that their celebrations are rather premature. This Bill, and the preliminary indications of Government policy, do not show that the poll tax is going to be killed. Indeed there is every indication that some elements of the poll tax will be retained. If the opinion polls are to be believed, 70 per cent. of the British population believe that the poll tax will still be with us after this Bill and any future reorganisation of local government finance. I say very kindly to my noble friend, "don't celebrate too soon. We have not got rid of the poll tax yet". We shall not get rid of it until we have a Labour Government for which we must all strive.
This Bill is a panic measure. It is designed to try to save the Conservatives from being routed at the next general election. But the electorate is unlikely to be fooled by this cynical exercise. Neither will they easily forget the financial hardship to individuals and the administrative chaos caused by the poll tax which was wilfully introduced against all experienced advice from every quarter, in particular from the local authorities, both Tory as well as Labour, who should know best. Furthermore the voters do not need the back-stabbing ex-chancellor, Nigel Lawson, to tell
1100
them that the Government are still deeply divided about what is to be the pattern of local government finance in future. Indeed Mr. Lawson's speech on Monday was itself a cynical exercise bearing in mind that he himself, as well as being the architect together with the Prime Minister, of Britain's economic misery, voted in the Lobbies for the introduction of the poll tax. Now, apparently, he is advocating a local government financing system which would hit hardest the pockets of the poorest and at the same time deprive local government of any of its own resources, thus removing any semblance of democratic accountability. It seems then that it is not only the Government who are deeply divided but the whole of the Tory Party, as individuals and groups within it vie with each other to put forward alternatives to the hated poll tax.
Perhaps the greatest poll tax debacle has done one good thing. It has exposed the lie that the Government have been perpetrating these past seven or eight years that it is profligate spending by local authorities that has caused a large rise in local taxation. The Government now admit that the major cause of soaring local taxation has been the withdrawal of central government financial support from local authorities. This Bill underlines the extent of the resources denied by the Government to local authorities for the pursuit of their social and statutory duties in order that income tax cuts, largely benefiting the well off in society, could be made in pursuit of the Government's aim of transferring resources from the poor to the well off. That is what it was all about. The local authorities were deprived in order that the Conservatives nationally could derive the opportunity to cut taxes to help them win elections.
In my own view the Government have even muffed the poll tax relief scheme as the £4.3 billion referred to in the Bill is to be raised not by direct taxation through income tax, as my noble friend noted, but through VAT—an expenditure tax —which cannot by its nature be as discriminating. Thus, for example, young people struggling to set up home, having to buy new carpets and furniture, will be harder hit than those already established and comfortably off. In my view 4p on income tax is far preferable to 2.5 per cent. on VAT. The anomalies remain. People up and down the country will now have to pay more for their goods in order that Wandsworth residents shall pay nothing for their local services. That has nothing to do with efficiency; it has to do with the maladministration and maldistribution of grant.
I have received some information from the Reading Borough Council which may be of interest to the House. It shows what could happen if four major towns in Berkshire swapped grants with Wandsworth. Let me just show how this would happen. In Reading, for example, the poll tax before grant would have been £1,048. If Reading swapped grants with Wandsworth, Reading, less grant of £1,060, would be paying minus £12 in poll tax—instead people in Reading pay £476. In Newbury, a Tory controlled council, poll tax before grant is £909. If Newbury swapped with Wandsworth, its poll tax payers would pay minus £151. All these councils are in Berkshire. In Wokingham, another

1101
Tory controlled council, the poll tax before grant would be £919. Given the Wandsworth grant, the charge payers would receive a handout from the council of £141 instead of having to pay to the council £390.
But what would happen in Wandsworth? This is interesting, because the poll tax, before grant, in Wandsworth is higher than in Reading. In Reading the figure is £1,048; in Wandsworth it is £1,196. If Wandsworth had Reading's grant of £574, Wandsworth would be paying £622—not nothing, but £622. We see that there is great maldistribution in the grant system which is causing people up and down the country, who should not be paying so much in poll tax, to be paying it so that people in Wandsworth can pay nothing for their local services. I thought it was government policy that everybody should pay something for their local services, but now apparently they are quite happy that Wandsworth and others should pay nothing. I shall give way to my noble friend.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I naturally support my noble friend in everything he says. Does he agree that Westminster is solving its problems and letting people have a very low poll tax by making dozens of teachers redundant in the schools? In other words, Westminster is sacrificing the services in order that it can then say to the Tory Government how marvellous it is.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is so. With the poll tax being relatively low, and lower than the rates, it is having to get rid of teachers and other staff who provide the services to the residents of that area.
The problems in Reading and other Berkshire towns—and indeed in Swindon, which I used to represent in another place—are no less acute than in Wandsworth, particularly in relation to housing, roads and transport. Even after the £140 reduction, I shall still be required to pay £336, not only for myself but for my wife as well. Such anomalies, which are reported up and down the country, whereby some people pay high charges and others pay nothing for virtually the same range and quality of service, are offensive. This Bill aggravates, rather than removes, those anomalies.
The people of Reading—I speak of Reading because I vote and live there—because of the high level of charge and consequently a significant level of non-collection (the two go together do they not?) have to pay £34 extra per poll tax payer to make up for non-payers. So, again, while in Wandsworth services are free—there is no problem of getting money as no one has to pay anything—because people are hard pressed in Reading other poll tax payers have to pay £34 extra in order to make up for that. That is an anomaly in the Bill because it does nothing to correct that anomaly.
What is the position of authorities such as Thamesdown and Swindon which are highly efficient and have already sent out their bills? How about them? How disappointing and frustrating for both
1102
councillors and staff. The Government have demanded that they should be efficient. Yet when they are efficient they find that that efficiency has been nullified by the Government's own incompetence, hesitation and downright inefficiency.
Whitehall clearly wants to grab more of, if not all of, the real powers from town and county halls. But if its handling of local government finance these past 10 years is an example of how Whitehall will administer local services and finance, God help us all.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Brocket: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that we all wish to have a local democracy. But there was a day when local councillors were not allied to a political party. They served to ensure that services in the community were run well and efficiently—and they were not paid. Now councillors ally themselves to political parties and they are paid. It does not require a politician to run a street lamp system or to mow the grass; it requires someone with a business mind.
The same sad fate has befallen education in this country. Education is nothing to do with politics. It is now run by political parties and that leads to such decisions—which I suppose are necessary—as that which concludes that history stops at 1970! Politicians at any level should not go near education, nor should they run local services.
With regard to the community charge, I must say that I agree with the principle of what is proposed as no socially minded person could possibly disagree with the principle of everyone contributing at least something. Voters should not be able to vote an authority into office and then he immune from the results of that authority's actions. The fact that the Government have failed to get their message across merely shows that communications is not one of the Conservative Party's greatest skills.
Perhaps we may return to the day when people served their community because they felt that they had something to give of themselves. Perhaps voters will elect authorities not because of the political party for which they stand but because of their ability. Politicians and politics do not run street lights and they do not empty dustbins; ability and efficiency does. Similarly, politics will not produce better linguists or mathematicians in our schools. If all that seems too much like Utopia, then the only route that I can see is funding from central government— quantified by goodness knows what—linked either to the amount we spend or the amount we earn. In that regard I agree with the increase in VAT as being a fair way to distribute wealth. But I have to say that a much fairer way would be to have higher rates of VAT on luxury goods, as was the case with the old purchase tax system, and a zero rate of VAT for necessities, especially food. That is a basic principle and I believe that we are going very wrong in that regard.
However, if we have to go in the direction of central government funding, we then have to rely on councillors being good business managers. That is where everything is going wrong. Regrettably, councillors who are chosen by political labels do not

1103
necessarily have to know how to add up, let alone subtract. Of course, they may know that "Baa, baa, green sheep" is a non-racist nursery rhyme. Therefore, what happens next to these centrally distributed funds is anyone's guess. What would the worthy councillors of Liverpool in Victorian times have thought of the behaviour these days of Derek Hatton?
I welcome the provision of VAT to lower the community charge. I can thoroughly recommend to the poll tax demonstrators in Wandsworth the game of cricket, or perhaps rugby, if they are at a loose end. The real answer lies not only in a system of fair taxation which is applicable to all, but also in the banishing of political animals and having worthy and able citizens running our services. Perhaps it would be a good idea to ban the naming of political parties together with candidates' names on voting slips at the local elections. One can just imagine the confusion on voting day. It is possible that 90 per cent. of the voters would not have a clue as to whom to vote for; they would not know the abilities of the candidates. They would be stuck. If we go along that route we may banish such absurdities as statute placement officers being paid £42,000 and prevent the cost of emptying a dustbin in one area being double the cost in another area.
Finally, and most important, is the business rate. I am amazed and most concerned that no one has talked about the business rate. It seems to have totally escaped everyone's attention. There seems to be no indication from the Government that there will be any change in this respect. In my opinion, one of the unquestionable benefits of the Thatcher boom years of the 1980s was the rekindling of the British entrepreneurial spirit without which this great country is nothing.
During the 1980s people were encouraged to go it alone and set up their own businesses. They borrowed money and bought premises. But then the business rate was introduced. Thousands of people have since gone out of business and been declared bankrupt. These days they cannot even sell the property for which they borrowed. Such property has become worthless. For example, the little corner shop upon which some people based all their figures and for which they laid out all their money is now unsellable because of the business rate attached to it.
We are all aware of the well-known examples of the increases which have taken place. They were given much publicity in the press. Harrods' business rate went from £l million to £8.3 million. But no publicity was given in the press reports to the less well-known examples. I refer to the small businesses like the corner shops the rates on which rose from £1,000 to £3,000 overnight. There is also the example of the small car repair business under the railway arches. Its rate rose from £1,000 to £5,000. There is also the case of one of my local pubs. Its rate rose from £1,200 to £14,200. The owners have gone bust but they are unable to sell the business. I could continue with such examples. We are in fact looking at increases which range from double to 18-times the original rate.
The village shop has suffered the same pathetic fate. Those businesses may only be marginal in business
1104
terms, but they are a vital part of our society; they provide a vital public service. Moreover, many of those small businesses will be the seeds of future great businesses. These people have been badly let down. They have had the rug pulled out from under them and they are the very people whom we promised to support. They are also the people whose support this Government needs. The Government seem either not to care about the problem or not to know about it.
I must implore the Government to ignore at their peril the disastrous effect of the uniform business rate on our entrepreneurs and small businesses. This House has a reputation for being fair; it is also known for speaking on matters which are not dealt with in another place. The problem of the UBR must be dealt with. The small people concerned have no voices. They are not members of any chamber of commerce. Moreover, they are not the Tescos or the ICIs of this world, but they are the backbone of this country. If we ignore them, I believe that this Government will fall at the next election; but if we destroy them, our children will still feel the consequences when they are grown up.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am speaking today from the Front Bench, although we have another speaker on the list who will conclude the debate because of the importance of the poll tax for Scotland.
As your Lordships will be well aware, Scotland is in its third year of the poll tax. We were in effect the guinea-pigs and, like my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I have no great concern about being used as an experiment so long as there are enough resources ready quickly to bale out Scotland if anything should go wrong with the system. I say that I have no great concern about our being used for experiments in the hope that the next experiment will be devolution and the break up of the sheer monolithic nature of government. People want more immediate government. We were the guinea-pigs and I am sure that I many in the Chamber today will remember the debates in which we were assured by Ministers that the poll tax was the final answer to the problems of local government finance. The assurances were given charmingly and convincingly. I believe that the then Minister is not quite so enthusiastic now, but he did his job well.
The tragedy in the first instance for the people of Scotland, and later the people of England and Wales, is that the whole concept of the poll tax was thought up as a panic measure. It has caused great family and personal distress to the people of Scotland. No serious study of the effects of the poll tax has been carried out. The idea was dismissed in a White Paper in 1981. In a further White Paper in 1983 the Government's reliance on the rating system was clearly stated. That White Paper was produced by a Conservative Government. It stated:
"There is little point in replacing rates with an untried and unfamiliar system having little support from the outset. The Government has therefore decided to make reforms to the rating system which is basically sound but needs improvement".

1105
It is not absolutely true that nothing was done about the poll tax. A sudden glossy White Paper was produced on it. My late friend Lord Ross of Marnock has been mentioned. Anyone who remembers him during the series of debates will recall the wit and passion with which he spoke. We had no White Paper on the poll tax but we had a Green Paper, which is usually less precise than a White Paper. As Lord Ross of Marnock said, we had a Green Paper called Paying for Local Government. It was priced at £11.20. As he said, it was the talk of the Gorbals; everyone was racing out to buy it. It was not a Green Paper really, he said, but a glossy magazine, lacking only the advertisements. That phrase put it most succinctly. That was all we had.
The real cause of the panic, which came out very clearly when we discussed the subject in those days, was that domestic and other properties were revalued in Scotland in 1985. There was no revaluation at the same time in England; people had to wait a long time before properties were revalued. The revaluation in Scotland showed a shift in value which helped industrial ratepayers much more than anyone else. It certainly did not help the domestic ratepayers. There was a small rise in rateable values for the small shopkeeper, as the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, mentioned. He pointed out their difficulties, and this was built into the argument as though it was the real cause of the trouble. However, the people who were stung by the revaluation were the domestic ratepayers. I remember the former chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Goold, and the pictures taken of him showing this horrible paper, the rates bill, and saying that something must be done.
That was the reason for the poll tax Bill. There was panic following the revaluation and a conference was held in Perth by the Conservative Party. The then Prime Minister was told in no uncertain terms that something must be done. Thus, the poll tax was brought forward, and that is the reason we are in this difficulty.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? What he said is not absolutely correct all over Scotland. For example, in the area where I live, the town of Forfar, an important shop found its valuation multiplied by three and a half, whereas the equivalent in the city of Dundee was halved. So there was a distortion in the same area or the same region of local government which caused the trouble. It was not the domestic rate; it involved shops. What the noble Lord said is not absolutely true. It is probably an average figure given by the CBI.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, in Scotland an average figure for small businesses of 1.3 per cent. was given by the CBI. I agree: one of the problems in Scotland was undoubtedly the famous sports fields. There was a small cricket pitch somewhere in Fife that paid almost as much as Lord's. There were great anomalies and I have never understood exactly how the assessment worked in various areas. There was apparently a science in it. Figures were produced to show that there was a
1106
reason for setting the rateable value at a certain amount. The matter was brought up many times in this House and in another place.
The Government found that they had done away with the rates and brought in the poll tax which they thought would do a wonderful job. It proved to be very unpopular. Figures were given by my noble friends Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Stoddart of Swindon and others on this side to show just how unpopular the tax has become. The Government hoped that after the Perth conference and by the introduction of this tax they would do wonders. They promptly lost 11 seats in Scotland at the 1987 election. Thus, bells began to ring.
One group still felt that there was fairness in the idea of the poll tax, and one or two people agreed. They kept plugging away. That is why it was not until the catastrophe hit them recently that the Government realised that something had to be done. During all the debates in the House they were warned of the problems that could arise from the unfairness of the tax, its denial of the importance of ability to pay and especially the iniquity of the 20 per cent. rule, as has been mentioned already today. The 20 per cent. charge for people on income supplement is quite vicious.
Practical problems were also pointed out. There is the movement of people from house to house and across county boundaries. We continually said that the one great advantage of a rating system is that property does not move. It is easy to establish when someone leaves a property or takes up residence and when the property is empty.
Questions were asked about all these and many other practical problems from all sides of the House. The Minister was only able to give general assurances, although he gave them with great confidence. I believe that he is much less enthusiastic now.
We have had rates for over a century. With all their imperfections and all the examinations and White Papers, only improvements have been suggested. Even as late as 1983, in a full study, the idea of a poll tax was not given serious consideration. It was dismissed. Then in 1987, with no depth of study, we were given the poll tax.
I have given this potted history because I fear we are doing exactly the same again. The Bill has little by way of serious study to support it. If one goes through the debates in the other place one finds that the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Scotland answer every question with a reply such as, "Well, we shall study that", "There will be a working party on it" or "It will be looked at more thoroughly". But we have been told practically nothing about the guts of the Bill.
This is another panic Bill, only this time the Government are pretending they have all the answers. They appear to me to be throwing money at the problem in the hope that before the situation becomes even more acute they will have worked out some of the answers. This is a sad Bill. However, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, we obviously cannot vote against a Bill that will give, or is supposed to give, everyone £140. But what is disturbing is what may lie behind the Bill. I find that worrying as regards

1107
Scotland. If central government are slowly to take over more and more of the finance of local government, central government will at the same time want to have more and more control in local government. That will lead to the death of local democracy.
A number of speakers have asked what we on this side of the House would do in this situation. At least in Scotland we have been clear on this issue. We in Scotland are more advanced in our thinking on local government reform than the people in England. Our proposal was dubbed rather sneeringly a roof tax. I strongly believe that after all the arguments have been heard on this Bill, and after all the many reviews that the Government are to carry out have been commissioned, we shall not be all that far away from a roof tax, a floor space tax or something of that kind.
I conclude by referring to politics in local government. The grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and my father sat on Glasgow Corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, was on the corporation at the same time. The clash of ideas on the corporation produced some extremely advanced thinking. We experienced our heavy industry dying away and we came through that. We are coming through a recession again because the local authority is a politically motivated one which has to substantiate every idea it puts forward. I believe there are only five or six Conservatives on Glasgow Corporation. I believe that is about right. That is the kind of figure that the corporation can accommodate. We should not agree to accept any more Conservatives on the corporation. I have no doubts at all that one cannot discuss the disbursement of finance without involving politics. That is why I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, is no longer in his place. We have to accept the Bill, but we await with great interest the results of the many reviews that the Government are to undertake.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is 80 years this year since the partial downfall of your Lordships' House occurred. It is due only to a provision of the Parliament Act 1911 which excluded local taxation from the matters covered by that Act that we are able to help the Government in their present troubles. It is sad for anyone who has been in government to see Ministers in such difficulties. However, those difficulties have been largely brought upon themselves.
When we were discussing the community charge legislation we gave the Government plenty of warning of the likely consequences of what they were doing. Certainly I well remember saying that a high collection rate on direct payment of the kind of amounts that were to be levied would be almost impossible to achieve. I said that without some provision for deduction from wages, we would never collect the tax fully. Income tax would have collapsed years and years ago but for a withheld tax system. However, the Government took the view that it was morally good for local citizens to pay over directly some payment for services rendered which would help in the exercise of accountability.
1108
The psychology of that concept was completely wrong. Everyone is so used nowadays to payment by debit, by bankers orders and by deduction from wages. Everyone is encouraged to avoid making payments in cash and carrying cash around with them. Payments are almost universally made nowadays by means of extraction from one's hank account or pay packet. It was ridiculous to expect a new tax of this kind to be paid willingly by large numbers of people who had not had to do such a thing before. That has turned out to be the case.
In the months to come the Government ought to try to fathom the psychology of the public as regards this Bill. It has been deeply disturbing to witness passive resistance on the scale that has occurred and to witness such a scale of tumult, shouting, violence and demos. Nothing like that has occurred before on a matter of taxation. The last occasion when there was passive resistance to the payment of local rates occurred during my childhood after the passage of the education legislation in the early part of this century. That legislation levied an education rate which could include an element of support to denominational schools. My father thought that meant the catechism was to he more important than the curriculum. He voted to keep the vicar out of the classroom by refusing to pay.
That non-conformist passive resistance was quite extensive at the time throughout the country. Widespread actions for recovery were taken. My father chose to spend 14 days in prison rather than pay the rate. He spent 14 days in prison year after year until the outbreak of war in 1914. I used to ask my mother whether my father was a had man as he used to go to prison. She replied that he was a good man who was standing up for his principles.
But where are the principles in this matter? I can understand someone having strong principles as regards the use of his money. A number of people object to paying their taxes because they do not like contributing to defence expenditure—that is quite common—but one wonders what the basis was for such an emotional reaction in this matter. The reaction did not occur wholly on the part of people who could not afford to pay. Many young people especially reacted emotionally and refused to pay the poll tax. I know families where fathers have paid the poll tax for their children as their children have refused to pay it and the fathers do not want the children to be sent to prison for non-payment of the community charge.
What disturbs me about all the tumult that has occurred over the poll tax is that it is difficult to grasp the motivation behind the objections. Were they politically motivated or was there a desire for riotous behaviour? What was the motivation? Although we are told this is a universally hated tax, it is difficult to grasp precisely what it is hated for. The principle that everyone should share and share alike the cost of certain services provided by local authorities does not seem, in principle, to be objectionable. However, what is objectionable is not so much a matter of principle but of practice, and that is, if we are sharing and sharing alike, the burden must come within the ability

1109
to pay of the average citizen. Apart from that concept, there is still much that needs to he understood about the public's reaction to this form of taxation. The burden was too high. It was much higher than we thought it would be. A great many people were willing, however grudgingly, to see the new tax come in if it was not too high, but it turned out otherwise.
My noble friend Lord Barnett, with whose speech I agreed almost entirely, explained that the squeeze on local authorities and the reduction in central government grant, coupled with rising costs of administration, left the local authorities very hard pressed. They had to raise their demands through the poll tax and were driven to other measures to make good the shortfall in their resources—borrowing money, indulging in dubious financial transactions and other measures—which to some extent have brought local government into disrepute.
Now we wonder where we go from here. For a minute or two I should like to consider some of the prospects. The Government have not left themselves much time to do anything as well as it should be done. That is a pity. The issue ought to have been dealt with much earlier in this Parliament, or in a previous one, to allow it to be dealt with in the right atmosphere for proper consideration. We are now being driven by a timetable and the force of events.
We have talked about a reform of the rating system for 50 years, and nothing has been done about it. We have not even bothered to keep the valuations up to date. There have been only four revaluations in the past 50 years. In the first revaluation after the war, in 1956, the values were based on pre-war, 1939 rentals. In 1963 there was another revaluation and in 1973 the values were raised again. Domestic valuations increased by about 160 per cent. There they have stuck ever since. The valuations in the rating books today are the same as were put there in 1973. It is anybody's guess what one would have to do to them to bring them into line with anything resembling the current letting value of living accommodation.
The poll tax was aimed at moving away from the property base, with its problems of revaluation, appeals and the process of changing the basis of assessment. However, it has been a flop. It has become so unpopular that anything resembling it seems only to offer further scope for political discord.
What then will the Government consider? They say that their inclination is to look at a property tax together with an addition based on the number of persons living in a house. The tax would be levied on the head of the house—the owner or the occupier—and it would be up to him to apportion any part of the burden to the other people living in the house. That seems to be the basis of what the Government have in mind. For the valuation for the property tax, they appear to favour capital value rather than annual value. That seems to be where we are. There is nothing more definite than that. I suggest that some thinking has to be done very quickly as to which scheme is to be examined in depth. The options are narrowing all the time.
I would rule out the possibility of a local income tax
1110
for a number of reasons. We are too small a country to have 333 separate bodies levying income tax for local government purposes alongside the national taxation scheme. The more one examines the idea of a local income tax the more horrifying the complexities become.
I turn next to a revival of the rating system. Should we reinstate the 1973 values and operate them for a time while preparing a new scheme of valuation based on property values? That is an idea that has been canvassed a good deal. To go back to the old rating system at 1973 values would be an admission of defeat. It would be an admission that the problem is beyond solution and that we have to revert to what we had before for a while until we can think of something better. If we go back to the old rating system we shall never get away from it again. No government would have the courage to lift the property values to anything like current values. It will be politically undesirable to consider another alternative. If dogs will sleep, governments will let them sleep. That scheme would be a confession of complete failure. Something better and more up to date should be put in its place.
We are left with some measure of capital taxation. Here we run into fresh difficulties. Is a capital valuation to be based on market values at the present time? Is it to be based on what it would cost to replace the property, ignoring site value? Is it to be a combination of factors to give a unit scale for taxation? How is it to be done? In their further studies the Government will have to apply their mind to the practical side of such a proposal.
They will discover that it will be difficult to decide the basis of valuation of the capital value of a house at the present time. Does one ignore the site value? If it is to be based on market value and that value is put on a taxation paper for the elector to see he will have to send for a doctor. He will be told that he is living in a house worth £85,000 and that his payment to the local authority will be based on that valuation. Or he may be told that his house is worth £85,000 but for taxation purposes it will be discounted to £40,000. Any manipulation would be possible in those circumstances. If it was based on the cost of replacement, a house in Mayfair might cost no more to replace than a house in Hackney. Another idea to reduce the valuation for rating purposes is to take the insurance value. That would be the amount for which people insure their houses in case of fire, which ignores the site value.
All of those are possibilities which have to be studied. However, they have to be studied quickly if the Government are to sort the matter out and tell the electors pretty soon what local government finance is going to look like. There may be a temptation to rush into something else and take the wrong decision. That would be a great pity.
Is there anything that anybody can do to help the Government in those further studies? There are plenty of noble Lords who have experience in the field. Would the Government welcome the views of Members of the House of Lords? Who will help them make up their minds? They have floundered about

1111
until now. Can we take their arm and see them through? We do not mind, probably, if they are re-elected in consequence so long as we get some stable government and settlement of this long-standing and difficult problem. There is plenty of good will around, at any rate in some quarters. My noble friend Lord Barnett and I are oozing with good will toward the Government to help them out of their difficulties.
I offer those words as a humble gesture toward finding answers to some of the questions. The matter is becoming very urgent. Of course we have to pass this Bill, but from tomorrow the study of the next stage must begin in earnest.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, the poll tax was introduced as a means to curb extravagance and misuse of public money by some local councils—very few local councils in fact. As has already been said, the burdens of the changes that we are discussing this evening have caused tremendous chaos inside local authorities. The new registration, collection and non-payment difficulties have all piled up to make it much harder for a local authority to collect its local revenue now than it was under the rating system.
It is unfortunate that one sees on television screens a shredder machine destroying poll tax bills. As the leader of Birmingham City Council said when watching the process, "There goes a rain forest". It is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. It is the taxpayers' money that is being used for this late reorganisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, used the word "moderately". He said that one could describe it moderately as a hash of a problem. The Government's performance in using taxpayers' money to rejig what was called the poll tax should give the National Audit Office a coronary—a complete heart attack—and a funeral. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been and continue to be thrown down the drain because the Government got the whole thing catastrophically wrong in the first place.
We on these Benches are justified in saying, "We told you so". Time and again, day after day when the community charge Bill was being discussed, we put forward the argument that the tax would be difficult to collect. We pointed out that there would be people who would not be able to afford to pay it. We pointed to all the problems that would arise but the Government would not listen. They thought that they knew best. It was quite obvious that the voters in the Ribble Valley did not think that the Government knew best.
The noble Lord says "Hear, hear". I thank him very much. Everything has now been changed. Local government is being reduced to chaos. Parliament itself has been treated with cynical contempt in the way in which this legislation is being rushed through today. For what reason is that being done? In my view the Bill is being used to lubricate the system ready for the local elections in May so that the Government can decide when to come forward with a date for the General Election. I ask the Government whether this
1112
Bill is the first of the U-turns of a post-Thatcher government. It is a complete change from Thatcherism. We thought that the Prime Minister intended to continue in that vein because we see today that the Government are not only shifting the goal posts but are digging up the whole pitch.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart mentioned Wandsworth. To be quite truthful, I have never understood Wandsworth's actions. I was a member of the Birmingham City Council for 15 years and I am an honorary Alderman of that great city. I cannot understand why one local authority is different from every other local authority in the whole of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, interjects "Westminster". Yes, Westminster is an example. We all know Westminster. That is the council which sells its churchyards for 6p. That was good housekeeping, was it not? If I were a government Minister I should ask why Wandsworth's poll tax is so different from the others. The others are fairly even: many of them are in the £300 or £400 bands and a few come into the £500 band. But there is only one local authority in the country which is not asking for a poll tax. I think that the Government ought clearly to state, so that the general public know, why one local authority does not have to levy a poll tax.
I speak from my experience in Birmingham. The poll tax there, which includes charges for the police, the fire brigade and a levy for the PTA, comes to £108. Does Wandsworth not have to pay for all those services? Does it get let off the hook? Does Wandsworth's residents have their fires put out free gratis? I do not know. It is a question that ought to be answered.
Birmingham is by far the largest poll tax collector in the country. It is far bigger than any other. It processes 700,000 bills and has a new computer built and programmed for the community charge. So it is very up-to-date. When Birmingham puts through its bills, the computer processes them for seven days in a row and runs for 24 hours in the day. It works continuously for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I know that will also be done on a similar scale in smaller authorities.
A real problem that now arises in Birmingham is that the council has to find more paper —a tremendous amount of paper. It also has to find printers who are willing to get the printing done in time. That is not a small task. If a printer accepts a contract he wants to overcharge in order to pay for putting on one side his other clients. That is a problem. The software suppliers have to know as soon as possible the government regulations so that they can start programming. Until that is done, they cannot start.
At present Birmingham has a timetable. It expects that the first payments will be received in June and it will have to ask for nine payments instead of 10. It has worked out its timetable and reckons that the first demands will not be ready for poll taxpayers to pay until June.
Ministers may not consider it so, but people who work for local authorities have a certain amount of loyalty. Since the community charge has been in operation, work has been more difficult for the staff in

1113
the relevant department. Day after day they change the computer software because someone has moved house, someone has died or someone has reached the age when they have to pay the charge. The staff have worked under pressure since the community charge began. Having worked so hard to get the poll tax demands out on time, that work is now abortive and they have to start all over again. The Government owe an apology not only to the poll tax payers but also to the local authority staff who have had an endless and abortive task.
Birmingham City Council has to pay for the abortive work undertaken by its staff, and the replacement work. The cost of the administration of the community charge reduction scheme and amendments will be £640,000 and £2.5 million in lost interest. I accept those figures because I well know that the local authority officers and the chief executives who work for the Birmingham local authority would not give me misleading or mischievous figures. Those are reliable figures. It is important to ask the Government: what will they do to reimburse such costs?
I listened with interest to how the repayment will be paid. Mr. Portillo at another stage stated that reasonable costs would be reimbursed. It is not fair that local authorities should be repaid only "reasonable" costs. They should be paid the full costs. It is not fair that the poll tax payer should indirectly pay for the mistakes of the Government. Someone has to pay. I believe that the Government should undertake full payment to local authorities.
I understand that at present that is not the case. The Association of Municipal Authorities believes that the Department of the Environment may introduce some new proposals next week. It is important that the Government recognise that the money should be on the table as quickly as possible. Local authorities will be in deficit anyway.
In future consultations the Government must be persuaded to base their grant on a realistic expenditure level which reflects the true cost of providing local services. They must recognise that many of those services are statutory obligations for local authorities. The Government must then undertake a proper share of local authority expenditure through the revenue support grant. I accept that locally raised revenue must continue because it forms a significant proportion of local spending and leads to accountability. However, when the Government give money to local authorities perhaps they will consider inflation rates. At present, costs for next year are estimated at an inflation rate of 4.7 per cent. Local authorities on average have worked the costs out at a rate of 8.2 per cent. Therefore the difference is substantial when interpreted in thousands of pounds.
I ask the Government two questions. In the future how will they deal with regional variations? Any government will know that there are substantially different regional variations. Will the Government in their review consider the existing unjust and inaccurate system of standard spending assessments?
1114
We might then be able to understand why Wandsworth receives a better assessment than anyone else.
Many noble Lords have said that the community charge is an unpopular tax. It is perceived to be unfair and difficult to collect. Its introduction was a culmination of worsening relations between central and local government. I feel sad about this decade of deterioration in relations between local and national government. The two structures should be able to work together.
The Bill does nothing to create a better partnership with local councils or a recognition that they have a partnership with local government. As a local councillor of long standing, I appreciate the good work that local authorities do. They are often innovators of schemes which are translated into government legislation. I think of many welfare services which were started by local authorities and are now part of the social services legislation. We need a local government structure which engenders civic pride. It can act as an innovator. Local government is much closer to the public than national government. It is necessary for that closeness to continue because that is democracy in practice. The Government should recognise clearly the job of local government and should make sure that they give it the necessary resources for the future.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I begin by expressing sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, for the problems of Birmingham, which I know she takes closely to heart. The people of Birmingham would be proud to have heard her speech; she put their case extremely well. I have had a few contacts with Birmingham in the past. I know its civic pride. I agree entirely that that is the prime objective of any local government. To achieve civic pride is half-way home to being an efficient and able administrator of local services. That is certainly the case in Birmingham. I am sure that the noble Baroness's plea that Birmingham should be fairly treated financially with regard to its expenses has fallen on the sympathetic ears of my noble friend.
I wish to say a few words in support of the Bill. Its purpose is good: it is to enable the Government to make payments to local authorities sufficient to reduce every community charge by £140; or, where a rebate is made, a proportionate sum. Of one thing there is no doubt: every family in the land will welcome the provision. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, (who has retired for a moment from his place on the Bench) tempered his powerful dialectic attack on the Government to allow for that factor. The Bill was agreed in another place in principle and no doubt will be agreed in this Chamber.
Underlying the debate is the Government's problem—the need for extreme haste and the taking of all the proceedings on this important Bill in one day. The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, underlined the fact that the need is to enable local authorities to begin the new work involved as soon as possible at the beginning of the financial year. It has

1115
been agreed in principle to reimburse the cost of the extra administration. The noble Baroness will have to ensure that in practice that is interpreted to cover everything involved.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made a powerful point condemning the Government for telescoping our normal procedure and taking all these proceedings in one day. He also fairly made the point that during the past 25 years many respectable precedents have been set by governments of both parties. In this case there is great urgency. The time factor arises because the increase in VAT, which will finance the reduction in the community charge, was necessarily part of the Budget. Therefore, it could not have been indicated in advance of the Budget speech. I was a little surprised to hear my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggest that the House of Commons could have cut down its Budget speech by a couple of days. If my noble friend, who was a distinguished Chief Secretary, had been in office I can imagine his comment had your Lordships made such a suggestion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend may have misunderstood me. I did not suggest reducing the length of the Budget debate in another place. I merely suggested adjusting its timetable so as to take this Bill on one of the days on which the Budget debate should have taken place and then carry on with the Budget debate on a further day. Therefore I made no suggestion of cutting down the enjoyment of another place in its Budget debate.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, that is an ingenious suggestion and it would be interesting to hear how it would be received in another place. I can guess!
In my view it is justified to suspend Standing Order No. 44 because public interest is at stake. These payments must be made—generally they are welcomed—and we must reduce the further hassle for local authorities. It is part of the convention that arrangements are made through the usual channels to cater as far as is possible for the interests and convenience of noble Lords opposite. I hope that that was done, but I realise that it could not have been easy. We must be grateful in so far as noble Lords opposite have met the general need.
This introduction in respect of the community charge is only a paving measure in the reform of local government both in structure and in finance. Your Lordships heard a most interesting analysis from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, about the problems which the Government now face. The rating system was generally acknowledged to be unfair not only between ratepayers but also between local authorities. No one appeared to be able to find a way of making the system fairer even between local authorities, much less between individual ratepayers. Any idea of a revaluation for England and Wales after the experience in Scotland would have discouraged even the bravest government.
The Government faced a major dilemma and were brave to try a measure such as the community charge. In the event their arithmetic went sadly wrong; their original forecast of an average charge of £150 turned
1116
out to be completely wrong; it was more than double that at £350. A flat-rate tax at that level is not acceptable to anybody. We are now plunged into a reform of local government in which my right honourable and noble friends are involved. They are beginning by setting up a local government commission to consult with representatives about the future structure.
I see that Ministers have been taken to task for not making their decisions now and inviting Parliament to endorse them. As an old local government man I cannot imagine a more fatal course for the future structure and operation of local government. Constitutionally local government bodies are elected and are therefore entitled to a voice in their future. Practically, local government representatives carry out the local government administration and its functions. Therefore, they have an expert knowledge of what their electors want and how the machinery works.
All precedents confirm that consultation with local government is the proper course of action. In the light of that consultation the Government will have difficult decisions to make about the future structure. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to them most lucidly. It is certain that we shall not achieve perfection; there will always be compromises. We can be sure only that the community charge must go. It is obviously unfair at an average charge of £390. The probability is that we must return to a property-based tax which will also pose problems. What about the problems that will arise if one opts for a capital valuation? What about those that will arise if one opts for a rental valuation based on 1973 levels? The reform must be accompanied by a substantial shift of expenditure from local government budgets to central government. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made a cogent point when saying: for heavens sake, do not let government take a short cut and make the shift by increasing grants. The change must be achieved by functions, which will not be easy. I should be sad to see local education removed from the counties to the centre. I know of the work of the Surrey Education Committee and I know what a good and sensible job it does. A great deal will be lost and the change will not be easy.
Shifting expenditure from local government to central government may not resolve all the anomalies but at least it will reduce their incidence. The goal of universal accountability in the local electorate still looks to be a long way off. I hope that it may be possible to achieve it to some extent. It is interesting to recall a point not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The old, pre-war electoral structure of suffrage limited to householders had a certain logic which worked reasonably well. However, after the war when universal suffrage for local government was introduced, and rightly so, accountability for local government spending had disappeared. That is the dilemma that we have faced ever since and we have not found a way out of it through any of the public inquiries, Royal Commissions and so forth.
Those are thoughts relating to the future. This interim measure will reduce the community charge to

1117
a more acceptable level—to approximately £250, which is more than enough. It is a great improvement on the average charge of £390 and I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord quite often gives voice to sentiments which I find myself entirely able to accept. I sometimes wonder whether he might move a trifle towards the Cross-Bench that he is leaning on, and sit down on it on some future occasion. We shall have to see whether that happens, but it would be entirely appropriate.
The way in which the Bill has been handled has been trenchantly attacked, and not only from this side of the House. One recognises the difficulties that the Government are in, difficulties that are of their own making. But having made them, they are in a mess and the Bill ought to be possibly entitled,
"A Bill to get the Government out of the mess that they are in"
We have recognised, such is the nature of that mess, that it would affect local government all over the country if we went through the usual procedure, so we are forced to accept this unusual procedure, rather than go through the motions that we are normally used to doing.
But there is one aspect which I have not heard mentioned and which worries me a little. The Bill we have before us is not a House of Lords Bill. So far as I am aware, this is the only occasion on which a House of Commons Bill has been presented and accepted by the Lords. Not one of the persons who are responsible for the Bill is a Member of this House. The normal procedure when a Bill comes up from the Commons is that it is reprinted, it is adopted by Members of this House and presented to this House by Members of this House.
This is an extraordinary procedure that we now have. If your Lordships do not recognise the extraordinary nature of it, I ask you to imagine what would happen if the procedure were reversed. If we decided that we would send to the Commons a Bill in our name, and tried to get them to discuss a House of Lords Bill, they would not give it house room. They would not entertain it, they would not put in on the agenda, they would not discuss it at all, and they would be right.
There is something to be said for separation of these two Houses. This is a procedure which we ought not to accept, and although I recognise why it has been adopted and there may have been no alternative, it ought not to be done again. Otherwise it could lead us into the most strange waters.
As I said, the problem before us has been trenchantly dealt with on all sides of the House, and one curious thing is that it has the effect of excusing me from paying my proper share of local taxation. The Bill should therefore be subtitled:
"A Bill to present Lord Jenkins of Putney and other residents in the London Borough of Wandsworth with privileged financial treatment beyond the bounds of what is reasonable and proper and in return to deprive them of services they have hitherto enjoyed and for related purposes."
1118
That would be a description of the Bill.
In introducing the Bill, it might have been said from the Government Front Bench:
"This Bill provides, inter alia, that whereas before the Budget the Government paid 90.4 per cent. of the expenditure of our well-beloved and faithful London Borough of Wandsworth, it will now be our privilege to pay 100.8 per cent. By prudent cuts in social services, according to the tenets laid down by the Blessed Margaret, our well-beloved Borough has spent only £261 million and this, as a special mark of our esteem, will be rewarded with a grant of £263 million thus presenting our favourite borough with £2 million beyond its needs."
That is great generosity, matchless generosity, and perhaps my noble friend is beginning to understand what is rather special about the London Borough of Wandsworth. To continue:
"This money will come from savings arising from reduced grants to needy Boroughs which have been careless enough to get themselves located among the poor whom they have been profligately endeavouring to assist".
Surely it should have been said from the Government Front Bench, in what was otherwise a good speech advocating an almost impossible task, that the money came from a grants system designed to channel most money to councils in the greatest need. But since when, the Government spokesman might have asked, has poverty been the hallmark of need? We are proud to point out that Tunbridge Wells receives a higher percentage grant than Haringey, and Bournemouth gets 17.6 per cent. compared with Lambeth's 5.5. It is central to our policy, the Government might say, that wealth has greater needs than poverty. Those who doubt this—and, for the moment, 1 am still speaking in the voice of the Government—should consider the socialist millionaire, Mr. Robert Maxwell, whose needs grow with his wealth, as do the needs of all the increasing numbers of millionaires who have benefited, and who will continue to benefit, from our far-sighted policies.
Our complex formula of 28 indices of need means that it is impossible to disentangle what we are up to; and as we do not know ourselves, it is clear that the ratepayers, as they used to be called in the glad—I mean bad—old days, can have no cause for complaint or if they have, it can be diverted onto the local authorities, which we have by the short and curlies.
Another advantage of the Conservative Government's system is that the figures on which our grants are based are drawn from the 1981 census, and our old favourite, Wandsworth, has conducted housing policies which have improved its demography by encouraging the poor to leave and to bring about their replacement by a richer class of citizen. By this clever move the Thatcherite council is getting a needs grant far and away above its current requirements. That we should add to this to the extent of taking Wandsworth right out of local taxation has had them rolling in the aisles at the Marsham Street circus.
I shall not continue further with this introduction to the Bill, except to say that many Wandsworth and Putney citizens are conscious that, far from benefiting from efficiency, as claimed by Wandsworth Thatcherite councillors, they are the temporary beneficiaries of a combination of muddle and fiddle which cannot be allowed to last.

1119
I have taken this a little lightly, but fundamentally I think that this is what has been going on and the measures that we are taking now can only be regarded as temporary to get the Government out of their mess. As soon as that has been done, it will be time for a change of government and for a government to get into office which does know what it is doing.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, in introducing the Second Reading debate, referred to the peculiar circumstances in which this Bill is being forced through the two Houses, and he said that this method should be limited in scope. This method is showing a contempt for Parliament. It is a method by which the Conservative Party, and its Government, is using the constitutional means of having an elected dictatorship, and it is using this method in an unprecedented way.
I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of the fact, but it was admitted yesterday in the other House, that this is totally unprecedented. There has never been another occasion on which a Bill has been forced through Parliament in this time with the use of a guillotine.
The guillotine seems to me to be fundamental to any assessment of the Government's tactics in these circumstances. The other place was prevented from having a full, open and unlimited discussion on an issue of importance to this country. The Bill was then passed on to us, as has been pointed out by noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, with the names of Members of another place on the back of it, but no Member of this House. What is more, the names that are on the Bill, as my right honourable friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent pointed out yesterday, do not include the name that is most appropriate, which is that of Mr. Christopher Patten, the Chairman of the Conservative Party. If ever there has been an occasion on which party political advantage has been taken, again, of the elected dictatorship and the misuse of the constitution, this is it.
The Conservative Government, in introducing this Bill and these methods, seem to have torn up all their principles which have been expressed over the past 12 years. Where is accountability in this Bill? How can you have accountability when first the rates and then the poll tax—are capped? Where is the principle of not throwing money at a problem? If ever there was a problem that the Government have thrown money at, this is it. Where is the principle of not squandering public money? As has been pointed out by several of your Lordships, there has never been an occasion on which more public money has been poured down more drains with fewer results. Also, where is the Conservative practice of managerial efficiency? Is any Member of the Government prepared to stand up and say that this is an example of managerial efficiency? What would have happened had this been a nationalised industry? What is the Auditor General's office doing about the waste of public money that has occurred over the past three years and which will occur over the next three years?
1120
Even this is not the major danger that arises from this Bill and from the attitude taken by the Government both last week and this week. It seems to me that the fundamental danger is being demonstrated by the way in which this Government are misusing the constitution and misusing the taxation system. This is the latest instalment of a constant move towards centralisation that has characterised the actions of this Government ever since 1979. They have progressively removed responsibility from local authorities and they are now drastically reducing the proportion of local incomes that local authorities are able to raise themselves.
This is not just a question of accountancy. It is much more fundamental than that. Surely your Lordships recognise that our democratic system depends upon a variety of democratic forms. It must not depend on the diktat of a centralised national government. The whole history of the growth of democracy in this country has been based on local initiatives, local responsibilities and a pluralism in our forms of representation which not only represent people but also encourage and stimulate them throughout the nation to participate in local initiatives and to take responsibility by their participation in the democratic process. Anything that weakens local government weakens democracy.
I would ask your Lordships, and particularly noble Lords opposite, who have shown some sensitivity towards this—and I put this to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who did make some criticism—how many Members on the opposite Benches voted against the poll tax when it came before this House. How is it that their fears are expressed today and they can say from the other side that it has been proved to be unfair? It was just as unfair when it was before this House and we voiced our opinion of that unfairness; but how much support did we get from the other side? Noble Lords are prepared to say it has now been proved to be unfair because the country has told them it is unfair; but the unfairness was just as obvious when the poll tax Bill was first before this House.
I return finally to what I believe is a grave fundamental issue which will not go away today, but which we should observe today. We should observe also the attack that has been made upon it today, because of the dangers of how this situation may very well develop over the next few years. Our democratic system, including our parliamentary democratic system, depends on local activity, not just at times of elections but between elections. That is only healthy and will only be stimulated when local government is lively, when it has responsibility and when that responsibility is matched by its ability—it is a necessity indeed—to raise the funds which it is responsible for using.
It is just as bad to have lack of accountability in spending funds as it is to have taxation without consent. This Bill, in my view, and the whole attitude it represents, is very close to a direct attack on the fundamentals of our democratic system. That goes back hundreds of years and we believe that should be extended rather than diminished. We also believe that it should give greater health, greater spirit and greater

1121
activity to local initiatives and responsibilities than has been done in the past. This is a mark that the Government do not understand the roots of democracy and are prepared in their blind panic to cut those roots, despite the danger to our whole democratic system.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should like, but time prevents me from doing so, to talk about the constitutional improprieties that are under discussion here tonight. One of the matters that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch,—an interesting point—was the misuse and waste of public funds. When we have an incoming Labour Government, something we might consider is whether we could bring a surcharge against Members of the Government in this House and in the other place to pay for the misuse of public funds for which they have been responsible. Given the experience of some Labour councils, that would be an interesting exercise. But that is a digression.
We all welcome the fundamental principle that all community charge payers (the poll tax payers) should receive £140. That is why we will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. I want to develop the idea that there are unfairnesses in the Bill and that its detail is unreasonable. I shall identify the need for amendments to be made in Committee. Whenever Parliament legislates in haste the whole country repents at its leisure. The Bill highlights the unfairness of the current poll tax arrangements. A number of speakers have referred to the position in Wandsworth where the poll tax payers will effectively have to pay nothing towards their local services.
I shall touch upon a drafting problem. That is one of the difficulties we face when a Bill such as this is rushed through Parliament precipitately. Clause 1 is succinct and its intentions are clear. It relates to the reduction of community charge in England and Wales. However, in Clause 3, which relates to the statutory reduction of community charges in Scotland, the wording is different. Clause 1 provides for a reduction of £140 before rebates, transitional relief and benefits; but there is an interpretation of Clause 3 which might suggest that the £140 comes off after rebates, transitional relief and benefit. It all depends upon the interpretation of "their" in line 15. Does "their" mean the local authority or the poll tax payer? It is an interesting point that will probably only be resolved in court. I wonder whether the Government intend that the Bill should be challenged so quickly if it goes through unamended. Perhaps our Scottish friends will draw that point to the attention of their legal colleagues to see whether there is a case to be made. No doubt the Government will reply in due course. When we rush through a Bill, drafting errors may cause difficulties.
The theme of the Bill is to give the £140 rebate before rather than after benefit. That is where the Bill is unfair. It is unfair to the less well off—those people who find difficulty in paying the poll tax will receive the least benefit. That is a point that has been mentioned by other speakers. My question is: how
1122
many people will receive less than £140 off their poll tax bill? How many people will receive a final bill reduction of £140? How many people who were due to pay their poll tax in full will not receive the full £140 rebate? That relates to the position in Wandsworth, and there may be some other authorities in the same position. The last line of Clause 1(1) provides:
"or such lesser sum as will reduce the amount to £0".
There will be a significant number of people who do not receive £140.
The Bill is unreasonable because of the extra burden it places upon local authority staff and the public. In Manchester, from where I come, we had approximately 600 people working for a month this year to produce the poll tax bills. I received my poll tax bill a couple of weeks ago. The bills were sent out early to help people know what they would have to pay so that they could budget throughout the year. While those poll tax bills were being generated. the computer system was off line. It could not process the normal up-dating data. It could not be used to make inquiries of the records and the records could not be updated. There was effectively a month during which our clients —if I may so call them—(the poll tax payers) could not obtain the information they needed about their poll tax payments.
The Bill's implications, together with the recent announcement of yet another change in the transitional relief arrangements, are that an extra 50-person years' work will need to be done. That is an interesting figure because the Government have estimated that £60 million will be spent on administration. There have been some questions about the explanatory and financial memorandum where it says:
"The Bill has no significant manpower effects".
It' we are to spend £60 million on administration, by my calculations of average earnings, that seems to imply that the equivalent of 5,000 people will he working for a year. That is a significant manpower effect. It is interesting to note that Manchester has about 1 per cent. of the country's population and the 50-person years that I have mentioned represents about 1 per cent. of the 5,000-person years. So the Government may have the figures right but they have not put them on the front of the Bill They have not come clean. Local authorities have estimated that the cost will be £100 million. I suspect that that figure will be right because the £60 million may pay for local authority manpower but it will not pay for the software for the computer programs, stationery and postage.
The computer system may be down for another month, during which time poll tax payers, benefit claimants, people who have moved and those whose circumstances have changed so that their poll tax liabilities have changed, will not be able to obtain up-to-date information. That all causes uncertainty, delay and complications for poll tax payers in general. What arc the implications for the people who have to work and administer the system? The poll tax was supposed to be simple and fair. It is now recognised to be unfair. It sounds fair that everyone should make some contribution to their local services, but we never

1123
hear of the corollary: that if everyone is to pay the same, then they should be paid the same. We do not hear anyone suggest that everyone receiving benefit should receive £200 a week —roughly the national average. The poll tax is unfair, and it is far from simple. To call it an administrative nightmare is probably the English understatement of the year. The Government seem to be totally incapable of understanding the reality of their actions in terms of the people affected.
I shall not quote all the examples which I have in terms of the administrative nightmare which this Government have created. However, let us look at the introduction of the poll tax. During the autumn of 1989 local authorities were being advised almost weekly of changes to the poll tax regime. It is no wonder that bills went out late in 1990. This year city treasurers, local authority treasurers, benefit departments and computer sections have worked flat out and have done a terrific job in getting the bills out quickly in most cases. I wish to pay tribute to the city treasurer in Manchester, Jim Brooks, and his staff for doing a magnificent job over the past few weeks. That must now be done all over again.
My local authority has already sent out the bills. Other authorities may not have done so and therefore will not lose the costs incurred by production, postage and so on. What assurance can we be given that those authorities which have been efficient will be properly reimbursed for the extra costs incurred? Will the Government pay tribute to the very effective work carried out by local authority staff?
What needs to be done? First, we must get rid of the poll tax. Son of poll tax must not be allowed to ride the range of Great Britain. Given that 75 per cent. of the population are worse off under the poll tax compared with the old rating system, I believe it is fairly logical to go back very quickly to the old rating system. By definition 75 per cent. of the population will be better off. The old rating system needs modernisation but that can be done with due consideration. We should not rush into precipitate action.
We can take a number of steps to amend the Bill before us. In particular, we should make the £140 contribution to the poll tax payers of this country after rather than before benefit. In that way we target the support to those who need it most. By doing that we shall reduce the administrative burden faced by local authority staff in dealing with the change which will occur as a result of the Bill.
I hope that Members of this House on the government side will recognise that practical steps can be taken to amend the Bill without destroying its intentions. I hope that it is not the intention to pay more money to the rich and less to the poor or to create more administrative difficulties for local authority staff. If that is the Government's intention, they must stand up and say so. I hope that Members on the other side of the House will support us in our amendments to make the Bill more sensible and workable for the people of this country.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is my task to begin the summation of this debate. There was a convention in your Lordships' House at one time that speakers in debates returned to the House for the winding up speeches. It is unfortunate that that has not happened because it makes it difficult to comment on speeches which have been made if those noble Lords are not present when those comments are made.
I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, along the road of the old rating system which may have the support of his Front Bench. Nor do I intend to follow him in his suggestion that there should be an annual wage for everybody, which I suspect his Front Bench will not support.
On the face of it, this is a very simple Bill. In fact, it is not a Bill but a lollipop disguised as a Bill and a lollipop to be handed out to the electors in the local elections in May. All I can say to them is, "Do not take sweets from strangers" and of course they will not. It is typical of the contempt with which this Government hold the electorate. It constantly expresses itself, usually after a bad by-election result. The electors of Ribble Valley were accused of putting their votes in a dustbin. That phrase may well come back to haunt the Prime Minister in due course.
I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, at the time of the well-known by-election in Orpington. When asked about what he thought of that election in 1962 he said: "All I can say is I think that 22,846 people have gone off their heads".
Not only have the Government treated the electorate with contempt but, as we have heard from many sides of the House today, Parliament is being treated with contempt. There is no need to go through all the remarks which have been made on that. The Bill was rushed through the other place and is being rushed through this House. We are not being allowed to do our proper job.
That is underlined by what my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter alluded to; namely, yesterday's Order Paper in another place. On the Business Motion it
stated:
"The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in one day's sitting and shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, he brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement".
That is the kind of contempt in which this House is held by the Government in another place.
Strangely, the Government believe that this Bill is perfect. They must believe that. When I think of the number of Bills which the Government have taken back from this place to another place with 200, 300 or 400 government amendments attached to them, I wonder why they believe that this is such a perfect Bill. I cannot remember for a long time a Bill which has no government amendments. However, we know that it must be forced through before the Recess and that is a travesty of the procedures of this House.
The Government have indicated that it is a simple straight forward Bill, but it is not. As we have heard on several occasions today, this has serious implications for the future of local government. This is a paving Bill in reverse because, as my noble friend

1125
Lord Holme of Cheltenham said in a debate last week, and my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, have said, the cart is being put before the horse. First, we should debate the structures and powers of local government and after that determine how those structures and powers are to be financed.
In fact it undermines the whole structure of local government. We are asked to damage the democracy of local government in a single afternoon. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal accepted in his opening speech that this Bill goes further than a simple dishing out of £140 to the grateful poll tax payers.
Last night Mr. Lang, who I am assured is the Secretary of State for Scotland, although not many people may know that, said:
"It is essential that the measure should not be regarded simply as a means of reducing charges for the coming year. It should instead be viewed in the much wider context of our review of the future funding of local government. The Bill provides for the initial implementation of a permanent change in the balance of the funding of local services from local taxation to national taxation. In future, the balance will remain broadly the same as it will he following the enactment of the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/91; col. 873.]
That is what it is all about. It is very sad that this Bill has to be dealt with in such a rush. We on these Benches resist, as far as we can, the move towards centralisation of local government because, as has been said, it is a danger to the democratic process. Much as we welcome the Lord Privy Seal to our considerations in this House—I say that quite genuinely—from these Benches we doubly welcome him because he was good enough to make room for someone else in his former seat. But he must recognise that because of the fundamental importance of the Bill, this is a shabby way of going through the proceedings of this House.
As has been said by many people, the Government are in a panic. Their attitudes have been turned completely on their heads. The community charge was going to be the answer to all local government problems. It has been interesting to hear speakers on the Government Benches in an unusually hesitant mood this afternoon. I remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was a tremendous exponent of the community charge to the extent of wanting people in cardboard boxes to pay 20p per night lest they be considered second-class citizens.
I have one or two quite interesting quotes from government speakers in the past. For example, people will remember Mr. Nicholas Ridley as being something in the Government when, in introducing the Local Government Finance Bill, he said:
"I believe that the Bill provides the best system—the community charge. It is fair, workable and, above all, accountable".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/87; col. 1117.]
At col. 1118 he went on to admit that,
"The community charge will probably be twice as expensive to administer as the rates, and I have no doubt there will be some evasion. But many chief officers are confident that they can manage".
At Third Reading he said:
"I believe that in time the community charge will come to be seen as a watershed in terms of the strengthening of local democracy".
1126
It was indeed a watershed, but in terms not of strengthening but rather of weakening local democracy. Mr. Michael Heseltine was not a Minister at the time so I cannot quote directly what he said. He spoke to the amendment tabled by Mr. Michael Mates about the banding of the community charge. He indicated that he would be voting for the new clause and that he would be doing it not from any sense of enthusiasm for the detail, but because he apparently had an unswerving allegiance to the principles upon which it was based. Mr. Michael Howard, in summing up on the same amendment, said:
"But if they want a new and improved system of paying for local government that will provide the British people with the advantages of fairness and accountability, without the anomalies, uncertainties and, yes, injustices of all other proposals …; the only way forward is that enshrined in our manifesto".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/4/88; col. 640.]
More recently; namely, last year, we find Mr. David Hunt, the Minister for Local Government, saying,
"I believe the community charge will come to be accepted for what it is: simple, straightforward and above all fair. But it will also do local government a power of good. Better times for local government are ahead—centred on simple values like value for money, financial prudence, integrity, dedication to service. That is the vision behind which all Conservatives can unite. The community charge is central to it".
One asks what he is saying today. As recently as 19th October 1990, Mr. Portillo said:
"Taxes on people's homes are unfair. Property values bear little relation to people's ability to pay. Capital value rating … would throw a tremendous burden on millions of households, particularly those in the South East whose house prices are high".
Again, one wonders what comment he will make when the new proposals finally emerge. At the Tory Conference in October he said:
"The community charge is a courageous, fair and sensible solution … let us go out from this hall together and proclaim its advantages. The community charge makes local government accountable. The community charge revives local democracy. The community charge puts power into the hands of local people. That is an achievement to be proud of".
Well, well. Then suddenly, in a matter of days, we find that this is turned around completely and we have this squalid little Bill which is trying to put matters right. It is a temporary piece of scaffolding to shore up the crumbling facade of a rotten edifice.
Perhaps I may now come to the Bill itself. Most things have been said about the Bill, but I shall quickly go through them again to remind noble Lords what we have been discussing. There is no doubt that those who benefit least will still have to contribute by paying VAT. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in having no doubt that council staff have been working flat out to get the bills done in time. There will be enormous costs involved—not simply the actual costs but costs in morale and the actual cost of the amount of overtime to be worked.
Many people may have noted that the uniform reduction across the country brings the system further into disrepute. Everybody is supposed to pay something except in Wandsworth where they pay nothing. As has been shown today, that will cause a huge amount of resentment. The reduction will leave many councils having to collect amounts that are not cost-effective to collect. One still waits to hear the Government's attitude to that. That situation arises either because the headline amounts are too small or

1127
because most councils will have to collect the 20 per cent. contribution. That introduces a level of chronic inefficiency into the whole system.
Another matter which has not been stressed enough today is that most people believe that the poll tax is being abolished. Already there are enormous problems concerned with the non-collection of the tax and these will increase during the intervening period. The confusion that will be caused is putting councils into a very serious situation. Yet there is to be no further compensation for councils because of the confusion which has been caused entirely by the Government. I hope that sooner or later the Government will announce some form of compensation which results from their activities.
I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who accused the Labour Party of not putting its position clearly. All these matters could have been avoided by the introduction of local income tax. The noble Lord is entitled to shake his head. He may not agree, but the party I speak for from these Benches believes that the simple way out of this problem is to go for local income tax. That was a view which Mr. Layfield took up some time ago. Apart from anything else, it would not then have been necessary to increase VAT. Even with the Bill as it stands, the increase could have been put on income tax and not on VAT. That would have been a much fairer way of doing it.
There was an interesting little cameo during the aftermath of the Ribble Valley by-election. A local person was interviewed after the poll. Noble Lords will remember that the Government put considerable stress on the fact that the exit poll suggested that a large number of people would vote for the Government afterwards. I forget the exact percentage, but it was something like a 40 per cent. poll. It was not taken into consideration that that significant drop in the Conservative vote from 1987 would have been sufficient to lose the Government most of the seats in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset to the Liberal Democrats. However, be that as it may.
There was an interesting comment from a person who was interviewed on television. The interviewer said: "Well, Mr. So-and-so, I expect that now you have voted for the Liberal Democrats, next time you will go back and vote for the Conservatives as you did before?" "Oh no", he said. "You see, I did not just vote against the poll tax; I voted for the Liberal Democrats because they believe in local income tax. That means"—and he was saying it simply so that the reporter would understand—"that those as can pay, as those as can afford to pay, will pay. Those as can't afford to pay, don't have to pay. That's fair". At the moment the system is certainly unfair.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I must admit that I did not expect it to be so. I started off in an extremely bad mood, unable to forgive the Government for arranging this business today so that neither I nor my noble friend Lord
1128
Carter have been able to watch England play Ireland at Wembley. When we come to count the cost of all this, I hope that that will be weighed in the balance.
I felt too that there was nothing new to say on the subject of the poll tax. That has certainly been borne out by the speeches. Perhaps I may say a word on the question of precedent. I understood the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Nugent of Guildford, to say that there were ample precedents. Perhaps I may quote Mr. MacGregor the Leader of the House of Commons, speaking on 26th March. He said:
"As to the question of a precedent, yes I acknowledge ... that there are no precedents for guillotining in the way that we are doing today".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/91; col. 823.]
But that is the Bill. That is the procedure that brings the Bill to us. One must see it as a whole. Mr MacGregor said there are no precedents for doing it in this way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my reference and that of my noble friend Lord Nugent was not to the guillotining in another place but to the procedure in this House of compelling the House to go through all stages of the Bill in one day. That is a totally separate point relating to this House, not, as the noble Lord is doing, to the other place.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg to differ. We must see the procedure as a whole. We are discussing a Bill which will become an Act of Parliament over two days. Indeed, I would go further. Given the admission of Mr. MacGregor, the responsibility of this House grows rather than declines. If the other place has guillotined it and dealt with the Bill so quickly, we ought to be taking more time on it, not less. Therefore I believe that the question of precedent arises in the way that we ought to have more time. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, agrees with me on that.
Perhaps I may say that there is a practical reason for that. It is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We have to ask whether the Bill is perfect. We cannot assume —certainly on the Government's record, but I shall plead on my own party's record —that the Bill is perfect. One does not tend to pass perfect Acts of Parliament, certainly if one devotes the limited amount of time that we are devoting to this Bill. I ask myself what would happen if next week someone—perhaps one of the officials in the Department of the Environment—finds a new problem with the Bill or a new problem which the Bill does not tackle. As there seems to be no Henry VIII clause, to use that expression, one wonders what will happen if an official discovers some minor disaster.
My view is that, despite our desire to take a burden off poll tax payers, we should not have gone along with this game that we are playing. I shall have a few more remarks to make on that subject when I reach the end of my speech but I thought I would make that point now.
Perhaps I may say a few words on the question of not opposing Second Readings. I have not been here as long as some noble Lords but my experience is that normally we do not oppose Second Readings of Bills. It is not particularly a concession on the part of my

1129
noble friend not to oppose the Bill's Second Reading. The House will discover, perhaps in an hour's time, that we will oppose the Bill fairly vigorously by means of amendments. We are really conceding nothing by not voting on Second Reading.
Another point has interested me. I refer to the argument or lack of argument put forward to justify the expenditure of more than £4 billion, which, even after inflation, does not strike me as a trivial sum of money, and to do it so rapidly. The context I place this in—other noble Lords have referred to it—is that remarkable occasion some three years ago when we debated the original poll tax Bill. Noble Lords will remember it well. It was the day that all those Peers that we had never seen before turned up. They were the ones who did not know where the usual offices were or how to get a cup of tea. I have not seen many of them since, although, for all I know, lurking around the precincts there are a few of them. The Chamber is not quite as crowded tonight as it was on that occasion when, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out, 387 Peers —I shall never forget that—voted for what we are debating today. That is not a small number. It is the largest number for a Division certainly in my experience in your Lordships' House. I shall never forget what happened that night.
Noble Lords will also recall that during the Committee stage many Peers—chiefly Tory Peers—pointed out all the deficiencies of the poll tax. All of them were pointed out. Not least of the deficiencies in their eyes—I shall not embarrass noble Lords: not all of them are here was the damage they said it would do to their own Government. A number of Lords said that this would damage their Party and their Government. They were hardly treated seriously by their colleagues. Even now I have yet to hear any Minister apologise to them. I do not ask them to apologise to me and my noble friends. I do not even ask them to apologise to the people of this country. But I think they might apologise to their own noble friends who tried to stop all this happening. Perhaps that will be the first item on the Minister's brief when she comes to reply.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Do you want to bet on it?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am not a betting man. When we discussed amendments at that time I remember it being suggested that a helpful move would be to increase the number of those who would not be liable for the tax and that equally helpful would be a simple scheme to band the tax so that the poor would pay less and the rich more. We would then have had something like like a crude local income tax. But all that was rejected as a matter of principle. It was also rejected because it was too expensive. Now it seems that we can afford £4 billion. Perhaps even more will be needed next year.
I might add points that have not been raised this evening but were raised then and are quite fundamental. It was pointed out very clearly how hard the tax would be to collect and what the administrative expenses would be. The civil liberties
1130
point and the question of registers were emphasised. Above all—I am speaking of Conservative fears—they pointed out how regressive and unjust this tax was. How right they were. On the question of administrative expense, the figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Taylor on what has happened in Scotland, which I did not know, are quite devastating.
I am annoyed with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He chose all the best quotations. I had several of them. I have only one left but it is another from Mr. Howard. He said:
"it is reform that will be good for local communities, good for local government, and good for the people of this country". [Official Report, Commons. 25/4/88; col. 149.]
He does not have to resign but he might at least say,
"Well, perhaps it is not quite like that".
Perhaps I may say a few words—I cannot really say more—on what we think we may be offered by the current Secretary of State for the Environment. I understand that we may be offered a new system based both on the number of adults—namely, a retention of the poll tax—and on the value of the property, which is also a retention the rates. I occasionally used to earn a little of my living as a forecaster, but I would never have guessed three years ago that what we would be offered by this very same government was, "Well we will retain the poll tax just a little bit, but we will also bring back the rates despite everything". I cannot go into detail on any of that but that is not my fault. We have not been offered any detail. We have the spectacle of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment all saying different things. What they are saying is different from what is being said by a great many former Ministers who also feel obliged to speak on these matters.
As noble Lords will know, I am a great believer in freedom of thought and expression. But what is going on is absurd. The three leading Ministers of whom I have spoken ought to find the time to meet together and get their stories straight. If I may be forgiven the old cliche, "If they do not hang together, the public will surely hang them separately", figuratively of course.
What are the Government up to? In broad terms, until recently some 20 per cent. of local expenditure —I know there are arguments on the technicalities here —has been financed locally by the poll tax. When this Bill becomes enacted—I am sure that it will be —I gather that only 10 per cent. will be financed in that way. It looks as if this is the kind of ratio which is the Government's long-term objective. But, if that is so, then we have the Government's usual approach; namely, that their method of reform is actually to destroy. We shall have little or no local government worthy of the name. Instead, we shall have local agencies of central Government.
In that connection I must emphasise one price which we would have to pay. In many areas—as other noble Lords have pointed out—local government has been the great innovator and central government has not. Of course, sometimes the innovation does not work, but that is in the nature of things. Nevertheless, they often do. A very good example was mentioned by my noble friend Lady David only last week. The

1131
Government sought to justify moving further education to the centre by denigrating local achievements. My noble friend pointed out how mistaken they were. Local government has been responsible for many great achievements. In fact, it has done all the great things in further education. None of that can be guaranteed by the new system.
Local management of schools, on which the Government are so keen, is another example. It was pioneered by local authorities. The list is endless. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, took issue with the idea of centralisation. He said that he would not like to see education brought to the centre—I take it that he meant precisely on those grounds.
I do not doubt the fact that local authorities left with power will take some actions which central government will not like. However, that is the nature of local democracy. But, if one or two authorities go too far, that is no case for destroying all of them. It is certainly not a proper foundation for devising a rational approach to local finance. Having said that, I must say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the right way to do this is to think about what we want to do at the local level and then work out how we want to finance it; in other words, it should be done the other way around.
However, if it is the case that this Government's intention is that only 10 per cent. of local expenditure is to be raised by local taxation, one begins to wonder what the fuss is all about. That is really the point that the right honourable Member for Blaby, Mr. Nigel Lawson, made. He may be right or he may be wrong; but logically he has a good point. He deserves an answer. He certainly does not deserve vulgar abuse from his honourable friends—perhaps I should say his former friends.
I should like to say a few words about the economic technicalities of the matter. First, is what has happened here, especially the increase in VAT, permanent or temporary? Further, is the increase, as my noble friend Lord Barnett said, a new kind of hypothecated tax? If we read through the Secretary of State's remarks again, it will be seen that he referred to the Bill as being important. He said:
"It shifts the burden from local to central taxation. It is a constructive and decisive product of our local government review".—[0fficral Report, Commons, 26/3/91; col. 836.]
I suggest he means that it is a permanent part of what is about to happen. It means that the increase in VAT is permanent. On that issue, can the noble Baroness say whether the department or the Treasury have made any of the relevant calculations? Broadly speaking, the increase in VAT finances the reduction in the poll tax. In other words, roughly speaking, it is meant to pay for it. These days we do not need to worry about the odd few millions which may be involved. If the total on one side, as it were, equals the total on the other side, and if there are individual gainers or groups which gain, that means that there must be losers. Can the noble Baroness say whether her department has made the calculations so that we may know who are the gainers and who are the losers?
One group of people which looks as if it is a candidate to be a loser involves those people who will
1132
only receive a refund of £28. I say that because, at a rough guess, the 2.5 per cent. increase in VAT means that, so long as they spend more than £1,100 on goods which are subject to VAT, they will be net losers. I should point out that I have calculated that 2.5 per cent. of £1,100 is approximately £28. Therefore, if those people spent anything like a normal amount of money on goods which attract VAT, they would clearly be losers. Therefore, one can immediately see at least one group which will be on the losing side.
As regards VAT, I should like to make a few remarks on general economic policy. The first possibility is that the increased tax will be passed on wholly in higher prices; that is, that the complete burden will fall on consumers. The inflation rate will rise for that reason but it will be offset by the reduction in the poll tax. One view about which I read states that the net effect will be zero. As an economist, I have to say that that is not obvious to me. These are rather complex matters. However, as the VAT is a proportionate tax on some but not on all expenditure, and as the poll tax alleviation is a lump sum rebate on most but not on all adults, I believe that the effects on the RPI will be rather problematic. It is all rather arcane. But it is possible that the noble Baroness will be able to enlighten us on the matter in her reply. I ask again: has her department or the Treasury made all the necessary calculations?
More serious, however, is the second possibility; namely, that, given the depressed state of the market, retailers will be obliged to absorb some or all of the tax increase. That looks good from the RPI standpoint, but it would be disastrous for the retail sector. Lack of business and poor cashflow are already creating many bankruptcies. It can hardly be desirable that more of them should be in the offing.
In reflecting upon the history of the matter, there are two errors which the Government made which are worthy of comment. The first was to call the poll tax "the community charge". To refer to it as a charge was to say that it was avoidable. It was to suggest that one could opt out of local community services and then say, "I will not pay the charge". Indeed, nothing was further from being a charge; and nothing was more of a tax than the alleged community charge. For the normal law-abiding citizen it was quite unavoidable, more so than was the case with VAT, income tax or Customs and Excise duties. It was precisely that unavoidable character of the charge that led to its downfall.
The suggestion was also made that under the poll tax for the first time all citizens would contribute to local expenditure. That was, and continues to be, pure nonsense. My noble friend Lord McIntosh has pointed out ad nauseam that the overwhelming majority of citizens paid rates. I beg my noble friend's pardon. I should have said that he has pointed out both cogently and continuously that the overwhelming majority of citizens paid rates. But, in addition, pretty well all citizens paid taxes of one form or another. Moreover, even if they paid no national insurance, no income tax or no Customs and Excise duties, it is difficult to choose a spending pattern which is entirely free of VAT.

1133
It follows that with any amount of central government support for local authorities—we are perfectly well aware of its scale—it is practically impossible for anyone to receive local services for free. Of course it could be said that the point of the poll tax was to bring home to everyone the cost of local services. But given the fact that well over half of all local services are paid for by central government, even that proposition does not stand up to critical scrutiny at present.
Perhaps I may refer now to the question of the sum of £140 which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised. I must admit that I could kick myself; I had not thought to ask why the amount had been fixed at £140. It is a very good question. My noble friend Lord Barnett said that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had got it the wrong way round. It was decided that a 2.5 per cent. increase on VAT would equal £140. However, I have a further question. If they had decided upon a 7 per cent. increase on VAT, they could have abolished the poll tax. Therefore, why is the figure not about £300 instead of £140? Why have the Government bungled the matter yet again? I ask those questions because, if we are to carry out this manipulation of VAT, we may as well go the whole hog and abolish the poll tax. I believe that we should think about that aspect of the matter.
As regards the speed with which all this has happened, I must say that I am still not convinced that we had to do it today in this way. Of course I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the other place rearranging its affairs. However, I must tell the House—although no one has asked me about this; indeed, no one ever asks me anything—that I was ready to do a full day's work tomorrow. I am perfectly happy to come back to this place next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I am afraid that we must take these matters seriously. We could have found more time for reflection and I am not persuaded by the speed argument.
I must press the noble Baroness on this when she replies: what is the hurry? If the tax was such a good idea to begin with, if the level of expenditure was to be controlled by local democracy, why has it become necessary to spend over £4 billion now without proper debate? I do not mean a lack of proper debate here in your Lordships' House, although we have not had a debate on the scale I should have wished. I refer to the other place. We must agree that what the Government are doing is controversial. If we can raise £4 billion in VAT, if there is that much money to spend, should not its disposition be discussed at a more reasonable pace and in more detail?
Can the noble Baroness tell us whether there is a national emergency? Are we going through today's procedural charade to save the nation? Or is there some other crisis which I have failed to discern? This has been and continues to be an unhappy occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, it does nothing good for the reputation of parliamentary democracy. I am especially saddened by the paucity of contributions from the Benches opposite.
1134
My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said, "What the Government can do, we can do". I know that he meant that sardonically. So far as we are concerned, we would not act in that way on a matter of this kind. We would not. We would not be in this mess and we certainly would not deal with a matter of finance on this scale in such a way. In my view it is being dealt with in a less than prudential manner.
In the end, I hope that the lesson is learnt, especially by noble Lords opposite. I realise that they may not be in power for much longer but I hope that it is recognised that we cannot go through all this again.
7.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, this is a short and single-purpose Bill but it has been a very long Second Reading. Therefore I shall move straightaway to address some of the points raised in the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the issue of the explanatory and financial memorandum. He also referred to the Bill as being controversial. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal explained in his opening speech that yesterday in another place the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading, was unamended in Committee and thereafter received an unopposed Third Reading. The Bill has therefore been brought to your Lordships' House without any changes. As to the financial circumstances underlying the Bill, they are as follows.
In reducing headline community charges by £140, we planned to reduce the gross revenue from the community charge by £5.6 billion. We also expect to make savings of £1.3 billion on community charge benefit and the community charge reduction scheme taken together. The net cost of the £4.3 billion is to be financed from central taxation.
Consistent with this £4.3 billion net reduction in the local tax burden that my right honourable friend the Chancellor set out in the Budget, it is now clear that we can extend the community charge reduction scheme to bring in more people and to increase the amount of relief. This we have done, as announced by my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities in another place. These are the circumstances which my honourable friend set out in his remarks on Monday evening. My honourable friend said that the explanatory and financial memorandum needed to be read in the light of those remarks.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to intervene? This is clearly a matter of great importance. Two issues arise under the explanatory and financial memorandum. One is whether the £4.3 billion is still correct. We have been assured that the extra money which has now been made available for the community charge reduction scheme means that the £4.3 billion is not changed. I accept that. I accept that it is no longer a change.
However, the other issue which arises is the figure given in the financial memorandum of £60 million for the costs. The announcement made by Mr. Portillo on

1135
the money resolution on Monday night has very grave effects on the £60 million. It may have no effect on the £4.3 billion, but it certainly has effects on the £60 million. Any local authority treasurer will tell the Government that the changes announced in the community charge reduction scheme do not simply involve changing the figures in the existing computer program. They do so in some cases when the minimum is reduced from £2 per week to £1 per week. But when all adults are now to be included, that affects the entire software for the calculation of the rebate. It will cost a lot more money and take a lot longer. That is what affects the financial memorandum, even if the £4.3 billion is unaffected.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure the House that all the points referred to by the noble Lord have been taken into account and that the equation adds up. He referred to Gloucestershire and the abortive cost of anticipating the detail of the charges. It was made clear to Gloucestershire and other authorities that there was a risk in jumping the gun, particularly since we made it clear that our intention was to see that the necessary measures were put in place as quickly as possible. Therefore, it was a risk that they took and, sadly, it did not pay off.
Perhaps I may also state that the Bill is not without precedent. It is true that the Finance (Income Tax Reliefs) Bill 1977 was put through in one day by the Labour Party. The only difference was that the guillotine was used yesterday, for obvious reasons, because there were Members in the other place, as indeed there will be in this place, who would have done their utmost to make sure that the Bill did not reach the statute book.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I think that that is an unfortunate slur on your Lordships' House. It is not our practice to refuse to put Bills on the statute book. The use of the guillotine in another place represents a major difference. There has been no chance to have proper discussions on this Bill either in another place or here.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was present for most of the day in another place and there were considerable discussions on what is a very short Bill with five clauses. The guillotine Motion was used in another place, it has not been used in this House, nor is there any intention to use it here.
I see noble Lords rising but I have only just started and already five minutes have passed. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the favourable treatment of standard chargepayers as opposed to those paying only 20 per cent. of the charge. There is no unfairness or anomaly here. The position is that chargepayers benefit from the £140 reduction in the headline charge in proportion to what they pay. If a chargepayer pays only a proportion of the headline charge, the reduction in the amount he pays will be a proportion of the £140. So, for example, if a chargepayer on income support pays only 20 per cent. of the charge, the reduction will be 20 per cent. of the £140. As the noble Lord pointed out, that is £28.
1136
It would not be right for the amount which that chargepayer pays—on average £50—to be reduced by the full £140. Conversely, if a standard chargepayer pays, for example, twice the amount of the personal community charge, it is right that he should receive a proportionate reduction in what he pays.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also said that local government funding from central government had declined. As my right honourable friend said yesterday in another place in response to a similar point, the fact is that in 1976 the proportion was 66 per cent. It went down by 2 per cent. a year until the present Government were elected. Broadly speaking, it did not decrease much more than that throughout the whole of the 1980s. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is not in his place but, as he pointed out, the switch was begun by the Labour Party in 1976.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred to the problems of non-payment. Perhaps I may say to him in regard to non-payment that Members of Parliament in particular and local councillors are people who should know better. The incidence of non-payment would have been considerably lower if people in such places of influence had not led the non-payment campaign.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, if I may intervene, no attempt was made on my part to justify non-payment. I hope that that is abundantly clear.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that and I believe that the noble Lord said so. I was trying to explain that the high incidence of non-payment has not helped. It has exacerbated the position, led by people in key places who ought to have known better.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that perhaps we should have had the Budget a week earlier. Perhaps I may say to him that it displays enormous ignorance on his part of the lead time needed for the work that goes into preparing a Budget. It is extremely easy to speak with hindsight. There has been a Gulf War. No one quite knew how that war was going to end. Therefore to have pre-empted £4.25 billion of taxpayers' money in the timescale referred to by the noble Earl would have been particularly difficult.
I shall not apologise for the fact that there has been no change in the uniform business rate. We welcomed the comments made by John Banham of the CBI who, on behalf of business and commerce, welcomed the announcement of my right honourable friend in another place. He welcomed the fact that there were to be no changes to the uniform business rate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, was concerned about Birmingham losing £2.5 million in cash flow. We are advancing the schedule of payments from the business rates pool to offset the cash flow loss which might otherwise occur. We intend to make a first payment on 5th April instead of 15th April as previously intended.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but these are exceptional circumstances and we have little chance to get the facts clear. Does the response which the Minister is making to my noble friend Lady Fisher apply also to the additional costs

1137
caused by the announcement of Mr Portillo on Monday night? In other words, does that cover Birmingham's additional £100,000 of administrative costs—that is a 20 per cent. increase—and its £1.25 million extra cash flow over and above that which had been anticipated when the Bill was published?
Baroness Blatch; My Lords, I was referring specifically to cash flow. I shall come to the matter of administrative costs. However, administrative costs will also be reimbursed. The Department of the Environment has already held preliminary discussions with the local authority associations on the basis for paying grant to compensate for additional administrative costs. The associations were not able to give a unanimous response in those preliminary discussions, but we hope to agree with them on a sound basis for the grant in further discussions. I must make it clear that we intend to compensate authorities in full for those reasonable additional costs.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the estimate of £60 million for administrative costs. That is our estimate of the reasonable additional administrative costs that authorities may incur as a result of the Bill's provisions. Underlying that estimate is the expectation that the cost of rebilling would be in the range of £1.50 to £2 per charge payer. That is consistent with the experience of the more efficient of the charge-capped authorities this year.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was also worried about the wording of Clause 4. He reads far more into the wording than is there. The Government fully intend to compensate authorities for 100 per cent. of the community charge income that they would otherwise have received but for the reduction prescribed by the Bill. We also intend to reimburse authorities for their reasonable administrative costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, was forthcoming about the Labour Party's alternative to the community charge which is a property tax linked to ability to pay. However, I have some questions on that provision which may become clear at some time during the course of this general debate on a way forward for local government. If the alternative is to be linked to ability to pay, would we have to have a register of incomes? How would we assess the incomes of individuals? Will all individuals pay or will only some of them pay? Will all members of a household pay, or only one? Will the rebate scheme help more people more generously—that would cost those who pay more—or will it help fewer people more generously? What are we to deduce from the scant information we have about the proposals from noble Lords opposite?
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, were concerned about the balance between local and national taxation. This is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his successors in that Office. As regards the future pattern of taxation, I should make it clear that the balance which we have established between local and national taxation, following the
1138
provisions of this Bill, is what we believe to be right and appropriate and to be a balance which can be sustained in future years.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter also asked how the figure of £140 was arrived at. My noble friend posed the question; but the noble Lord, Lord Peston, assumed the answer, and he was wrong. My right honourable friend the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget speech that it is the Government's intention that the average community charge paid next year in Great Britain should be less than £175. That was the starting point.
Lord Peston: My Lords, he may have said that; but the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I want to be told the principles that lie behind the figure. One cannot just say that the Chancellor thought the figure would be less than £175, and £140 is less than £175, and therefore that is the answer. We were asking for some analysis.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will exercise some patience. It was the judgment of the Government, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the volume of taxes raised at local level was too high and that a figure of £175, or something below that, was the right figure. Therefore that represents the level of local taxation—that local taxation offers a yield of about £7 billion—which we believe is the correct, sustainable level in the long-term. It is to achieve that objective that we arrived at, and are introducing, this measure: the £140 reduction in headline charges and the further improvements in the community charge reduction scheme—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but is there not a very clear reason why the £140 figure was arrived at? It is just above the figure that applies in Wandsworth. That is why the Government arrived at that figure. They calculated that Wandsworth would only end up losing £4 a head and everyone else would gain. Therefore the Government moved from the Wandsworth figure to the 17.5 per cent. VAT.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the imagination of the noble Lord is positively gymnastic on this affair. The level we have arrived at is about the level of rates that applied in 1989. In fact my noble friend beside me has reminded me that the figure is slightly lower than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked why there was no proposal to offer consultation on a local government commission in Scotland. The noble Lord correctly noted that there are no plans to consult on a proposal to set up a local government commission to review structure in Scotland, as it is intended to do for England. The reason for that is that the existing structure in Scotland is much less diverse than it is in England. The Government believe it is therefore reasonable to move directly to consult on the introduction of a single-tier structure throughout Scotland.
I was asked about social security issues and any possible changes to the regulations. The community charge benefit will be assessed on the basis of

1139
community charge liability, net of reductions arising from this Bill. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be bringing forward regulations shortly to ensure that the regulations governing the assessment of benefits take account of the new general reduction scheme.
My noble friend Lord Brocket was robust in his condemnation of the Government not making changes in the uniform business rate. However, as my noble friend is not present, I shall pass on. Many noble Lords were positively obsessed with Wandsworth. The truth about Wandsworth is that it is a well-managed, prudent authority providing good services at a cost of £116 per person below the standard spending assessment. The system which determines the external support for individual authorities works on the same basis for all authorities. The grant is based on SSAs which seek to measure needs. Wandsworth should be compared with other local authorities in its own class. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is looking anxious, but I can provide figures. For example, Reading—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way, but she referred once again to Wandsworth being so well off because it is highly efficient. Reading Borough Council has just won an award for efficiency, yet the people in Reading will have to pay—after the £140 rebate awarded by the Bill—£336. In Wandsworth people will pay nothing. It cannot be right that people in Wandsworth should pay nothing for their local services whereas people in Reading and in other areas pay so much.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Berkshire, which is the county council within which Reading is situated, is spending £7 above its SSA. Reading, to which the noble Lord referred, is spending £28 above its SSA. Therefore, for each person in that part of the world it is paying £35 above SSA. Birmingham is spending at the level of SSA. Lambeth is spending £112 above SSA. Wandsworth is spending £116 below SSA. All of its services compare very favourably with those of many other local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, criticised the use of the census figures. It is true that many indicators in the SSAs are based on the 1981 census data; that is the case for all authorities. Our principle is to use the best available and latest data and we are constantly seeking new sources. Obviously at this stage in the census cycle some of the data are fairly old. However, in two or three years' time we shall have new data from the 1991 census. They will be incorporated as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, went on about the principle that everybody should pay the same. He put forward the craziest notion that if everybody should pay the same then everybody should be paid the same. He omitted to say that everybody should pay a contribution. That is the situation; it is not that everyone should pay the same. Millions of people are not paying the same amount because the Government are sensitive to the needs of individuals.
I shall not miss this opportunity of paying tribute, as I was invited to do by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to the work of local authority staff. I do
1140
not pretend that this is an easy time for them. They have done a great job so far and face a challenge in the next few weeks. I am sure that they will meet it.
The noble Lord, Lord Monk swell, asked a specific question about the word "their" in Clause 3. The amount determined by a local authority is "their" charge and must be the headline charge. That is the figure that the authority determines as the amount or the amounts of the charge, so that "their" in that context cannot refer to the charge payers.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked, why hurry? Having made the Statement the Government believe that we should minimise disruption to local authorities as far as possible. We also believe that it is desirable to get the bills out as soon as possible. The noble Lord also referred to VAT and gainers and losers and whether we had done our sums. The overall sum has been done with respect to the overall assumption as to the amount that will come in via the 2½ per cent. increase in VAT. The effect on individuals will depend on their pattern of spending. We know that with the incidence of zero rating the impact will be much greater on those who spend on more luxury items.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, appeared to criticise the balance of approximately 11 per cent. raised at local level saying that that would lead to the destruction of local government. Can we deduce from that comment that a Labour Government would shift the balance back to local level? If so, that would be an interesting revelation to those of us who are interested in such things.
Lord Peston: My Lords, was the noble Baroness asking me that question, or was it rhetorical?
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch: It was rhetorical.
Lord Peston Lord Peston: I am delighted to hear that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if time had been on my side I should have been interested in the answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that this is not a Bill; it is a lollipop dressed up as a Bill. He then advised people not to take sweets from strangers. On the basis of that advice it would be consistent for him and his colleagues to oppose the Bill, but I suspect that he will not because he cannot deny that this is a good measure which will benefit a great many people.
The balance of local and national taxation is a definitive conclusion that we have drawn on the basis of what has emerged from the review so far. Noble Lords have argued in favour of resisting the change to centralisation. I must ask the noble Lord on behalf of his party—yes, the question is entirely rhetorical—whether that means that his party would also intend to shift the balance back towards local charge payers.
This is a short but most important Bill. It is an essential part of our strategy, as announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech, to make a new and major change in the balance between local and national taxation in relation to paying for local services. It will bring substantial benefits to charge payers, reducing headline charges everywhere by £140. It will mean that after allowing for community charge benefits and the

1141
community charge reduction scheme the amount that charge payers will pay on average next year will be less than £175.
It is also a matter of great urgency. There can be no question that a matter such as this should be dealt with other than in the context of the Budget. It is also very important that the new arrangements should be in place and bills issued as early as possible in the new financial year. We do not hide the fact that inevitably there will be some inconvenience for local authorities. Our aim is to keep it to the minimum by seeking to ensure that local authorities will know before the start of the financial year all that they need to know to begin collecting their charges. But it would be indefensible not to give the very substantial extra assistance we are now able to provide for charge payers.
The Bill is a short but crucially important measure. It is one of the first fruits of our fundamental and constructive review of local government finance, structure and functions. It shows the Government acting firmly and decisively for the benefit of charge payers. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until a quarter-past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.56 to 8.15 p.m.].
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Statutory reduction of community charges: England and Wales]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert:
("Subject to the making of an order under subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. It may not seem obvious from the printed version that they are related because unfortunately Amendment No. 8 should have been introduced as:
"Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
('(1A) The Secretary of State shall'".
That did not occur in the printing. It may have been the fault of the version that we provided to the Public Bill Office. The grouping that has been supplied to the Committee makes it clear that the two are deliberately related. As is obvious, Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment for the important amendment, which is Amendment No. 8.
A few minutes ago this measure was described by the Minister as a definitive statement on local
1142
government finance. She described the arrangements which have been arrived at and the balance between central and local government contributions to local government expenditure as definitive. I find that a somewhat extraordinary statement since the Bill makes absolutely clear that it refers only to the year 1991–92. Any attempt which has been made by any of us in tabling amendments to extend the application of the Bill beyond 1991–92 or beyond the very strict limits set out in the Long Title has been rejected—rightly, in terms of the Long Title.
We have been told that our amendments must relate only to the Bill as drafted. Under those circumstances it can hardly be said that the Bill is a definitive statement of anything. Clearly it is a stop-gap. We have before us a way of giving the Government a breathing space in which to work out, as best they can, the future shape of Conservative policy toward local government finance. It has been made clear by the Secretary of State that it is a policy which will not be implemented before 1994 or, if the Government are lucky, by the year 1993–94, but in any case not until well after a general election. It is also plain that there will be no significant legislation until after a general election.
Let us suppose that the Government are forced, as they may well be. to postpone a general election until the last possible minute. Let us suppose that we arrive at this time next year with the same Government and no proposals for changes to the poll tax. What will happen? Shall we have another Bill along these lines? Shall we have a finance Bill for the continuation of value added tax at 17.5 per cent. and a further reduction in the poll tax for 1992–93? It is absurd to suggest that what is proposed in the Bill is in any way definitive. It is a face saver; it is a cover for the lack of decision which is now endemic in Cabinet circles. Members of the Cabinet cannot make up their minds about anything. They expect us to hang around while they fight among themselves.
It is not even a matter of consultation. At the beginning of this so-called review exercise, consultation papers were to be issued in January of this year. Not a single consultation paper has appeared, yet some of the most important possibilities have been pre-empted by the statements that have already been made. I shall not dignify any of the statements by saying that they are positive decisions. Certainly there are negative decisions. The Bill is clearly a negative decision. We have a decision that the people of this country will be saddled with the poll tax for many years to come.
We on these Benches do not believe that that is necessary. We believe that it is perfectly possible to take immediate action to abolish the poll tax and to replace it by something better. I believe that the Liberal Democrat party thinks the same. Let me say immediately that I do not believe we agree on a better solution. The Liberal Democrats consider that a local income tax is better; we say that pending a fairer rates system we can, should and must return to the rates system from 1st April 1992. That has been the clear position of the Labour Party ever since the so-called review started. Nevertheless, although we disagree

1143
about what the system should be—that is a matter for the electors to decide—we cannot allow this Bill to go through as a stop-gap for 1991–92 without any commitment from the Government to replace the poll tax by a fairer tax.
The people of this country can see very well what is going on. It is already clear to them that the so-called abolition of the poll tax is no such thing. It is already clear that the property plus poll tax which was proposed in the Statement by the Secretary of State last Thursday involves all of the worst elements of the poll tax for a lower return. It will involve—the Secretary of State has made clear that he cannot rule it out—a register of individuals, with all the difficulties that that has brought about with the poll tax. Yet the return from such a tax will be substantially less. Unless some completely new administrative machinery is set up, it will have to be collected by making some person —the head of household—the involuntary collector of revenue from all the other members of the household on behalf of the Government. That will involve all the difficulties with regard to movements of address which have been seen in the past.
Nothing is solved by the proposal put forward by the Secretary of State. We simply have all the undeniable difficulties of introducing a new property tax added on to the undeniable difficulties of carrying on with the poll tax procedures. That is not an acceptable alternative. We ought not to pass the Bill without stating that it is cut short: it needs a commitment for the future if it is to be acceptable to the people of this country.
Amendment No. 8 provides that the Secretary of State,
"shall before making any Order under subsection (1) … lay before Parliament a statement containing a proposed date not later than 1st April 1992 by which the community charge is to be abolished".
The Government have already claimed that they have abolished the poll tax. That is an opportunity for them to give effect to that claim. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The Government have stated that they have abolished the poll tax. But do they understand what is meant by abolishing the poll tax? It means abolishing a flat rate payment. It means abolishing the principle that everyone has to pay. More generally it means abandoning the principle of setting out to tax people. That principle has been tried at other times and in other places. It has a 100 per cent. record of failure. People, as opposed to property or income, have a nasty habit of moving about. One can never find them where one wants them. One tends to find that they do not have the money when one wants it. One ends up with a great deal of injustice, creating a great deal of hardship, and a vast apparatus of administrative cost for not very much return.
Another difficulty of taxing people which has not been dwelt upon sufficiently is the reaction that we create by setting out to tax foreigners while they are in this country. I made the parallel with ship-money earlier today. Late last night I was reading a concession by Charles I in 1635 that he would not attempt to levy ship-money on merchant strangers inside this country because of the danger of upsetting
1144
innumerable reciprocal arrangements. That is a precedent that I believe we might take into account. This tax on foreigners is very deeply resented. It is likely to lead to retaliation. If we retain a tax on people we risk keeping that provision.
There must also be a better arrangement for standard spending assessments. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness for her attention for a moment. I did not intervene when she dealt in her speech with Wandsworth. However, I have in my hand a press release issued yesterday by Frank Field MP. It compares the Exchequer support for the local authorities in Wandsworth and the Wirral. It states that in Wirral each poll tax payer is allocated £351 per person. In Wandsworth the sum is £843 per resident. If one leaves out of the calculation the ILEA grant, which Mr. Field has conceded may involve separate issues, if the Wirral were supported at the same level as Wandsworth its poll tax would not be £476 but £24. Let us hear no more about the efficiency of Wandsworth. It is not the efficiency of Wandsworth; it is the efficiency of the Exchequer.
Under the heading of the poll tax, we are concerned with the capping principle. One of the factors that has gone wrong is the spending limit. When the Local Government Finance Bill was before the House we were told that local revenue should contribute 25 per cent. According to the Secretary of State, the correct figure is 34 per cent. The Lord Privy Seal suggested at Question Time on the 14th that that represented a measure of profligate overspending by local authorities. Comparing the figure with what has happened in the remainder of the public services, I should be more inclined to suggest that it means excessive under-calculation of spending limits by the Government. On no occasion on which the Government have had to calculate a spending limit for a public service have they got it right. If that statement is incorrect, if there is an exception, I shall be grateful to hear of it.
Finally, I wish to answer the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I listened to his speech with a great deal of interest. I gave him notice that I would raise the issue on this amendment. The points need answering even if the noble Lord is not present. He was concerned about non-taxpayers voting. If they had no interest in the tax, they might vote to increase it. The noble Lord was elaborating an argument with a long history. It goes back to Cromwell and Ireton at the Putney debates; that no one should vote except those who, as Ireton put it, had a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom. The difficulty with that argument is that, throughout its history, it has been an argument against universal suffrage.
I take the noble Lord's point that everyone pays indirect taxes. However, it has always been the case that direct taxes have not been paid by a large proportion of the population. If we are to introduce the idea that there must be a direct link between tax paying and voting we must abandon universal suffrage. The proposals made by Mr. Norman Tebbit on the Walden interview a few weeks ago provoked the comment from Mr. Walden, "That sounds like the South African pass laws, Norman". That is the danger into which one will fall.

1145
The noble Lord must think again about the issue. Paying taxes is not the only interest that we have in this kingdom. John Locke was right in saying that we have an interest in the kingdom by as much as breathing and by as much as being on the highway. Colonel Rainborough was right when in 1647 he said:
"I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government;…;I should doubt whether he was an Englishman or no, that should doubt of these things".
That applies whether he pays taxes or not.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: These amendments represent a heavy-handed attempt by Members opposite to delay the coming into effect of the reduction in the personal charge required by the Bill by linking it to a statement of plans for the future of the local government finance system. The amendments are wholly unnecessary and wholly undesirable.
They contrive to put a series of hurdles in the path of the Secretary of State. Whereas the Bill as drafted requires the reductions to take effect the day after it is passed the amendments require the Secretary of State to make an order to give effect to the reductions. And before he can do that we gather that he has to lay before Parliament statements relating to the timing of the abolition of the community charge. The only practical effect of these amendments would be to deprive chargepayers of the substantial reductions in their charges which we are proposing and cause the maximum disruption for both authorities and their chargepayers.
But, of course, in reality these amendments represent nothing more than a red herring. As the noble Lord is aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made a statement in another place on 21st March outlining progress on our comprehensive and fundamental review of local government. He made it clear that we have decided that from the earliest possible moment the community charge will be replaced by a new system of local taxation. He went on to say that 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.
I do not propose to repeat my right honourable friend's statement. Suffice it to say that we propose to consult on the new local tax as we do on local government structure and internal management. We shall do so on the basis that the new tax could be in place in 1993–94; that is by 1st April 1993. Perhaps the noble Lord would care to join in the consultation process. We have heard several suggestions. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said that she had some ideas in which we might be interested. We should certainly be interested in the participation in the review of Members opposite.
It would clearly be unrealistic to have the new tax in place by 1st April 1992. Major reform takes time.
1146
The worst of all possible worlds would be to have the old rates system as a stop-gap as the Labour Party apparently wants to do. We certainly do not want to have two upheavals for local authorities. Or perhaps the truth is that if Labour went back to the discredited rates system it would never get away from it.
What is clear is that the community charge will continue in 1991–92 and 1992–93. There is no prospect of its replacement before 1st April 1992. But the fundamental shift in the balance between central and local taxation for paying for local services announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19th March is a permanent one. That does not preclude the review in relation to the structure nor the review in relation to functions. I pose this question to both parties opposite: do they intend to shift that balance back to raising greater sums of revenue at local level?
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to comparisons with Wirral. That was an interesting comparison. Wirral has increased its budget by 20 per cent. and its spending above its SSA by£46 per adult as compared with Wandsworth, which has reduced its budget and is spending below its SSA by£116. The noble Earl should be comparing like with like; that is, like authorities in the same class—
Earl Russell: I was concerned about how the SSAs are arrived at. There is a good deal of curiosity about the matter.
Baroness Blatch: The SSAs are a way of determining the need for local authorities. The noble Earl is welcome to come into my department to discuss in more detail how they are arrived at. Wirral is treated on the same basis as other local authorities but it has chosen to spend well above its SSA whereas Wandsworth has chosen to spend well below it—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She talks about Wandsworth spending below its SSA. Of course that is the case because the SSA has been rigged in such a way that it is possible for some boroughs to do that. However, nobody can get away from the fact that Wandsworth is receiving free police and fire services which are not under its control. Who is paying for the police and fire services in Wandsworth? It is not the people of Wandsworth but people in other parts of London who have had the grant system rigged against them, the VAT payers and tax payers. It cannot be claimed that the efficiency of Sir Paul Beresford is so great that he has achieved a police and fire service which costs nothing to his electors.
Baroness Blatch: I challenge the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to come with me and make detailed comparisons between the external finance received, for example, by Lambeth, Hackney, Tower Hamlets or Southwark and Wandsworth. That is comparing like with like not only in respect of levels of expenditure but also the quality of the services that those authorities provide.

1147
The Bill seeks to effect that change with the utmost speed for 1991–92. These amendments are unnecessary for that purpose. They seek to frustrate it. I urge the Committee to reject them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister talked as though our amendments would cause a delay in the implementation of the procedures of the Bill. The delay could be at most five minutes. All that is required is for the Government to get out of the internal fighting which is characteristic at the present time, make up their minds and say that in truth they will get rid of the poll tax and do so straight-away. It is possible to do that; various alternatives can be implemented within a period of 12 months. They may not be the final solution but they will be better than the poll tax. To argue that the amendments will delay the implementation of the Bill, the increase in VAT or the reduction in the community charge is a complete nonsense. The Minister has misinterpreted and misrepresented the purpose and impact of the amendments. I invite the Committee to take an opinion on them.
8.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Monkswell, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Ogmore, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Varley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Barber, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Astor, V.

Belstead, L.

Auckland, L.

Blatch, B.

1148

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caldecote, V.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountevans, L.

Clinton, L.

Munster, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norfolk, D.

Craigavon, V.

Norrie, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Downshire, M.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dudley, B.

Pender, L.

Eccles, V.

Plumb, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renwick, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rochdale, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Seccombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Sharples, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Southborough, L.

Haslam, L.

Strange, B.

Hayter, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Henley, L

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L.

Suffield, L.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Huntly, M.

Tollemache, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Waddington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Kintore, E.

Wigram, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.48 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): In calling Amendment No. 2, I have to tell the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 or 10.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("amount") to second ("for") in line 7 and insert ("payable by any person after allowance for any rebate or other reduction in respect of a personal community charge".).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I should like to speak also to four Scottish amendments. I do not quite know why we get more

1149
complicated when we get north of the Border, but we seem to do so. The amendments are Nos. 16, 20, 21 and 22.
These amendments are as simple as they could be. They simply provide for the£140, which has been widely bruited around as being the benefit which the average, or even the typical, poll tax payer will be getting from this munificent Bill. Nothing could be further from the case. The£140 applies only to those personal community charge payers who are not in receipt either of rebates or reductions in respect of the community charge reduction scheme, and it does not apply to anybody who has a second home which is subject to the standard community charge.
I do not want anybody to misunderstand me. Let us agree that those who are in need are the ones who are getting the rebates. Let us also agree that, on the whole, those who are least in need are the ones who have second homes and are paying standard community charges. So one would therefore think it right that the benefit of this munificence is given more to the people in greater need—therefore, to the people getting rebates—and less to the people who are paying the standard community charge.
No, what is happening is that the so-called£140 is being paid less to the people more in need, because they are still paying 20 per cent. of the reduced amount rather than being relieved of the amount altogether, and those who are least in need—that is, those with second homes—are getting more benefit because they are being relieved of the£140 not once, not even twice, but, where the standard community charge is double, three times. Such is the view of this Government of fairness in our taxation system.
We simply say. because we think it is right, that this£140 should be made available for the people most in need and not calculated on the headline amount—that is the new jargon phrase—before the calculation of rebate or any reduction under transitional relief. It could not be simpler or clearer or more just. Also it accords with what Ministers have allowed the people of this country to understand, from the way in which they have presented the Bill in the press. This is a very unfair Bill indeed, and this is a simple way of dealing with one of the sources of unfairness. I beg to move.
Lord Hayter: I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 4 or 5.
Earl Russell: When I first took up my job, I had a colleague whose father at the end of the last century had been a Scottish railway worker. He told me that his father constantly said right through into the 1960s, "Why did we never get our three acres and a cow?". I believe that if this amendment is not accepted we shall be finding in 60 years' time people saying, "Why did I never get my£140?"
It has been spelt out very widely that this Bill is offering a rebate of £140 to each payer. It is, as we know, a lot more complicated than that but the Government have firmly established this idea in
1150
people's minds. If they do not live up to it, I think they will pay for it. If they would like to do it, I suppose that is their business, but I would advise them not to.
Baroness Blatch: Our purpose in this Bill is to reduce headline community charges. It follows from our decision to shift a substantial part of the burden at present borne by the community charge payer to the national tax payer. It is not the aim of the Bill to ensure that all charge payers should pay£140 less than would otherwise have been the case. After all, we have already provided generous relief under the community care reduction scheme for former rate payers, who have been specially affected by the move to the community charge. Substantial improvements to that scheme have already been announced, and for those charge payers on low incomes we have also provided community charge benefit.
It is perfectly reasonable that eligibility for relief under the reduction scheme and for benefit should be calculated after and not before the deduction of£140 from headline charges. The approach advocated by the Opposition would involve a substantially greater reduction in community charge income than my right honourable friend has planned for in his Budget. Accordingly, further increases in taxation would be necessary to finance it. In addressing these amendments, noble Lords opposite have not suggested where the resources should come from to meet the extra costs of the amendments.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was particularly anxious—as indeed he always is—for those people at the bottom end of the income scale. It needs to be remembered that these particular people we are talking about at the moment have enjoyed a subsidy of 80 per cent. of the community charge. It follows that if they are paying 20 per cent., then they are receiving 80 per cent. in subsidy, and what we are doing is reducing the charge for them by 20 per cent. Of£140. It will be a pro rata reduction. For the very poorest, the net cost is nothing, in that there is a supplement paid into benefit and indeed into students' support grant so that the actual amount in practice is almost nil in some cases and actually nil in others.
Lord Stallard: Before the noble Baroness leaves that point, she said they are enjoying an 80 per cent. rebate. Those people enjoyed a 100 per cent. rebate before the poll tax.
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord finds offence in the word "enjoy" I shall withdraw it; but they do experience or receive a subsidy from the Government of 80 per cent., which is met by tax payers at large.
Lord Stallard: What I am saying is that they received a subsidy of 100 per cent. under the old rating system.
Baroness Blatch: Many of them receive a subsidy of 100 per cent. now, in that the money is paid into benefit, which is comparable to the amount many people on that income actually pay.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness has withdrawn the word "enjoy", and that was wise. Would she now consider withdrawing the word

1151
"subsidy"? Is it a subsidy when people who are most in need and cannot afford to pay these charges are being given a rebate of 80 per cent.? This is the most offensive possible way of looking at the finances of people in need. To tell them that they are receiving a subsidy is exactly the way to ensure that we do not get a proper take-up of people's rights under the law.
Baroness Blatch: I said earlier this afternoon that the noble Lord's imagination is positively gymnastic, and I say that again. It is wrong to criticise the Government by saying that they do not care when they have taken the view that there are some people who cannot meet the full charge—that is 100 per cent.—and many of them will pay only 20 per cent. so that for some the cost in reality is almost nothing, and for others it is nothing. That is because the Government are anxious and wish to be sensitive to the needs of people and their ability to pay, despite what noble Lords opposite say. Therefore, as I have said, if the use of the word "enjoy" was injudicious, I withdraw it; but I am making the point that some people receive 80 per cent., and others receive almost 100 per cent. in practice, and that the reduction of£140 is pro rata to that.
Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 appear to be drafting amendments. I remain of the view that Clause 3(1), as drafted, is correct and that the changes proposed by these amendments would make it incorrect.
Changes in Scotland are determined by local authorities and in respect of them. The word "authority" in Clause 3(1) (a), (b) and (c) refers directly back to the reference to "a local authority" in Line I of the clause and, I would submit, should not be changed. I would therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw that amendment.
These amendments have the effect of requiring the reduction of£140 to be applied after, rather than before, the application of the reduction scheme and benefit. I remind the Committee that the additional cost would be£3.3 billion in England, and the result would be that 9.25 million charge payers would pay nothing at all. That is a substantial sum; and, as I said earlier, noble Lords have said nothing about where this money should come from.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The implication of those last remarks is that there is something sacrosanct about the figure of£140, and of course there is nothing sacrosanct about the figure of£140. As I have already pointed out, it was clearly designed to be rounded off to the nearest 10 above the Wandsworth figure so that Wandsworth poll tax payers would come out about even; in other words, they would get nearly£140 benefit and only lose£4. I notice that some people in Wandsworth are asking "when am I going to get my£4 back?", and then everybody else would still be paying something. That leaves open the absurdities that we have reached in Westminster and in Shetland, and perhaps in other places, where the cost of collection is going to be greater than the amount received. However, that is a matter for later amendments and I shall not intrude on those now.
1152
If the Government are complaining about this attempt to bring justice into the distribution of receipts from increased VAT, and if they are saying that the proposal will cost£3.3 billion more, there is a simple solution: they can agree to the amendment. They can do their sums again between now and Report, and they can change the£140 after that. That would meet the case entirely. It is a simple sum. If they cannot do it, I shall do it for them and put down a suitable amendment on Report. What is clearly necessary is that the amount of money available, whatever it may be, should be made available primarily to those most in need. That is the purpose of the amendment. That has not been contradicted in any way by the Minister's response. The Committee should take a decision on this matter.
9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Ardwick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B. [Teller.]

Falkender, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Varley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Caldecote, V.

Ashbourne, L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Barber, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Beloff, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belstead, L

Clinton, L.

Blatch, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Blyth, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Boardman, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L

Craigmyle, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Caithness, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

1153

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Downshire, M.

Mountevans, L.

Dudley, B

Munster, E.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Ellenborough, L

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norrie, L.

Elphinstone, L

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elton, L

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Faithfull, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fortescue, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Grantchester, L.

Plumb, L.

Gridley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Radnor, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Reay, L.

Haslam, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Renwick, L.

Hesketh, L

Rochdale, V.

Hooper, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Huntly, M.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seccombe, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Selkirk, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sharples, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Kintore, E.

Southborough, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Suffield, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Tollemache, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ullswater, V.

Margadale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Waddington, L.

Mersey, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Monson, L.

Wigram, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 5, after ("amount") insert ("payable by any person liable either to pay in full a personal community charge, or to pay a charge reduced from such an amount under the community charge reduction scheme".).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 9, 13, 15, 18, 23, 27 and 28, and I shall not move Amendment No. 11.
In its wisdom the Committee has decided that it is not appropriate to calculate the rebate or the transitional benefit first before deducting the£140 or whatever that figure may be. Therefore, as an alternative we have tabled a series of amendments which will seek to provide that the full£140 is calculated after the community charge reduction scheme and after the calculation of rebates.
The significant amendments in this group are Amendments Nos. 4 and 9. Amendment No. 4 is concerned with the community charge reduction scheme and Amendment No. 9 is concerned with rebates.
In simple terms, with respect to rebates that means that instead of having to pay the 20 per cent. of the reduced figure, those who are paying a rebated figure
1154
and enjoying—in the Minister's charming words—the benefit of a subsidy would no longer have to pay that 20 per cent., but in the words of Amendment No. 9 that figure would be reduced to£0.
Those who took part in the lengthy debates on the poll tax Bill in 1988 will recall only too well the amount of time taken in discussing the rebate system. We achieved many changes in that system. With all-party support we achieved agreement on an extension to the rebate system. I remember lengthy and valuable debates about different categories of disabled people, students, student nurses and many groups of people in need whose plight was recognised by Members of this Chamber in all parties and in none.
Therefore, the rebate system which resulted from the Bill as it left this Chamber was substantially better than the rebate system in the Bill which arrived here from the Commons. I notice that Ministers have never ceased to congratulate themselves on how generous and effective is the rebate system. However, they do not recall that virtually every single change in the rebate system which we put forward was resisted by the Government Front Bench. It was only through a combination of strength of argument and sometimes strength of numbers in the Division Lobby that we achieved a rebate system that was in any way representative of the wide range of financial as well as physical needs. I know that many Members of the Committee this evening will recall those debates.
However, changes to the rebate system which left it as a minimum 20 per cent. attacked some of the worst ancillary evils of the poll tax system but did not attack the root of the problem. The root of the problem still is and has been all the time—and this has become self-evident since the poll tax was introduced—that many millions of people who simply cannot afford to pay taxes and do not pay direct taxes in any other way, with no question of them ever being assessed for income tax, are being asked to pay 20 per cent. in addition to what they are paying in indirect taxes. That was the injustice which we did not recognise. That was why, with all the other failings of the poll tax, this failing still stuck in people's throats after the legislation was introduced and implemented.
The Secretary of State admitted for the first time last Thursday that the public have not been persuaded that the poll tax is fair. He is certainly right about that. It would have been better if he had recognised that we were right in saying that when the idea of the poll tax was first introduced. One of the principal reasons why people feel that the poll tax is not fair is because people who patently cannot afford it are still being asked to pay 20 per cent. in the so-called interests of accountability.
I turn to the issue of accountability again because it is absolutely critical to our understanding of the nature of the poll tax legislation which we are being asked to amend in this Bill. The idea of accountability is that local authorities are only accountable to people who actually sign the cheques or hand over the money for the taxation which goes towards local government finances. That is not an argument which is ever used about central government finance. Nobody ever says

1155
that, as voters in a general or parliamentary election, people who are too poor to pay income tax deserve less accountability. It may be suggested, but if it is, no one ever dares to say so in public. There are many who would like to go back to the 40 shillings freeholder basis of central government taxation. At least we have achieved a certain amount in democracy in that it is understood that one's right to vote is not determined by one's ability to pay income tax.
As always, we learn a great deal on these occasions from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, particularly about 17th century history. I am sorry that he is not here to join in this discussion. I am always fascinated by the ship tax, John Hampden, and all the other insights which the noble Earl gives us into the history of taxation in this country. The fundamental principle in central government and parliamentary elections—or elections for another place, at any rate—is that the basis is one person one vote. The Government are prepared to accept that regardless of income tax payments for their own activities, but in this peculiar way they are somehow unwilling to accept the same principle for local authorities. They are unwilling to accept that it is possible for people who do not hand over the cash or pay the cheques themselves to feel responsible for what their local authority does.
In point of fact it is well recognised that those who pay their rates together with their rent to the local authority, the two sums being lumped together, perfectly well understand that they are paying rates as well as rent and that the local authority is just as accountable as when they are paying the poll tax. Similarly, there are not many households where it is not understood that the family budget for the household includes all the adults in that household. If the householder is paying over the cheque for the rates he is doing that on behalf of all the others who can pay. Clearly that does not apply to those who have no income of their own. It is well understood in every household that I have come across just as it is understood in every council house that I have ever known.
My noble friend Lord Peston, says that I do this ad nauseam, but I am going to do it once more. The perceived incidence of the rates was 75 per cent. in the sense that, when you asked adults the question, "Do you pay rates?" 75 per cent. said, "Yes". That is the conclusive argument that the rates are understood to bear more widely than the number of ratepayers would indicate and that they achieve accountability.
The challenge to the Government is that the poll tax has failed in two ways to achieve accountability. The relationships between the amount that people pay for the poll tax and the service which they get, and the budgets of local authorities, are patently totally wild. They are completely out of kilter. There is no relationship that anyone can see between what a local authority pays, the quality of the service it gives and the level of poll tax demanded. It is all done by way of the standard spending assessment, which is based on statistics which have been getting progressively less accurate since the 1981 census. In addition, major elements of local authority expenditure are completely ignored.
For example, in my part of North London the standard spending assessment completely ignores the issue of homelessness. Haringey is a reception area for immigrants and refugees from all over the world, and has always been so, whether the refugees were from Cyprus after 1974 or Somalia now, but none of the expenditure which bears on our homelessness budget is ever recognised in our standard spending assessment. The point is that for every penny that we go above the standard spending assessment, the gearing is such that the withdrawal of government grant is enormously more severe. Therefore our poll tax increases by far more than the amount by which our expenditure has increased. That is the truth of the matter. The local government finance system following the introduction of the poll tax is by every possible definition less accountable than it was before.
What is to be done about this? The Committee has taken the view that we should not now be announcing our alternatives to the poll tax. The Committee was given an opportunity to do so on the first Division but it decided not to. So I shall not pursue that particular line of argument. But I certainly do pursue the view that the Government would do themselves a great deal of good now if they recognised that renouncing the false pursuit of accountability sought through making everybody pay something would be a very major step, not in restoring confidence in the Government's political judgment, wisdom or sense of justice, but in correcting one of the worst defects of the poll tax system as it exists at the moment.
As we proceed with the Bill it becomes more and more clear that the 20 per cent. collection from people most in need is not only unjust, and is perceived to be unjust, but is wildly inefficient. It costs very many local authorities much more to collect the 20 per cent. than it brings them in receipts. Very often the people who are most in need are the people who move most often and who are most difficult to find. They are people who are of no fixed abode, as it may be, and who are in and out of hospital, as it may be. All of these are people who suffer most severely from the 20 per cent. rule. What we are proposing, particularly in Amendment No. 9, is that the 20 per cent. rule should now be abolished. We are proposing in Amendment No. 4 that the same should apply to those who benefit from the transitional relief.
I am sorry to have taken some time on this matter but it is fundamental to our understanding of the way in which the worst injustices of the poll tax are being continued in the present Bill. It is not just that the amount of the poll tax is so high. That is not the reason why people are not persuaded of its fairness. It is because the fundamental principles of the poll tax are wrong. That is what people are persuaded of. We could not deal with all of them but we could deal with one of the issues of principle by adopting these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I have listened attentively to all that the noble Lord had to say. I have to say that the scope of this Bill is very narrow, as we now all know after some hours of debating it. There will no doubt come a time when we shall debate a measure to provide for a new way of financing local government

1157
services, but that is certainly not what we are doing tonight. Tonight it is certainly not the purpose of this Bill to alter the community charge system: rather, it seeks to make as many people as possible liable to contribute something towards the cost of local services.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the inefficiency of trying to recover moneys from people who received an 80 per cent. rebate. As the Audit Commission has shown, however, the average unit collection cost of£14 per chargepayer, much lower than some are suggesting, means that, even for authorities with low charges as a result of the£140 reduction, it will still be cost effective to collect from students and people receiving maximum community charge benefit.
My honourable friend Mr. Portillo announced in another place on 25th March three particular improvements to the community charge reduction scheme in England. Any relief to which a charge payer is entitled under that scheme and under charge benefit will be calculated using the new charge as reduced by this Bill. Not all people who will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme, or benefit or both, will receive the full benefit of the£140 charge reduction. It would indeed be odd if the CCRS beneficiaries were, so to speak, to benefit twice over.
So far as concerns those who are required to pay 20 per cent. of the charge, when an authority sets its initial charges for the year it has to set them at a level which is sufficient to cover its estimated outgoings from the collection fund taking into account other sources of income—basically revenue support grant and non-domestic rates. In deciding the level of charges it needs to set, the authority will take a view about income from people who do not pay the full amount of the charge.
If at the stroke of a pen the liability of the 20 per cent. contributors were to cease at the same time as the personal charge is reduced by£140, that would leave authorities with a shortfall of income. The grants payable under the Bill are confined to charge income forgone by virtue of the£140 reduction requirement. Those grants thus prevent a collection fund deficit in respect of the charge reductions required by the Bill. However, there will be nothing to stop the collection fund going into deficit as a result of these amendments. I therefore invite the Committee to reject them.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may question the noble Lord on two specific points. The first is his mention of the figure of£14 as being the average cost of collection. If we use that figure it creates an immediate problem. I say that because the cost of collection of the smaller amounts relating to the 20 per cent. charge payers is more likely to be higher than the cost of collection at the other end of the scale. For example, a wealthy person with a comparatively small community charge in relation to his normal outgoings may sign a direct debit form at the beginning of the year. That is a cheap administrative mechanism for collection. The average cost of collection will range between the very cheap at one end—I suspect that it
1158
will be about a few pounds—to a higher cost at the other end of the scale. It would be most useful if the Lord Privy Seal could give us some figures for the cost of collection as regards all the bureaucratic paraphernalia involved in collecting what can sometimes be very small amounts from people who do not have the ability to pay. Further, can he give us an idea of the cost involved when, for example, the local authority has to go through the courts to get an attachment of earnings order?
Secondly, the noble Lord said that the community charge is calculated on the basis of expenditure and if local authorities did not collect that proportion of the community charge they would be out of pocket. But that is exactly what we are talking about; we are talking about a situation where it costs local authorities more to collect the charge. In other words, they are losing more than they are raising in income. Therefore, there were two discrepancies in the answer given by the noble Lord. I would welcome further elucidation as regards those two points.
Lord Waddington: The simple answer is that the system is already set up to collect not only from those who are liable to pay the full personal charge but also from those who have to pay only 20 per cent. of it. Bearing in mind the fact that in each local authority area money will sometimes be collected from those liable to pay the full charge and those liable to pay only 20 per cent., the Audit Commission has calculated that the average cost of collection should be about£14. That was the point I was making during my earlier remarks. One cannot avoid the fact that in making the calculation of£14 provision is already made for collection from those who pay only 20 per cent. of the charge.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: The figure of£14 which the noble Lord quoted is very much at variance with the figure quoted by the leader of Westminster City Council the day after the announcement. On the radio she quoted a figure of£44, I think—it was certainly in excess of£40. I imagine that in Westminster most people pay by direct debit or cheque, therefore costs of collection would be less than anywhere else. I find it surprising that the noble Lord should now come up with the figure of £14. Is he saying that the leader of Westminster City Council was completely wrong?
Lord Waddington: That remark did not come from the leader of the council; I understand that it came from the chief executive. No matter; it came from Westminster City Council. The figure seems entirely unreasonable in the light of the figure which has been put forward by the Audit Commission. I can see no reason whatever why the costs of collection in Westminster should be so far out of line with what are believed to be the average costs in the country as a whole.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is in the nature of averages that some figures will be higher and some will be lower. It may well he that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is right and that the Westminster figures are

1159
out of line. Perhaps Westminster is extraordinarily inefficient in collecting its poll tax. That is the conclusion to be drawn from what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal says.
He has not answered the point of my noble friend Lord Monkswell. Is it not the case that with some figures being higher and some lower than the average, the poll tax which is likely to be the easiest to collect will come from those who are better off, more stable, who live in houses for longer and pay by direct debit? The people from whom it will cost more to collect the poll tax are those with less money, who cannot be forced to pay by direct debit, who are more likely to move and more difficult to follow when they do move. They are also the most in need. Is not the point which my noble friend makes valid; namely, that in this case the average is not the important figure? We need to know the costs of collection from those who are in receipt of rebates. If the noble Lord can give us those figures, we shall listen with great attention.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord on one point. Last year we were told that the post office would charge us 50p per activity. With a community charge payer who is paying on a weekly basis through the post office the cost will effectively be£25, which knocks the£14 average out of the window straightaway. That is before the other administrative costs involved in the collection of the poll tax are added, apart from the costs charged by the post office.
How does the figure of£14 relate to the reality of the costs of collecting the community charge from those people who are assessed as being eligible to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge? It just does not bear sensible scrutiny.
Lord Waddington: Out of courtesy to the noble Lord, I shall repeat what I said previously. The system has already been set up on the basis that some people will pay the full charge and some are required to pay only 20 per cent. of the charge. The system therefore sometimes has more difficulty in obtaining payment from those who have a smaller liability than those who have a greater liability. Bearing all those factors in mind, the conclusion which was reached by the Audit Commission was that the average collection cost was£14.
With the greatest respect, the argument advanced by the noble Lord cannot possibly be an argument for now suddenly exempting many people when the system was devised in order to obtain payment from them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that the scope of the Bill was narrow. That may be his opinion. He said it a moment ago, and I wrote it down. I have been reading the Long Title of the Bill. It says that it is:
"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".
There is no provision in that Long Title which is so narrow as to prevent Members of the Committee tabling amendments to seek to bring about further
1160
exemptions. It is certainly perfectly in order for my noble friend to table an amendment to try to exempt completely from the community charge those people who do not have the resources to pay and who are already given a rebate of 80 per cent. which leaves them having to pay 20 per cent of the charge. In many cases that may be a very small amount of money. My noble friends Lord Monkswell, Lady Nicol and Lord McIntosh have already taxed the Leader of the House on this question. He has not yet given a satisfactory answer.
The fact is that there is a lot of money chasing very little money and the taxpayer is not getting a fair reward. But the position is even worse than that because if after everything has been done the charge payer or the poll tax payer—call him what you will—still does not pay, local authorities will take people to court for an amount perhaps as low as£28. Will that not look ridiculous? Of course it will. I do not want to help this Government as that is not part of my job. But when the newspapers record that some poor little person on perhaps£50 a week is being chased through the courts for£28, will that be good propaganda for the Government? The Government should think about that. However, I am being helpful to the Government and I did not intend to do that. But perhaps they will take that factor into account.
We are talking about a once and for all payment. It would never have to occur again. If the amendment were accepted and we abolished the 20 per cent. payment and reverted to the former position where local taxation was paid totally and the individual did not have any further involvement, the Government would only lose the sum once and for As the noble Baroness told us earlier, these people we are discussing do not really have to pay because the social security system pays them benefit so they can in turn pay the Government. Is it not ridiculous that we are spending all this money trying to collect money which is difficult to collect anyway and which the Government have in any event already paid? Nothing could be more foolish than that. My noble friend was trying to help the Government administratively if not politically.
The Government would not listen to us when we tried to help during the passage of the community charge legislation. I think they probably wish they had listened to us now. So why do they not listen to us on this occasion? Why do they not learn something from their past mistakes? If they did that, I feel quite sure they would come to the conclusion that we were right after all, that the provision is much more trouble than it is worth, and they would gain some benefit, perhaps even political benefit, by accepting our amendment tonight.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I listened yesterday in another place to a speech made by a Left-wing Member in which he boasted that the reason the Government have retreated on the poll tax was that a campaign of non-payment had been initiated. I do not agree with non-payment of the tax. However, I must admit that the argument that some credit should be given to those campaigners for the fact that the Government have retreated is valid, even to one who

1161
believes that the poll tax should be paid. The argument is certainly valid to millions of people in our community.
There are a great many people in our community who believe that the Government should take heed. When the Government refuse to accept a small amendment which is not very important, which does not strike at the root of the Bill they are trying to put through and which seeks to assist the lower paid and deprived people in our community, as they are now resisting this amendment, that adds strength to the case that our Parliament does not help the poorer people in our community. The case that I heard made in the other place yesterday becomes stronger every minute. It is worse than that. If the Government fail to appreciate the effect that their action has on ordinary people the faith of those ordinary people in our parliamentary system will be weakened considerably.
Those of us who were here yesterday heard the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, talk about the militants on Merseyside. I have some experience of Merseyside. I was the leader of Liverpool City Council and the first chairman of the Merseyside County Council, another organisation which was abolished at the whim of a certain lady for no other reason than that she felt a certain pique and did not like the Greater London Council. It was abolished. There were no militants in Liverpool or Merseyside.
If the noble Lord would take time to give consideration to a really important point, that would at least indicate that he had some knowledge of the political situation which obtains in this country as a result of the poll tax. An elected government of this country are now going out of office simply because they would not understand the social implications of what this House did in whipping in the backwoodsmen, who had never even heard the debate about the poll tax, to vote in order that their own pockets should benefit.
There were no militants in Liverpool. Liverpool and Merseyside were doing extremely well. The Government did not appreciate the social consequences of some of their policies for ordinary people in Liverpool who had already suffered enough due to the recession occasioned by their policies.
I appeal to the Government to consider the people who have suffered under the poll tax to the extent that the Government have been forced to change their tune so that some of the faith that those people had in our parliamentary system can be restored. When they refuse to listen to the economic reasons for the abolition of this charge and to any of the social reasons why this assistance should go to the poorer members of our community they are not only damaging the Tory Party and removing it from office; they are damaging our parliamentary system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is clear that we shall not receive any more answers from Ministers to the very cogent points that have been made. There are two gaping holes in the arguments being put forward by the Government in favour of the continuation of the 20 per cent. minimum rebate scheme. The first has
1162
been fully explored in the debate. It is that the£14 which the Audit Commission has identified as the cost of collection of the poll tax is the average. But that is not the important figure. The important figure, which the Government appear to be unable to give us, is the cost of collection from those who receive the rebates. It is evident—the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal did not attempt to deny it—that the costs will be higher for those who are most in need, those who move most often and those who are not able to sign direct debits. That must be clear. It is probable that the costs will be substantially higher.
Let us try to make an estimate of what the average poll tax will be should this Bill be passed unamended at the£140 figure. Let us guess that the average poll tax will be of the order of£260. Twenty per cent. Of£260 is£52. It is not stretching the imagination very far to suggest that for the average of£52 to be collected from those who gain the rebates—again, some authorities will have a higher figure and some a lower one—the cost of collection at substantially more than£14 will approach 30 per cent., 40 per cent., 50 per cent. or even more of the receipts from the poll tax payers.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has tabled Amendments Nos. 7 and 26 which deal with the extreme case in which the costs of collection are greater than the receipts. They are valuable amendments and I was happy to put my name to them. But I can see that that will not occur in other than the minority of cases and in a minority of charging authorities in England and Wales and local authorities in Scotland.
What is absolutely clear is that in every authority in this country collection of the reduced rebate from the people most in need—those in receipt of rebates—will be wildly inefficient as a way of collecting tax revenue. Anything above 10 per cent. of the receipts is already extremely inefficient, as any tax expert will say. But when one approaches 30 per cent., 40 per cent., 50 per cent. or even more one comes to something which is not only unjust but unbusinesslike in the highest degree.
The second gaping hole in the Government's argument is the pretence, which has been made on a number of occasions, that there is something magical about the figure of£140 and that to change the conditions on which the reduced community charge is to be granted—those are the kinds of words that we now find ourselves using—will affect public expenditure because the compensatory grants will not be enough to cover it. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made that point in response to an original amendment.
Turning to Clause 4, we should look at the provisions for compensatory grants and at the extent to which they are tied to the£140 figure. We find that they are not. Clause 4(1) states that:
"For the 1991 financial year, the Secretary of State shall pay to each charging authority and to each local authority a grant of such amount as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine".
I have always thought that the environment legislation could be boiled down to the provision that the Secretary of State may do what he likes. I modify that

1163
belief slightly to say that the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may do what he likes. Clearly that is what we are moving toward.
But the significant point comes in subsection (4) of that clause:
"In determining the amount of a grant under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to"—
not "observe" but "have regard to"—
"his estimate of the aggregate of…;any amount which by virtue of section 1 or section 3 above"
that is England and Wales in the one case and Scotland in the other case—
"the authority might reasonably be expected to lose, or to have lost, by way of payments in respect of community charges for the 1991 financial year: and…;any administrative expenses which the authority might reasonably"—
the Committee should note the word "reasonably" because "reasonably" is what the Secretary of State thinks is reasonable and not what is in fact the case—
"be expected to incur in consequence of the provisions of this Act".
That means that the Secretary of State may do what he likes. It means that we could improve this Bill, make it more just and provide for an end to the nonsense of collection of' 20 per cent. from those most in need without endangering the Bill in any way. The Secretary of State will exercise his judgment as to the amount of compensatory grant which is required under Clause 4 of the Bill. Indeed, before the Bill even started its passage through the Commons, the Secretary of State—or rather, the Minister, Mr. Portillo—did just that. lie did his sums again. Clearly the sums are being done on a continuous basis. I have no doubt that the multiple regression analysis computer is running at this moment in Marsham Street and that there are people coming up with new wheezes every hour on the hour and probably through the night as well. However, having done his sums again, he decided in his wisdom, or that of his advisers, that with the co-ordination of the community charge reduction scheme—the Bill—and the rebate system they could be more generous with the community charge reduction scheme. In the debate on the money resolution, without warning, consultation or discussion with the local authority associations, and with no indication that this major change to the Bill was going to take place, the Government introduced a completely new system for the community charge reduction scheme. They introduced a new rule which says that the community charge reduction scheme shall now apply to all adults in the household. That profoundly changes the way in which local authorities have to collect the community charge.
If the Government can do that at 11 o'clock on a Monday night, only 15 hours before the Bill starts its passage in another place, they can do so now. They can think again. They have an opportunity to do themselves a lot of good by removing an injustice and a source of gross inefficiency and administrative extravagance. They can do so by adopting the amendment. I invite the Committee to take a decision on the amendment.
9.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. (Teller.)

Rochester, L.

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Huntly, M.

Astor, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Barber, L.

Jenkin of Roding. L.

Beloff, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blatch, B.

Kintore, E.

Blyth, L

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Byron, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caldecote, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Monson, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mottistone, L.

Clinton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Norfolk, D.

Craigmyle, L.

Norrie, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Derwent, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Downshire, M.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dudley, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eccles, V.

Pender, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Plumb, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Radnor, E.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rochdale, V.

Gisborough, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Sharples, B.

Haslam, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hesketh, L

Southborough. L.

Hooper, B.

Strange, B.

1165

Strathcarron, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strathclyde, L

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Suffield, L.

Waddington, L.

Teviot, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

Trumpington, B.

Wigram, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 6, after ("personal") insert ("or standard").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move Amendment No. 5, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 17, 24, 25 and 29. They all deal with the issue relating to the personal and standard community charges. All Members of the Committee are in difficulties because we do not have a copy of Hansard giving last night's proceedings in another place. It is my understanding that last night or early this morning my honourable friend Mr. Beith received an assurance from the Secretary of State that he was prepared to accept the amendments. In the belief that that is correct, and in the hope of saving the Committee's time, I shall simply beg to move.
Lord Waddington: The amendments are designed to ensure, by inserting express reference to the standard charge, that standard charge payers also benefit from the prescribed statutory reduction in the amount of the personal community charge. But the position is this. The level of the standard charge is set by an authority as a multiple of its personal charge between zero and two. So that the levels of the personal and standard charges in an authority's area go hand in hand. If the amount of the personal charge is reduced for any reason, that reduction will automatically flow through to standard charges under the existing statutory provisions. That is why it is unnecessary to make any mention of standard charges in this Bill. Standard charge payers will automatically benefit from the reduction in personal charges which the Bill requires.
But these amendments are not simply unnecessary; they are actually undesirable. First, they seek to cut across the existing statutory provisions for calculation of standard charges by imposing an across the board reduction in the amount of the standard charge. This means that the cut in the standard charge would be the same as that in the personal charge, regardless of the multiplier. Thus where the multiplier was more than one, the standard charge payer would under these amendments be denied the full amount of the reduction due. Conversely, where the multiplier was less than one, the standard charge payer would be getting too big a cut in his charge.
For example, if the applicable standard charge multiplier were two, the charge reduction flowing from the provisions of this Bill would be two times £140—that is, £280—and not £140 as suggested in the amendments. Similarly, if the multiplier were one-half, the standard charge reduction would be £70. But under the amendments, the person concerned would get the full reduction of £140, although only liable to half the personal charge. So it does not seem to me to be logical to add the references proposed in the amendments.
I have just had an opportunity of checking and there was no undertaking to accept these amendments in the Commons. They were withdrawn following the sort of explanation which I have now given to the noble Earl. I hope that in those circumstances he will not press the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Earl decides what to do, it is very interesting to have those two logical extremes explained to us by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. It is certainly the case, as he said, that if the standard charge is set by a local authority at twice the personal charge, the individual who has a second home will benefit more. Conversely, it is clearly correct that where the standard charge is set lower, he will benefit less.
In order to evaluate that statement. what we now need to know is how many local authorities charge at twice the personal charge and how many charge at less than the personal charge. If, as I suspect, the vast majority charge at above the personal community charge, then the point that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is making has very little force indeed. This is not a rhetorical question. It is something which the Committee ought to know.
Lord Waddington: The answer is perfectly simple. The noble Lord was conceding that there will be some cases where local authorities will not be all saying that the standard charge is twice the personal charge. There will he cases where less than twice the personal charge is set as the standard charge. In those circumstances, with respect to the noble Lord, there is nothing in the point made by him. What would be illogical would be the link which has been established by law between the personal charge and the standard charge.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government's defence against these amendments rests on the case that some are above and some are below. In order to evaluate the strength of that defence, we need to know how many are above and how many are below. If I cannot get any figures, are the Government denying that the vast majority of local authorities actually charge more than the personal community charge for the standard charge, and that very few indeed charge less?
Lord Waddington: If some are set above and some are set below there is nothing, with respect, in the point made by the noble Lord. The amount which is set above and that which is set below is entirely irrelevant for the purposes of this argument.
Earl Russell: We are all operating under difficulties tonight and I hope we shall be sympathetic to each other. It sounds as if the reply I have tonight is a little more like the reply that my honourable friend received from the Welsh Office than the reply that my honourable friend had from the Secretary of State. Since it is going to take a little while to get this straight, and since I do not want to take up the Commitee's time I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, on the understanding that if we can get our communications straight with another place, I may bring it back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved. ]
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved manuscript Amendment No. 6A:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("£140") to end of line 9.
The noble Lord said: The effect of this is to remove the bar of the rebating of £140 to the figure of £0. The implication of that is that if in fact the community charge is set at less than £140 the poll tax payer would actually receive a credit or cash sum from the local authority.
The original intention of the amendment was to make much more sense of Amendment No. 3. I felt it was not necessarily going to be useful to the Committee to move this amendment at that time because we were discussing the principle then of whether to give the £140 before or after the benefits, rebates and transitional allowances. I am moving the amendment now in order to elucidate from the Government a little more in terms of the financial figures.
We were advised during the Committee stage following the debate on previous amendments that the original proposal would have cost £5.6 billion but the loss of benefit rebated to charge payers brought that down to £4.3 billion, which was equivalent to the 2½ per cent. increase in VAT. Later in the debate at Committee stage we learnt that if the £140 contribution was to be made after rather than before benefit, it would cost an extra £3.3 billion. I am not sure exactly how those figures stack up because the implication is that less than 50 per cent. of the money that is being spent is going to higher rate poll tax payers. Little of it will go to poll tax payers who are currently receiving benefit. I hope that the Government can give some figures in respect of two elements relating to the amendment. First, as it stands, the benefit would accrue only to the Wandsworth charge payers. It will be interesting to know how much that would cost the Exchequer. The second element—I crave the Government's indulgence—is what the impact on the Exchequer would be if we were to consider this amendment with Amendment No. 3, which admittedly has already been lost. I hope that the Government can give us some figures because they would be of use to the Committee and may give us guidance as to the way to go in further stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord's interest in saving Wandsworth community charge payers more money is touching in view of what has been said for most of the day. The amendment appears to be designed to ensure that where an authority's initial charge for 1991–92 is below £140, it would still benefit from the full £140 reduction provided under the Bill rather than have the figure reduced to zero, as the Bill currently provides. That would seem to imply a negative charge—repaying money to the charge payers. Clearly, it would not be appropriate to reduce an authority's charge by more than the amount it set in the first place. No doubt the noble Lord has the efficient borough of Wandsworth in mind. Noble Lords have been positively obsessional about Wandsworth all day.
1170
Wandsworth set a charge for 1991–92 of £136—the lowest in England. Under the Bill, the charge will be reduced to zero. The noble Lord would like not merely to expunge the charge in Wandsworth but to give its charge payers £4 each. No doubt he would also like us to compensate the authority for the extra amount. That would not be an appropriate use of resources. The objective is to compensate authorities for income forgone as a result of the Bill, not to enable them to give money back to the charge payers. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I find that response curious. I was going to talk about income tax, but it is probably not relevant. One matter that is relevant is the way that the Government treated local authorities some years ago in respect of rate capping. I am thinking especially of Edinburgh, where the local authority levied a rate which the Government considered excessive. They capped the local authority and required it to pay back to the ratepayers money that they had already paid. That calls into question a degree of double standards.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is wholly muddled on this issue. He is suggesting that we not merely give back to people what they have paid but go beyond that and give them money that they have not paid; in other words, pay them a supplement in addition to repaying them what they have paid. It is a strange turn of events after what we have had all afternoon. There is no question of the Government going beyond giving back charge payers up to £140 of moneys they have paid to local authorities.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I appreciate what the Government are saying. However, it would appear to be unfair and illogical.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord say to whom it is unfair?
Lord Monkswell: It is unfair to the people of Wandsworth. The people of Wandsworth have elected an authority which spends a certain amount of money on provision of services. That is right. Elected members of that authority make a decision as to what services are to be provided. The electorate within Wandsworth has the ability to hold those elected representatives accountable for that. Effectively in Wandsworth people have forgone services.
Baroness Blatch: No.
Lord Monkswell: Yes. The Government have determined a standard spending assessment for Wandsworth which, as I understand it, is based on a set standard of services to the people in that local authority. The elected members have decided to supply fewer services than the Government expect. As a result, expenditure has been saved. It is only reasonable that that saving of expenditure should go to the people of Wandsworth.
Baroness Blatch: The savings go back to the people of Wandsworth. The noble Lord confuses money spent on services and the quality of those services. He

1171
is confusing input of money with quality and output of service. This Bill is about a reduction of charges to the charge payer. Charge payers in Wandsworth are paying £136 and will receive the benefit of the whole of that £136. That cannot be reduced further because there is no charge beyond £136. The noble Lord is entirely muddled on the issue.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry that I cannot explain the situation in a way that the Government can understand. I cannot think of other ways to explain it and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) Where the reduction has taken place by virtue of this section, a charging authority shall have the discretion to issue no demands if, in its judgment, the total amount to be collected from the charge payers as a whole is likely to be exceeded by the cost of collecting the charge.").
The noble Earl said: It is a good legislative rule that where a legislative provision offends against common sense we should think twice about it. If that were not a good rule for our own convenience, it would certainly be a good rule for electoral purposes in a democracy.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that it is not necessary for a local authority to send out bills if the cost of sending them out is more than will be recovered from the charge collected. The sending out of bills is an immensely complex operation. Anyone who looks at this morning's Independent will see that the Government's decision has enormously increased the demand for envelopes in this country. Indeed, it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. We cannot see why in a local authority such as Shetland, where the outstanding community charge is 93p, it is necessary to make the local authority go through all the complications and labour of collecting that 93p.
I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, at Question Time when she said that the charge payers of Shetland would be very glad to pay only 93p. We are not arguing about that. We are arguing as to whether the local authority of Shetland will be glad to have to send out bills simply for the sake of recovering 93p.
I know that there has been a great deal of argument about the costs of billing. As happens quite often, those costs appear to be lower to the Government than they do to anybody else. But we do not need to decide who is right because if the local authority decides not to send out bills it actually forfeits income. The local authority will not decide to forfeit income unless that income is genuinely less than the expense it would incur. This amendment is simply in line with common sense. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I have to tell the Committee that these amendments are unnecessary because the existing legislation already permits an authority, in effect, to achieve what they are seeking. The amendments could also, as drafted, lead to a deficit on an authority's collection fund. If an authority's charges, after allowing for the reduction required by this Bill, were comparatively small—possibly only a
1172
few pounds—it might consider that it was not worth collecting the amounts concerned, thereby saving the administrative expense of so doing. In that situation the correct course for the authority would not be simply not to issue bills for the reduced amount as the amendments propose. That would run the risk of creating a deficit on the collection fund because estimated income and outgoings were out of kilter. I might add that there is no question of paying grant under this Bill to make up the difference by compensating for income foregone of greater than £140 per personal community charge payer.
What such an authority may do, once the Bill has received Royal Assent, is to make an appropriate reduction in its budget—that is, its demand on the collection fund. It should then set a further substitute charge under Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, passing that reduction on and replacing the amount set under the provisions of this Bill. In an appropriate case, the charge may in this way be reduced to zero. If an authority had not yet issued its charge bills it would have saved the costs of sending them out and collecting the charge. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject these amendments.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble Earl responds, can I have some clarification from the Government? The noble Baroness made a statement to the effect that it was possible for a local authority not to issue a demand for the poll tax if it felt that the amount to be collected would not cover the cost of issuing the demand. That advice is at variance with the information that I have been given, as a member of a local authority, by the city treasurer's department. It has advised me and our authority that there is no legal facility for a local authority not to pursue the charge.
In practice what is happening is that where a charge is very small and it is being levied on, for example, the widow of someone who has recently died, effectively the charge is dropped. We have no legal authority to do that. Effectively, we in the local authority in that situation are operating ultra vires. If the Government have a different opinion, I and my city treasurer's department will be glad to hear it. My authority is not sure where the boundary is in terms of levying a charge which may be quite a small amount in some cases. I would like clarification because the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will give the discretion to waive charges where the cost of collection will not cover the amount of income generated. That will legalise what is effectively being done under the counter. Clarification would help public administration as regards the community charge.
Baroness Blatch: While a local authority does not have the power simply to set aside the: liability for paying, it has the discretion to waive collection where it really makes no sense to make the collection. The authority that most comes to mind is Shetland, where the charge has been reduced to 93p. For the purposes of this debate I shall use the example of Shetland. Shetland is slightly complicated because it includes water charges, which takes the collective charge up to £45. The other point is that, while Scottish authorities

1173
do not have, as I have just said, the power to extinguish a liability for a small amount, they nevertheless have the administrative discretion, as they have always had, to decide whether they are justified in collecting small amounts. This is not the first time that the situation has arisen. Indeed even under the rating system authorities will have had to make decisions on whether to send out small bills.
Lord Monkswell: As I understand it, the legislation under which rates were collected gave local authorities the power to waive collection of rates in certain circumstances.
Baroness Blatch: I have just said that to the Committee. I said that local authorities do not have the power to extinguish the liability. They do, nevertheless, where it makes absolutely no sense to send out a bill, have the power to waive sending out the Bill. The liability exists.
Lord Hughes: The noble Baroness said that Scottish authorities have the power to do this. Does she mean that only Scottish authorities have that power, or do English and Welsh authorities have the same power? If the answer to that question is yes, what she suggested should take place sounded eminently reasonable to me. If an authority had to spend more money in collecting a charge it could reduce the charge by the amount that would extinguish the need to go for collection.
How does this take place? Does the authority just take a decision that it is revising its charge from x to x minus whatever is necessary? If having done so, is that the end of the matter, or does it have to write to every charge payer telling them, "We are very sorry, but we are not able to collect this money. It is not worth our while, so you are not going to have to pay anything"? Can it assume that the charge payers concerned will be quite happy just to hear nothing about it?
Baroness Blatch: Local authorities do not have the power to extinguish the liability for the charge. What they do have the power to is to make a judgment about whether it makes sense to incur a cost which is greater than the amount to be collected. Therefore local authorities have the power to waive the charge but not to extinguish the liability.
Earl Russell: I listened with great care to the noble Baroness. It is the kind of situation when I would normally have told her that I would read very carefully what she said in Hansard and return to the matter on Report. That option is not open to us tonight. She seemed to be giving with one hand what she took away with another. On the one hand, the noble Baroness told me that it is within the local authority's discretion not to send out a bill. I was very pleased to hear that. On the other hand, the noble Baroness said that, if this should get the local authority into deficit, it could cause it considerable trouble. This is, as I understand it, the same point that was made by her honourable friend Mr. Portillo in another place late on Monday night. Mr. Portillo was
1174
considering the same possibility of the local authority not sending out a bill and running into a deficit. He said that in that case the local authority would have to convince its auditor on that point. That is a somewhat menacing form of words.
If we have these two obligations together we are pushing the local authority into a contradiction. We are pushing the local authority to send out a bill, to waste a great deal of money, because two of the Government's principles happened to have clashed with each other. Principles do clash with each other from time to time but usually one arrives at some sort of adjustment. If we cannot arrive at some sort of adjustment we have a very unsatisfactory situation. Obviously we need in all these cases a little more time to try to arrive at compromises. Therefore, I shall for the time being withdraw the amendment. I hope that we shall be able to resolve the matter. But if the noble Baroness wishes to say something before I withdraw the amendment I should be most happy to hear it.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hughes: I should like to say something before the noble Earl withdraws his amendment.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hughes: I should like to bring the matter a little nearer home than Shetland. There is another authority which has said that the cost of collection would be greater than the amount to be collected. I refer to Westminster Council. Its charge is £176, but now it is left with the possibility of collecting £36. According to its finance officer or Lady Porter—I am not sure which; indeed, sometimes they are interchangeable—the cost of collection would be £42.
If I understood the Minister correctly, it is open to Westminster Council to take a decision and say, "We are not fixing a charge of £176; we are fixing a charge of £140. This means that there is nothing to collect". But, having taken that decision, does the council have to take any further action? For example, does the matter rest there and can the charge payers rest happy in the knowledge that no further correspondence will be sent to them by the council? If that is not the case, Westminster Council will have to spend money in order to inform people that no payment is required from them.
Baroness Blatch: First, we have said more than once today that in our view the estimate made by Westminster Council for rebilling is much exaggerated. Secondly, the general point still remains that, where the cost of billing is excessive and makes no sense in that it is uneconomic, and so long as the auditor—I do not find those words threatening—is convinced that the decision has been made on economic grounds, the collection need not be made.
Earl Russell: The Minister's response helps us considerably. The issues will arise again when we come to Amendment No. 33 which deals with reimbursing the local authority for reasonable costs. If we are given further information on the matter at that time, I shall listen to it with a great deal of interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 10, after ("personal") insert ("or standard").
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to raise certain matters while we consider this amendment rather than doing so, as previously suggested, on clause stand part.
We have managed to establish communication with another place. I understand the point of this group of amendments. It concerns the issue of whether the local authority is to be reimbursed over the standard charge in proportion to the multiplier or simply by a factor of 1. For example, if the multiplier is more than 1, will the local authority be reimbursed by a factor of more than 1? I understand that my honourable friend received three different answers on that during last night's proceedings in another place. I also understand that the final answer was yes. I would be very glad to receive confirmation that that final answer stands. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I can assure the noble Earl that the last answer really does stand. There was some misunderstanding as to the purport of the question being put to the Minister by Mr. Beith. However, there is no doubt whatever that if, for example, the multiplier is 2 and that attracts a reduction of twice £140, there will be complete reimbursement for the local authority of that amount.
Earl Russell: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for that answer. I believe that it entirely meets the point about which I was concerned. I am also grateful to Members of the Committee for their patience and forbearance in regard to resolving the matter. It is with great satisfaction that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved manuscript Amendment No. 13A:
Page 1, line 26, after ("Act") insert
("and with the provisions of subsection (5A) below)")
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to deal with those itemised lists of expenses that the local authority puts on the statement it sends out with its demands. I always read them with great interest. They are very useful; they have the effect of rebutting a good deal of mythology about where the money goes.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to ask that that itemised list of expenses should include a statement of the amount of money spent on extra billing as a consequence of the Bill. So if the local authority says, as certain local authorities which I shall not name might do in error, that their charge is so high because of this Bill and the confusion it creates, it would be possible to pin that down and verify it. That could be in the Government's interests, as well as those of the public and local authorities.
The amendment also asks that the bill should contain a statement of how far these costs that are caused by extra billing have been met by grants
1176
coming from the Secretary of State. Again, I think this would tend to clarify debate. Having gone as far as we have with the Bill, I think that we appreciate that this subject is capable of causing a good deal of confusion. It is capable of giving rise to misrepresentation on all sides of the political fence. If accurate information set out on the bill can help to dispel that, it would be worth doing. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Clauses 1(5) and 3(4) of the Bill provide as regards England and Wales and Scotland respectively that charge payers will not be liable to pay the charge in respect of 1991–1992 until they have received a demand notice which takes account of the Bill. These amendments add the further requirement that the demand notices must state what are the authorities' costs of re-billing as a result of the Bill and whether the grant paid by the Secretary of State adequately covers these costs. I imagine that the noble Lord does not expect us to take these amendments entirely at face value, but he is rather seeking to make the point which comes up later on in further amendments, that authorities will have incurred substantial abortive costs and they need to he compensated adequately for that.
We do not apologise for introducing this legislation very late in local authorities' billing cycles because, as my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment explained in another place, the decision to reduce charges substantially could only be taken in the context of the Budget.
However, we accept that authorities will incur additional expenditure and that their reasonable additional costs should be met by grant. We have included provision in the Bill to facilitate this. DoE officials have already had preliminary discussions with the local authority associations in England about the basis on which the grant should be paid.
I said earlier that I did not think that the noble Earl would expect us to take the amendments at face value simply on the grounds of practicality, it for no other reason. At the point at which an authority sends out revised demand notices, it is unlikely to know the full extent of the additional cost which was incurred and therefore how much grant it is to receive. So it would be almost impossible for the local authority to comply with these amendments. At worst, and most seriously, these amendments would delay the re-billing. Therefore, I think that they are impractical and I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I intended these amendments seriously. I take the point that there may be difficulties as regards some of the costs, but some at least can be calculated. One knows, for example, the rate of postage. All through this evening I have had running through my head one of those Ruthless Rhymes:
"I've written to my Aunt Maud
Who was on a trip abroad,
When I learnt she'd died of cramp,
Just too late to save the stamp".
If it is a case such as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, outlined of 770,000 stamps; that represents a considerable cost. I am serious about this provision,

1177
but I do not think it is a matter of sufficient importance to warrant dividing the Committee at this time of night as there may be other matters which are of sufficient importance to do so. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13B not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("The 20 per cent contribution in England and Wales
. The charging authority shall, from the relevant date, no longer seek payments from those who would otherwise be required to pay 20 per cent of the personal community charge.").
The noble Earl said: This is a serious amendment. It deals with those who are at present paying 20 per cent. of the personal charge. The intention of the amendment is that they should pay nothing. The two chief categories involved here are those on social security benefit and students. Until recently those two categories might have come under a single category as the income of most students is below social security benefit level. But as a result of legislation passed last year they are now two separate categories and will have to be discussed separately. I have already dwelt on the attempt to make everyone pay, and I shall not repeat any arguments I have developed on that.
Recently we discussed in this Chamber on the child support legislation evidence which suggests that social security benefit rates, and in particular income support rates, are too low and are below subsistence level. A piece of research has been recently published by Dr Sean Stitt of Newcastle upon Tyne Polytechnic which seems to me to argue that case powerfully. It is not the only piece of research that argues that case. Another piece was given to me this morning but I must confess I have not yet had time to read it.
Where people are below subsistence level, it may be very difficult indeed to get them to pay. The default level may be high. We are told that 70 per cent. of those who are facing court action in Scotland for non-payment of the community charge are people who are on the 20 per cent. level.
I sympathise with what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has said about wilful refusal to pay. I said on Second Reading of the community charge legislation and I repeat now that those who can pay should do so. However, a high proportion of the failure to pay reflects cases of people who cannot pay. Here we are suffering a great deal of hardship and unnecessary effort and unnecessary use of the courts' time in order to achieve something which I believe has never been achieved in the history of England. The Government might think about that, particularly as the costs of collection at the lower end of the scale are particularly high. There is a high level of mobility and a high likelihood of court proceedings. The Audit Commission has suggested that it gets out of these
1178
people an average of £6 each, net, and that the cost of collection is £15 each. The Audit Commission suggests that this amendment would more than pay for itself.
It is unusual, when asked to cost an amendment, to be able to say that it is possible to make a concession and for the Government to gain money out of it. That, I believe, really is the case here. It would be worth the Government's while accepting this provision.
In speaking of students, I must, as a university teacher, declare an interest. Whenever the subject has come up in discussion with my pupils, I have endeavoured to persuade them to pay. I do not know how successful I have been. There is a particular difficulty because of the frequency with which they move about. As my noble friend Lady Seear put it when the local government finance legislation was going through the Chamber, they hop about like fleas.
There is a particular difficulty with students in their final year because the academic year and the local authority financial year do not coincide. From April onwards many students are in their place for only one term, then they take their final exams and leave. So all third-year students move during the year. That means a great deal of expense is involved in keeping track of them, and there is a great deal of difficulty in keeping the register up to date. It has been estimated that in Oxford the community charge register changes by 85 per cent. each year. When one thinks of the administrative problems involved in keeping up with that, one can understand why some charging officers feel that the system is in danger of breaking down altogether. I shall not repeat the points that I made about the taxing of foreigners, which also apply to the amendment. We have here people who cannot afford to pay. It costs more than it is worth to get the money out of them. Why spend a vast amount of money in order to do injustice? I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The basic assumption in all that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said is that income support is simply not adequate. He made specific reference to the Stitt Report. Perhaps I can jog the noble Earl's memory by telling him that my noble friend Lord Henley responded in detail on this very point about the adequacy of income support levels when he addressed a similar point on the Child Support Bill.
The noble Earl also made reference to students. I have to repeat what has been said a number of times today. The 20 per cent. that students are required to pay is paid into grant in the first place and therefore the net cost to many students is nil and for many others is very much reduced.
When an authority sets its initial charges for the year it has to set them at a level which is sufficient to cover its estimated outgoings from the collection fund, taking account of other sources of income—basically, revenue support grant and non-domestic rates. In deciding the level of charges it needs to set, the authority will take a view about income from people who do not themselves pay the full amount of the charge. If, at the stroke of a pen, the liability of 20 per cent. contributors were to cease at the same time as the

1179
personal charge is reduced by £140 authorities would be left with a shortfall of income. The grants payable under this Bill are confined to charge income forgone by virtue of the £140 reduction requirement. Those grants thus prevent a collection fund deficit in respect of the charge reductions required by the Bill. However, there would be nothing under the Bill to stop the collection fund going into deficit as a result of these new clauses, which are financially irresponsible.
It remains a fundamental principle of the community charge that everyone should contribute something to the cost of local services. The Audit Commission has recently estimated that it will cost £500 million in England and Wales to collect the charge and that gives an average unit collection cost of £14 per chargepayer, as has already been said this afternoon. That is considerably lower than the figures being quoted in some quarters and suggests that even for authorities with low charges as a result of the £140 reduction it will be cost effective to collect from students or those receiving maximum community charge benefit.
I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: It seems to me that the noble Baroness has missed the point. My noble friend Lord Russell said that the cost of collection of these particular items was higher than the money being collected. The noble Baroness relied on the average figure from the Audit Commission. We have already heard in the course of this evening that the cost of collecting those smaller amounts is higher than the average. In that particular case it approaches the £20 that we are talking about. The point that my noble friend made was that it is very stupid to lay out more money than one is collecting.
Baroness Blatch: There is no reason why the collection charges should be greater, except in the case of evasion. There is no question that the Government intend to compensate for moneys forgone as a result of evasion.
Earl Russell: I really cannot let that go by. The noble Baroness said that there is no reason why the amount of non-payment: should be greater. I gave one reason, which is much higher mobility. I gave another, which is absence of the money—they do not have the money to pay. Both of those are common. Difficulties in compiling the register are also common. It is extremely common for students to move around. Those are all perfectly good reasons. I see no reason to believe that unwillingness to pay on principle is any greater in that group than it is in the rest of the population. They are not people of lower morals; they are people of lower income. I cannot understand the noble Baroness's argument.
Baroness Blatch: The first point I addressed on this amendment was the point to which the noble Earl keeps returning, which is the adequacy of income support. One is talking about the ability of these particular people to pay. That point was dealt with in detail in the Child Support Bill. As for the other point about the mobility of students, the liability of students to register wherever they are resident is an obligation
1180
on the part of the students. With regard to the money that students pay, I have already made the point that that money is paid into grant and given to students to pay the 20 per cent. There is no reason whatever why those people who are charged only 20 per cent. of the cost should not pay up in the same way as everybody else. As I said, the Government do not have in mind to compensate for moneys forgone as a result of evasion.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I simply cannot understand why the noble Baroness so adamantly opposes this amendment. It seems to me to be an eminently reasonable amendment, for reasons which the noble Earl has just outlined and which many other Members of the Committee also outlined when a previous amendment was discussed. The noble Baroness continues to talk about accountability. She continues to state that everyone should pay something toward the local services; yet we know that under the Bill the people who live in Wandsworth will not pay anything toward their local services. That is not because Wandsworth Borough Council is more efficient than any other council.
Baroness Blatch: It is.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall not agree to that. It is not so. It is because it is receiving grants on a disproportionate basis. The noble Baroness simply cannot get away with that argument. That is a local authority under which the people will not pay a cent toward their local services. The noble Baroness wishes to intervene and I am pleased to give way.
Baroness BlatchI shall throw down the challenge once more today. Wandsworth is spending £116 per adult below SSA. Its services are comparable with all its neighbouring authorities which are spending well above SSA. I personally challenge the noble Lord to prove to me that Wandsworth is being treated more generously than its neighbouring authorities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am not concerned with the neighbouring authorities only. There are authorities other than in London, if I may say so. Earlier on, I gave some figures relating to Reading and other places in Berkshire, where there are problems similar to Wandsworth and where perhaps the people are not as rich as many of those in Wandsworth. Those figures showed quite clearly that if those areas were treated in the same favourable way as Wandsworth, they would be doing very well indeed and Wandsworth would be doing quite badly. It is not a matter of efficiency. It is about the maldistribution of grants in favour of certain Tory authorities.
The other problem with which the Government have to get to grips is that this is a Bill which will reduce quite considerably the amount of local taxation raised by the local people. Therefore the argument of accountability reduces proportionately. That means that the Government are making far too much of the 20 per cent. The noble Baroness said earlier that it did not matter; that it would not hurt those poor people because they were paid that amount in the first place anyway. The Government pay students and poor

1181
people this 20 per cent. and then have to bend over backwards to take punitive measures to recover it from the people to whom they have already given it but who have not paid it over to the local authority. Nothing could be more stupid.
It would be only for this year that the Government would have to provide extra funds. From then on it would be a self-balancing item. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept the simple suggestion contained in the amendment. It is administratively sound and would help the Government to mitigate the problems of local authorities in collecting the money. It might even gain them some popularity. For God's sake, why do they not accept it?
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question before I finally reply. It concerns the element in the student grant for meeting the community charge. We were given an assurance by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that there would be such an element when he replied to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, during the Local Government Finance Bill debate. The noble Lord asked how large that element would be. We have not yet had an answer to that question. Perhaps we may have it now.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that I can be absolutely specific. My understanding was that 20 per cent. of the average charge across the country was paid as a global sum. I shall write to the noble Earl in detail. The noble Earl is aware that the grant this year in real terms is higher than it has ever been for students.
Earl Russell: I am not aware that student support in real terms is higher than it has ever been. I shall not take the noble Baroness through the exchanges that we had last summer about student social security level. I am sure that she remembers them as well as I do.
I have never before been called financially irresponsible when trying to save the Government money. It is not encouraging. My noble kinsman did not call me financially irresponsible but stated that I was in error. It is a matter of opinion who is in error.
I do not understand the point made by the noble Baroness that this proposal will cause the local authority a shortfall of income. I believe that my noble friend Lord Tordoff answered that point entirely conclusively. The costs of collection are a great deal higher for people at the bottom of the scale. I am also aware that my noble kinsman answered points about Dr. Stitt's study on social security benefit levels. However, I am sure that my noble kinsman is equally aware that he did not convince me. I believe that we have a real, serious and urgent problem. I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
10.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton, Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hughes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Tordoff, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Underhill, L.

McCarthy, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Byron, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Caldecote, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Norfolk, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clinton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Plumb, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Dudley, E.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Sharples, B.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Southborough, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Haslam, L.

Suffield, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Huntly, M.

Waddington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wigram, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.6 p.m.
Clause 3 [Statutory reduction of community charges: Scotland]:
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert:
("(a) £280, where the authority is an islands council

1183

(b) £220, where the authority is a regional council, and

(c) £60, where the authority is a district council.").

The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Taylor has had to leave, but my name is down to this amendment, as is the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. This is an amendment which may seem rather strange, although I referred to it earlier, if anyone remembers. We believe that because the poll tax has been in Scotland for two years there should be a doubling of the £140. An islands authority, which is an all-purpose authority, should get £280; a regional authority, which has only certain major functions, should get £220, and a district council, which has the least expensive functions, should get £60.
There is an extremely strong feeling in Scotland, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be aware, about the fact that Scotland had the poll tax a year earlier. Therefore it is not enough to say, "But you did not have rates", because a household would have one set of rates based on the rental available on the house, whereas the poll tax was based on the number of people in the house.
Therefore, for two years people in Scotland have been paying a much higher total sum than was likely with the rates. There could be two, three or four people in a house, which would cost a great deal more than the rates. In terms of winners and losers, there is no doubt that the person in Scotland, who has been a poll tax or community chargepayer for one year longer than his English or Welsh equivalent, has been paying extra.
We have had a fair amount of general discussion about this matter in Scotland, and everywhere people feel annoyed that when the slate is wiped clean there will be £140 for people in England, while people in Scotland will still get only £140. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, had been here, he would certainly have supported this amendment with his usual originality and punch. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 inclusive, because of pre-emption.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, is obviously having a bit of fun here and I do not blame him. I have no wish to dispute the ingenuity of his amendments, which by doubling the reduction in the personal community charge for Scotland would make a sort of retrospective gesture to reflect the earlier introduction of the community charge to replace domestic rates there. I am sorry that the other two proposers of this amendment were not here so that we could also have enjoyed their representations. We have of course introduced arrangements retrospectively in Scotland where this was appropriate: for example, the transitional relief scheme. This scheme was specifically related to the introduction of the community charge and there was a case for making the scheme itself retrospective in Scotland.
As I hope was made clear during the debate on Second Reading earlier today, the purpose of the Bill is to achieve a fundamental change in the balance
1184
between the funding of local government from central and local government taxation. This Bill is not specifically related to the introduction of the community charge, as is clear from the fact that the new arrangements apply equally to Northern Ireland. The change in the level of grant funding might therefore have applied under their domestic rates. Noble Lords should also bear in mind that community charges in Scotland last year were on average £50 below those in England, reflecting inter alia the fact that Scottish charge payers benefit from 30 per cent. more central support per capita. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said in debate earlier today, the time for action to reduce the burden of local taxation in Scotland is now, when charges have been increased by 30 per cent. simply by local authorities' unwillingness to adjust their budgets in line with their capacity to tax at reasonable levels.
I noticed also during the Second Reading debate that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, supported the Bill, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. But the amendment would increase the favourable differential already enjoyed by Scottish charge payers and would thus be most unfair rather than fair. It is in effect an attempt to get two for the price of one. While as a Scot I am tempted to admire a brass neck when I see one, I have to say that there are limits to what the United Kingdom taxpayer can be expected to stand.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I have an interest in this amendment because I could significantly benefit from it, and therefore a part of me is tempted to accept. However, we believe that the balance achieved by the Bill for the coming financial year is about right and we have made it clear that it should be the norm for future years as well. The noble Lord's amendment would significantly alter that balance to the extent that many charge payers would have no liability at all. For those reasons, I ask the Committee not to accept these amendments.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I find it rather strange to hear the Minister accusing the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, of having a bit of fun at l0 minutes past 11. I am sure that if he wanted a bit of fun he could be in another place—not necessarily nearby. No doubt the noble Lord can speak for himself when he comes to answer. I may say that the people of Strathclyde would not regard the repayments as a bit of fun were the Government to concede the matters set out in this amendment.
I am sure it has been said more than once in your Lordships' Chamber that this charge has been regarded throughout Scotland as an iniquitous charge imposed upon the people of Scotland for two years. Of course there was no squealing in the South while Scotland suffered. The operation of this tax has caused considerable anguish, argument and resentment throughout Scotland. Friends and families have fallen out over it. There have been serious disagreements. The recovery process, when applied to the exercise of warrant sales in Scotland, has caused fear among the people who can least afford to fend for themselves and has diverted attention from the real issue of how to raise local funds to cover local taxation. The "new" Government, if I can call them that, have told us that

1185
we are going to live in a fair and classless society. The amendment is one step which would help them to achieve that. In these days some compensation is due to the people of Scotland for the agony they have suffered.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced his rabbit out of the hat at the end of his Budget speech, he was compared in one newspaper to Paul Daniels. I prefer to compare him to the late Tommy Cooper, who said, "Just like that!" Well, just like that, the Chancellor added 2.5 per cent. to VAT. Perhaps the time has come to play the game "Double your money" and give the people of Scotland back their money.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before my noble friend decides what to do about this group of amendments, perhaps I may say that I was interested in one point made by the Minister. He said - I hope that I heard him correctly - that the balance is about right for future years. It is important for us to know whether he means that the balance as between central and local contributions to local authority finance is about right or that the level of the poll tax burden is about right. Those are different things. I shall be fascinated to know which of the two commitments for future years the Minister means.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, I find this an odd amendment. What about the many people who lived alone and paid rates in the year before the institution of the community charge in Scotland who gained enormously when the community charge was instituted? Why should they get back double the community charge? They should be paying out, not receiving extra money. I am shocked by the amendment.
Lord Hughes: When I read the amendment my inclination was to say to my noble friend Lord Carmichael, "If the Government accept this one they will have already accepted every one before it". I was surprised at the enjoyment with which the Minister rejected the amendment. There is a good deal of logic in what the people of Scotland think about this matter. It may not be good from the Government's point of view that an amendment of this kind should be carried, but I cannot help feeling that if the boot had been on the other foot - if England had paid the community charge a year before Scotland - the Government would have found some way of ensuring that Scotland received only £70 instead of £140.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, hypothesises in an unfortunate way. I demonstrated how favourably Scotland is already treated in the provision of the social grant, and Members on all sides of the Committee and Members of another place know that that is so. The point my noble friend Lady Carnegy made is correct. What about people who were paying vast rates before the introduction of the community charge? That is the point.
1186
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked about the balance between the charge and central government finance. We have made it clear that what we have proposed today should be the norm for future years. I am not sure that I can explain that point any more fully. That is what I said. That is what I meant. The noble Lord is looking for an answer that does not exist.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am looking for some meaning in the statement. There are two ways of interpreting "the norm for future years". Is the Minister saying that the balance between central and local contributions to local authority expenditure is the norm and should be same for future years, or is he saying that the poll tax level is the norm and should be the same for future years? They are very different things.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry. I misunderstood the noble Lord. I am talking about the relationship between central government expenditure and the level of poll tax as a proportion of each other.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may question something which the Government have said and also the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. The rate revaluation in Scotland - and this is fundamental to the whole development of the poll tax - produced some very startling increases for some people. However, there were gainers as well as losers. We never heard about the numbers of people whose rate bill went down as a result of rate revaluation.
We receive no indication or realisation by the Government that some people will have lost out with the introduction of the poll tax as compared to the old system of rates.
Lord Strathclyde: I have no idea what is the point that the noble Lord is trying to make. I have no idea as to whether there were gainers as a result of the rate revaluation in Scotland. The point about the community charge was that it was a much fairer system on which to raise local government expenditure.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am disappointed by the Minister's answer. Some of the points which he raised were, to say the least, dubious. He used the same point earlier about Scotland receiving 30 per cent. more than England. That is always a dangerous argument to use, particularly when one considers the enormous additions and the drag which the South East and, in particular, the London area is on the rest of the country. Huge additional sums must be spent there on transport and so on. I am not sure whether it is fashionable to talk about the Goschen formula. However, when Scotland and England originally started to discuss these matters in relationship with each other, it was decided that Scotland needed a higher percentage because of the greater distances between centres of population.
I am disappointed also that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, raised the question of the one person living alone. She spoke also of the man who was working, his wife who was working and their four sons

1187
who were all working and earning a great deal of money. Three years ago that family was living in a house which was considered suitable for a family and paying rates, which was perfectly acceptable. The following year that family had to pay six poll tax bills; a great deal more than they had been paying. As my noble friend Lord Hughes said, had that happened in England, there would have been a riot and it would have been argued that a balance should be achieved. If the Minister thinks that the poll tax is fairer than the rates, why are we presented with this Bill? Why do we not continue with the poll tax?
Lord Strathclyde: Even the noble Lord's party agrees that the rates were unfair.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We did not. We believed that the application of the rates was unfair, as was the way in which the Government cut back on the money for local authorities. That was unfair.
I wish that Members of the Committee would stop saying that we support the Bill. In this Chamber, the Second Reading of a Bill is never opposed. We are trying to improve Bill. On this amendment, a number of good points have been made and the people of Scotland will be able to read what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 30 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Compensatory grants]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 18, leave out from ("as") to end and insert ("shall be sufficient to discharge its obligations under sections 1 and 3 above, and to meet any administrative expenses which the authority might reasonably be expected to incur in consequence of the provisions of this Act.")
The noble Earl said: I wish to move this amendment. At the same time I shall be speaking to Amendment No. 35 which is consequential. I shall be as brief as possible. I am not certain whether it is a policy or a drafting amendment, but either way it is an amendment that I care about. Amendment No. 31 takes up Clause 4(2) in the Bill about the amount of grant and,
"such amounts …; as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine".
The Bill, as worded, says at Clause 4(4):
"In determining the amount of a grant…; the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

(a) any amount which …; the authority might reasonably be expected to lose, or to have lost, as a consequence" of this Bill.

I heard what the noble Baroness said when she replied to the Second Reading debate and I was very glad indeed to hear it. She said that it is the Government's intention to meet the expense in full. That delighted me. If that is the Government's intention I do not understand why they have not spelt it out in the Bill. That seems to be the kind of point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, taught us to look for; namely, drafting from the bureaucratic point of view, giving too much discretion to the Executive and allowing the Secretary of State to do whatever he likes. If it is the
1188
Government's intention to pay the expenses in full, can they tell me why they have not put that provision in the Bill? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: There is a difficulty here. Amendment No. 31 as drafted refers to the grant being "sufficient" for an authority to discharge its obligations, and to the administrative expenses which the authority might "reasonably he expected to incur". Those words "sufficient" and "reasonably" give the game away. Someone has to judge what is "sufficient" and "reasonable". I hope (I presume) that the noble Lord does not intend the amounts of grant payable to be determined by the local authorities which are due to receive them. To put it another way, removing the references to the Secretary of State and the Treasury does not remove the difficulty. On the contrary; it takes away a framework which clearly places the responsibility for the disbursement of public funds on those who must account to Parliament for them, and leaves us with an uncomfortable void.
Perhaps, however, I may offer the noble Earl some reassurance. It is the Government's firm intention to pay grant to compensate authorities for 100 per cent. of the community charge income; that is, from personal, standard and collective charges, which authorities would otherwise have received but for the reduction prescribed by the Bill. And equally, it is the Government's firm intention to reimburse authorities for their reasonable administrative costs incurred as a result of the Bill. We have already had a preliminary discussion, as we said earlier today, with the local authority associations on whether the reimbursement of administrative costs should be on the basis of actual claims, or in accordance with a formula. The associations' preliminary response was not unanimous. But we hope to resolve these differences and agree on an appropriate system of reimbursement very soon.
I have to pose a question to the noble Earl: is he actually saying that he would advocate paying any costs, however reasonable or unreasonable, and that there should be no judgment; and that the Treasury, which has to pay the bill, and the Secretary of State, should have no say in making a judgment about what is reasonable?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Before the noble Earl responds to that question, there is a matter which the noble Baroness should make clear to the Committee. It has been raised several times and, as far as I am concerned, she has not made it clear. At one point she spoke about reasonable costs incurred because of re-billing and administrative costs; on another occasion she referred to all the costs, if I heard her aright. Now she is saying that these costs are to be estimated by the Treasury and the Secretary of State.
Which is the case? Surely she accepts that it is the Government who have caused these extra costs to be incurred. I should like to hear that she admits that. If the Government have caused extra costs to local authorities, surely it is the responsibility of the Government to reimburse those costs in total. After all, if a local authority had been wasting public money in this way over the past few months, it would have

1189
been panned. We would have been hearing from the other side about the wasteful way in which authorities were spending public money. On this occasion it is the Government who are forcing local authorities to spend money which otherwise they would not have to spend.
Let us have it clear from the Government. Do they accept responsibility for the extra costs? Are they willing to reimburse them totally? Do they now realise that they have been wasting public money because of the way they have handled this matter over the past few months?
11.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As is so often the case, my noble friend is too kind to the Government. It is not just that the councils concerned would be capped; the councillors would be surcharged if they behaved with the degree of financial irresponsibility which the Government are displaying now.
Baroness Blatch: There has been a great deal of repetition during the course of the debate today. I am pleased to say yet again that the Government will meet all reasonable costs in full. There have been some wild allegations about how much these costs could be. We have already heard talk of one local authority that has deemed re-billing to cost between £42 and £44 per bill. It is our judgment that that is too high a cost. We wish to reserve the right to make a judgment about what is and what is not a reasonable cost. But the genuine costs of local authorities incurred as a result of these changes will be met. We will honour that obligation to them. But the Secretary of State reserves the right to make a judgment about reasonable costs, which will exclude gross inefficiency or gross waste.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Surely it is the Government, not the local authorities, who have shown gross irresponsibility. Is the noble Baroness now saying that it is the Government who will determine the definition of "reasonable"? Surely an independent audit could be used to take the matter out of the hands of both the local authority and the Government. Quite frankly, after this shambles, no one will trust the Government even to define the word "reasonable".
Baroness Blatch: I shall repeat just once more that we are talking to the local authorities about the ways in which these costs will be reimbursed. We hope to come to an agreement with the local authorities about how that will be done. In the meantime, the Secretary of State must at the end of the day reserve the right to make a judgment about what is or is not reasonable.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I am sorry to come back on this point. Surely the noble Baroness recognises that we are talking about a Bill. It is not good enough to say that the Government are having talks. The noble Baroness and the Government are asking us to pass a Bill which contains this provision. Are we then to go away and say, "We will leave it to the Government to carry on with their talks"? That is surely not legislation.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which I found extremely interesting. I take the point that she is making. No one is asking the Government to meet unreasonable costs. I entirely understand that the Secretary of State is answerable for public funds. He cannot leave the assessment of costs entirely to the local authority because the local authority in this case is judge and party in its own cause. But has it not occurred to the Government that, from the local authority's point of view, it may be equally true that the Secretary of State appears to be judge and party in his own cause?
Local authority estimates of costs do not always command confidence in government quarters; but, similarly, government assessments of costs do not always command confidence in local authority quarters. As this problem is bound to arise in connection with future legislation, is there not something to be said for the introduction of some system of independent assessment of what "reasonable costs" actually are in a given situation? I believe that that is an issue about which we need to think at a different time of day. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to the requirements of subsection (2A) below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 33. We have in fact already started the discussion on the administrative costs of local authorities resulting from the Bill. However, I do not think that we have by any means had an adequate debate on the issue because I do not believe that the enormity of what is going on has been fully exposed, despite the very valuable contributions made on the last debate.
I must remind Members of the Committee that we are not concerned only about the changes brought arising under the Bill; we are also concerned about the many changes which have been brought about by the alterations in the community charge reduction scheme —the transitional relief. The Secretary of State announced a new version of transitional relief on 17th January of this year. That was the fourth major change in the community charge reduction scheme since its introduction in the autumn of 1989. Therefore, the history of the Government making up their mind what they want to do with the poll tax system is not very good.
Further, on Monday—which is only two days ago —the Minister, Mr. Portillo, put forward very wide-ranging amendments. They were, however, noticeably too late to appear in Hansard the following day and that meant that many local authorities did not hear about them until today. They simply did not have access to the information. I believe that a circular was issued yesterday by the Department of the Environment purporting to explain Mr. Portillo's statement. But if I were to begin quoting the complicated formulae contained in the fourth page of

1191
that letter, I think that Members of the Committee would justifiably complain that I was seeking to confuse the issue rather than to shed light upon it.
It certainly seems that, with the best will in the world, the Government have not succeeded in settling upon a community charge reduction scheme which they are prepared to justify and with which they are prepared to stick. Under those circumstances, the task of local authorities in trying to settle a community charge and prepare the bills for this year is virtually impossible.
During the course of today I met some of the treasurers involved. I can testify to the fact that treasurers—especially the most efficient—are in despair. That is because they went to great lengths to send out their bills by 1st April so that the first payment date of 15th April could be adhered to. They are also in despair because they know from their experience of one year of the poll tax in England and Wales, and two years in Scotland, that the later the demand is sent out the more difficult it is to achieve an adequate collection rate. Losses arise not only to the cashflow because of people not responding, but also because of the number of people with whom contact is lost and who in the end refuse to pay because of the lateness of the bills.
The treasurers are especially in despair because the amendments which were put forward in another place by Mr. Portillo on Monday night involve more than simple changes in the figures—those are easy enough if you say that the minimum rebate to be recognised is now £1 per week instead of £2 per week; you simply change £104 to £52, and that is fine. However, they also involve the inclusion of all the adults in the household in the community charge reduction scheme, and that is an enormously different change. It involves rewriting the entire program for the calculation of rebates. It involves going back to the suppliers of the software. I promise the Government that this will be the case in Conservative as well as Labour authorities. It will involve delays of weeks in the production of the poll tax demands.
There can be few local authorities which will not find themselves still preparing their poll tax demands late in May and perhaps even into June. It will not be the same in all local authorities because the degree of complexity of the transitional relief is different in different local authorities, just as the number of poll tax payers on rebate is different in different authorities.
The size of the problem cannot be overestimated. Its complexity has only been scratched in the consideration of the matter so far. It is no good Ministers shaking their heads. What they have been looking at is the position before Monday night. That is just about comprehensible. We know which local authorities have sent out their demands and will have to be compensated for sending out new ones and which authorities have to be compensated less because they have not yet sent out their demands. That is relatively simple.
However, to re-calculate all the details of the community charge reduction scheme, as is now required, is an enormous task. I do not believe that the
1192
Government have yet started to realise what is involved. Therefore it is necessary that we should adopt these two amendments which reflect the additional expenditure which will be necessary on bills which have been rendered void by virtue of Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill. It is necessary for us to add to the Bill an amendment which makes it clear that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the resources made available to the authority under this provision are or will be sufficient to enable it to fulfil the requirements of the Act without loss. That is not a wrecking amendment. It is a severely practical amendment which reflects the difficulties which local authorities face now and will face in the weeks and months to come. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I have read these amendments with care and I believe that they have a dual purpose. First, the object is to make sure that local authorities are compensated for the additional costs which they incur in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. Secondly, it is to ensure that those costs are properly identified and therefore properly reimbursed by the Exchequer.
I can reassure the noble Lord on both points. It is our intention to pay a grant under the provisions of this clause specifically to reimburse authorities for their reasonable costs incurred as a result of the Bill. There are two possible routes we could follow. We could pay grant on claims for actual spending or we could use a formula. We have already had a preliminary discussion with the local authority associations on this point. Different representations from the associations expressed different preliminary views. We hope to resolve these differences and agree on an appropriate system of reimbursement in further discussions very soon. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is already discussing these matters with the local authority associations.
We intend the grant which we pay to be sufficient to enable authorities to fulfil the requirements of the Bill, and its cost will be clearly and separately identified. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask for a little clarification. I gave the Government Front Bench notice that I would return under this amendment to the question of the local authority which incurs a deficit because it decides not to send out a bill because the amount it would recover would be less than the cost of collection.
Is there any more that either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness can say to me about how the Government would look on such a case? I shall wait if they need to obtain an answer because we are in difficulties at the moment. The case seems to me to be one which is worth thinking hard about. It is not reasonable to require a local authority to send out a bill and go to a lot of expense if it is not going to recover what it costs. I appreciate that in general local authorities should not go into deficit. I appreciate that the Government care a good deal about that. But

1193
when we have a situation where one government principle clashes with another government principle, we might have a little room for adjustment.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Waddington: I do not think there is much difficulty here. Clearly if a local authority declines to recover money which is due to it when economically it could recover those costs, it should not expect to be reimbursed by the Government for the loss it sustains as a result of failing to collect that which it should collect. What we are really debating here is whether there is a proper system for identifying what are the reasonable costs incurred by a local authority as a result of implementing the Bill. I said that discussions are taking place with local authorities on the best way of reimbursing them, but there is no doubt whatsoever about the Government's intention, which is to see that local authorities are properly reimbursed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that is intended to be helpful and I find it helpful. I do not intend to pursue this matter to a Division. The Lord Privy Seal has in many ways gone as far as he possibly could to reassure the Committee of the Government's good intentions. When he added the words "properly reimbursed", I take it that the gap between "properly" and "in full" is not all that great.
However, in the debate on the previous amendment the noble Baroness insisted on the point—I can understand that—that in the end there has to be an ultimate discretion other than with the local authority. But she was insisting on the point that the ultimate discretion should lie with the Secretary of State. She resisted the suggestion from these Benches that there should be the possibility of some kind of independent arbitration on what are or are not reasonable costs. I put it to the Government that there is a recent and good precedent for having this kind of independent arbitration. It is to be found in Clause 92(3) of the New Roads and Street Works Bill. That subsection states:
"Where under any provision of this Part a person is entitled in certain circumstances to recover costs or expenses incurred by him in executing works or taking other steps, any dispute as to the existence of those circumstances or as to the amount recoverable shall be determined by arbitration".
One cannot doubt the good faith of all Secretaries of State under all circumstances, but there clearly is the possibility of a conflict of interest between individual local authorities. All the cases will be different, as will the Secretaries of State. Would it not be a helpful extension to the helpful assurances already given if the Government were to accept that there could be circumstances in which arbitration would be the right way to proceed in the case of dispute?
Lord Waddington: I am no expert on these matters but clearly if there was a dispute one would hope to resolve it by agreement. This is really what I was saying earlier. There may initially be a disagreement, but one hopes eventually that agreement will be reached. That is why discussions are taking place with the local authority associations now. I do not think one should anticipate trouble when discussions are
1194
taking place and when it is certainly the intention of the local authorities and the Government to reach an amicable agreement on how these matters should be resolved if initially they do not arrive at the same figure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may sound strange but this is the kind of case where I shall have to consider what the noble Lord has said and decide whether to table amendments on Report. That is exactly the position. It seems to me that the precedent I have cited of the New Roads and Street Works Bill is a precise precedent. Despite the evident good will of the Lord Privy Seal in responding, there is the possibility that a more modest amendment on our side would achieve further progress.
Lord Waddington: I have now received some guidance, which may be of some help in clarifying what I said earlier. Quite clearly, if one were to apply a formula it would be as a result of agreement between the Government and the local authorities as to what kind of formula should be operated. If one did not have a formula and payment was to be on the basis of the actual costs incurred, then there is no doubt whatever that an independent check could be made by the auditor if there was any dispute between the local authority and the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is helpful, but I want to reserve my position on the matter. I believe that the analogy with the other Bill is still valid. In order to make progress - and we have been making progress - I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: The amendment seeks to delete Clause 4(3), which provides that:
"In making any payment of grant under this section, the Secretary of State may impose such conditions as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine; and the conditions may relate to the repayment in specified circumstances of all or part of the amount paid, or any other matter".
I am not quite clear what is meant by that clause and should be grateful for an explanation. It is rather widely drawn. It gives the Secretary of State power to impose any conditions he likes and does not seem to spell out any particular type of conditions. Allowing the conditions to relate to "any other matter" seems to be a case of allowing the Secretary of State to do whatever he likes.
If I could be told the precise intention behind the clause I should find it helpful. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I think that I can help the noble Earl. A similar provision exists in relation to other grants—notably grant payable under the community charge reduction scheme. The noble Earl evidently regards it as sinister. That is not the case.
The proposed power would have two principal functions. First, it would enable us to require properly documented information from authorities to support their claims. Without that power we would have to be much more cautious in our payment regime in order to

1195
protect the interests of the Exchequer and the national taxpayer. Secondly, the repayment provision enables us to make on-account payments during the year on the basis of unaudited information supplied by the authorities themselves. We could not do that - or, at least, could do it only on a much less generous basis -if we did not know that overpayment on account would be subject to recovery.
In other words, the provisions of the subsection are not overbearing or sinister. On the contrary, they are required in order to permit the payment of grant on a fair basis without unreasonable delay while protecting the interests of both the local authorities and the Exchequer. I hope the noble Earl is content with that explanation and will not press the amendment.
Earl Russell: I find that a very reassuring reply. So far as concerns the Government's intentions, that is a very sensible justification of that form of words. However, the subsection raises drafting points. I am not sure that the Government's intentions could not have been achieved by a slightly more tightly drafted form of words.
There is a point about the amount of discretion which is being given to the Crown by the drafting of statutes which we need to think about. Of course I entirely trust the reassurances that I have been given, and I welcome them, but we are giving powers to future governments as well. The noble Baroness, as well as I, might look with some doubt on the way in which they might be exercised in future. Does the noble Baroness wish to reply?
Baroness Blatch: Only to say that it may be optimistic on the part of the noble Earl to assume that there may be another government in the next 12 months because the Bill has a life of only 12 months.
Earl Russell: In politics all things are possible. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, in view of progress on the Bill and the lateness of the hour, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a short statement about business for tomorrow. It has been agreed through the usual channels that it would be right for the House to meet at 2.30 p.m. tomorrow rather than at 11 o'clock.
I recognise that this will cause some inconvenience to your Lordships, but. I think that it is the right course, if only for the sake of the staff of the House. In order to minimise the inconvenience, I shall of course ensure that those noble Lords who have Starred Questions on the Order Paper tomorrow will be informed as soon as possible in the morning if they are not present in the House tonight. In addition, I propose that the Second Reading of the Arms Control
1196
and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill should not be taken tomorrow, and moreover that the business should be reordered under the provisions of Standing Order 38(6) so that the British Waterways Bill, on which a number of noble Lords have indicated that they wish to speak and to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, is seeking to move an Instruction, will be taken immediately after Starred Questions instead of at the end of business. That should ensure that that Bill comes on only an hour or so later than it would otherwise have done at most.
We shall then take the Statutory Instruments on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of saying that I would have removed t lose too from tomorrow's Order Paper except that it is necessary to secure your Lordships' agreement to them under the Affirmative Resolution procedure before the Easter Recess.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 12.15 a.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 11.57 p.m. to 12.15 a.m.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes until 12.20.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 12.15 to 12.20 a.m.]

Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill
Report received.
Clause 1 [Statutory reduction of community charges: England and Wales]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert—
("Subject to subsection (IA) below and to the making of an order under this section")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I speak also to Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
For me this is an interesting art form. I have never had the experience of producing amendments at this speed in order that they should be considered. It is only fair to the House if I state briefly the principle that we have adopted in entering on this new legislative art form.
First, let it be clear that there are no amendments on the new Marshalled List that had already been put down or discussed at Committee. We should have considered it to be an abuse of the procedures of the House if we simply repeated arguments on the same day. Secondly, let me make it clear that the majority of these amendments, although they have been considered in advance, were subject to amendment up until the last minute and are intended to reflect fallback positions. In other words, they are not matters that we should like to have achieved ideally,

1197
but are issues which may have been raised in Committee and are now being put forward in a less controversial form in the hope that we may secure the agreement of Government. After all, if we secured that agreement it would be a simple matter for the amendments to go back to another place immediately, to be dealt with and come back here. I am prepared to stay till any hour in order to see that the Bill achieves the statute book but in its best possible form.
Thirdly, a number of amendments in the Marshalled List have arisen as a direct result of discussions in Committee. They were tabled at the last minute and I apologise for the fact that the tabling of the final amendment delayed the House for a further five minutes. However, on the whole we have not done badly. We have reflected the Committee's discussions and points that were then made by the Government. We have also attempted to continue to do our best to perform the duties of this House as a revising Chamber.
Amendment No. 1 and the other amendments to which I am speaking are concerned with the issue of rebates. Instead of proposing that we should have 100 per cent. and not 20 per cent. rebates, we now propose new rebates which should be higher than the present rebates together with some reduction for those paying the full poll tax. It is a compromise between what we sought to achieve in Committee and what the Government seek to achieve by putting all the benefits of the VAT increase on the £140 personal community charge. We still believe that the whole £4.3 billion which is available should be devoted to improved rebates and to new rebates. However, we recognise that the Government are implacably opposed to that, and indeed that the Committee took an opposite view.
So what we are doing in these amendments is, in effect, providing an enabling procedure. We are giving the Secretary of State a power by order to determine what amount of reduction should be applicable to full tax payers; to determine what new poll tax figures should be paid by those entitled to 80 per cent. rebates and whether additional assistance would be desirable, having regard to financial or other circumstances for others on low incomes.
We deliberately phrased these amendments in terms of subsequent determination by order, because over the past 48 hours we have seen that the law is still being made up; the Government are still making up their mind about what should be done. Mr Portillo's statement on Monday is certainly by no means the last statement that we shall have on this matter. It may mean - and I regret it in a very modest sense -that a number of people may have to work rather hard over Easter, but that is not too high a price to pay for getting it right.
The balance, I suggest, that is proposed in these amendments, between giving higher rebates for those most in need and preserving the principle which the Government wish to preserve of a reduction for those who pay the full poll tax, is a valuable improvement. It deserves a little extra effort—the extra mile, as President Bush would have said - and I hope that the Government will feel that both the spirit in which
1198
these amendments are moved, and the detail of them, is acceptable and will prove, as I believe it is, a benefit to the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments are quite contrary to the policy and purpose of this Bill. They are simply a variation on all the themes that we have discussed all day, and I ask the House to reject them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the Minister's difficulty. I understand that these amendments cannot have been made available to the department until very recently. On the other hand, we have these difficulties as well and we do not have anything like the same resources. I sympathise that the Minister has not had a chance to study the amendments; but it is, after all, the Government who are imposing this procedure on the House. It is not the Opposition who are imposing this procedure on the House.
In those circumstances, I am bound to say that it is the responsibility of the Government to respond properly to amendments, and not simply to dismiss them in the terms that the Minister has done. I shall let this case go because I realise that this is a complex group of amendments, and I shall beg leave to withdraw them. But unless I get proper answers to subsequent amendments, I shall divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall, before he authorises the payment of the final instalment of grant under section 4(1) below, issue guidance to charging authorities as to preparatory steps which may be appropriate with respect to —

(a) any proposals he may consider appropriate concerning the level of local taxation in the financial year commencing on 1st April 1992; and

(b) proposals concerning the possible introduction from that date of any new system of local taxation.

(1B) No guidance shall be issued under subsection (1A) above before the completion by the Secretary of State of consultation with such persons representative of charging authorities in England and Wales as appear to him to be concerned.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. We are concerned here not with the abolition of the poll tax within 12 months. That is what people want, but it is not what the Government are able to deliver and we had better recognise that fact. But we are concerned that the Secretary of State should be issuing guidance as to the preparatory steps which would be appropriate concerning the level of local taxation in the financial year commencing on 1st April 1992, and proposals concerning the possible introduction from that date of any new system of local taxation.
We are proposing in subsection (1B) of Amendment No. 5 that:
"No guidance shall be issued under subsection (1A) above before the completion by the Secretary of State of

1199
consultation with such persons representative of charging authorities in England and Wales as appear to him to be concerned."
It is very difficult but very necessary to make these points in amendments. It is difficult because the Bill is confined to the year 1991–92 and it is confined to specific acts which have to be taken by Government in advance of the setting of the poll tax for 1991–92. Those acts are, first, the reduction in the personal community charge and, secondly, the compensatory grants which are provided for in Clause 4 of the Bill. Any amendment which we put down has to be contingent upon those two acts. The second amendment, Amendment No. 13, refers to Scotland. We have said that before the final instalment of grant is payable, and it is contingent upon that—it is included in the Long Title of the Bill—the Secretary of State really must consider and make public what is to he the future of local government finance.
We have given the Government in effect 12 months in which to make up their minds about what the future of local government finance shall be. I do not think that is unreasonable and I do not think it is something which the Secretary of State himself would wish to reject out of hand. We understand that the payment of the compensatory grant is to be made in 10 equal instalments and that nine of those instalments will be made in 1991–92 and that the tenth instalment will be actually made in 1992–93 and will refer back to the 1991–92 Budget. So there is a full 12 months provided for in these amendments for the Secretary of State to make his views known to local authorities and to the public. It is absolutely essential that the Secretary of State should do just that, because if during the next 12 months we fail to have some resolution of the problems of this Government - or of course preferably a change of government - then we shall be faced in March of next year with exactly the same problem as we face now.
We have been relatively complacent about the procedures which have been forced on us now, in considering this Bill, out of our concern for the proper conduct of local authority business, but we shall not be so complacent next year if the Government come back with the same kind of Bill. It is simply not acceptable to carry on the central control of local government finance in this hand-to-mouth way. It is being done once and we may have to accept that it is being done once, but it cannot be done again in the same form. If the present Government are still here -which God forbid - I do not think that even they would think it proper to ask their own supporters to go through this same charade in 1992 as they have been forced to go through in 1991.
So we are saying here very modestly that before the Secretary of State authorises the final payment he shall make public proposals he may consider appropriate on the level of local taxation in the financial year commencing on the 1st April 1992, and the possible introduction from that date of any new system of local taxation.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is no longer in his place, but he started to hint the basis on which that could be done. He was starting to hint that what we have here is a definitive settlement of the relationship
1200
between central and local government in the provision of local government finance. He was not entirely clear about whether he meant the balance between central and local or whether he meant the actual level of the poll tax itself, but it was an indication that some Members of the Government at any rate recognise that you cannot go on for ever making up your mind at the last possible minute and expecting Parliament to tag along with you. That is what is happening to us at the moment. It is entirely unacceptable that we should face the prospect of a similar procedure in a year's time.
This is the opportunity for the Government to indicate that they will not adopt such a procedure again and for them to treat seriously the local authorities and the people who pay local authority taxes. In the unlikely and undesirable event that the Government are still in place in a year's time - it is still constitutionally possible; they cannot win an election but they can avoid one - then this matter will have become extremely urgent long before March 1992. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I do not propose to keep your Lordships for long. I hope that in answer to the important and significant points made the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we shall receive rather more courtesy that we received in answer to the first amendment.
The fact that the Minister did not have time to prepare herself to deal with the first amendment is due entirely to the Government's choice of the procedure to be followed today. We objected to the procedure. We rather than they are the victims of it. When a reasonable case is put at this stage of the Bill, the responsible Minister should have the courtesy to give us a proper reply.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I support and reinforce what my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said. The Government chose this method of putting the Bill through. They cannot then say that they have not had time to consider it. There should be a full, thoughtful answer to the practical points that are being made on Report.
We have heard today, as my noble friend said, at least a suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that this may be the definitive form of the relationship between central government and local government finance, as the Government see it. Is that the case? I also remind the House that Mr. Portillo has been quoted as saying at the Conservative Party conference that the community charge had laid down the structure of local government finance in relation to central government for the foreseeable future. If the Government can change their mind within six months, surely the House is entitled to hear what will be the definitive basis and structure of local government finance within the next 12 months. We should hear that now.
It is obvious that consultations must take place quickly between the Government and the local authorities if anything is to be in place by or in advance of next March when the new arrangements

1201
come into force. It is incumbent upon the Minister to tell the House what is in the Government's mind as to the foundation structure of local government finance in relation to central government before they ask us to pass the Bill. We need to know, the local authorities need to know and the electorate needs to know what the Government's present thinking is. We have seen changes of mind over the past six months.
The Bill is obviously a panic Bill. It cannot serve for the long-term structure of the financing of local government in this country. Out of the chaos that has arisen over the past six months, what are the Government going to do, in good time and with full and long consultations with people who, on the Government's record, know better than the Government, towards the building of the foundations of this very important matter as regards our democratic system?
I believe, along with my noble friends, that we are entitled to have a statement from the noble Baroness based upon her answer to this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am about to disappoint noble Lords opposite. My response to this and the previous group of amendments has nothing to do with the lateness of the hour or the short timescale available to read the amendments.
The amendments are entirely contrary to the policy and purposes of the Bill. This Bill is not about a new system. It is a short, single purpose Bill to reduce charges in 1991–92 and to enable compensatory grant to be paid to the authorities concerned. The noble Lord has entirely missed the point of the Bill and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose that I expected that response. I fear that the Minister and the Government are saying that they have no confidence whatever that they have any ability within the next 12 or 13 months to produce a system of financial control and provision for local government to which they can adhere and support for the future. It may be that they will no longer be in government and the question does not arise.
However, if by any mischance this Government are still in position next year, then without doubt we are being told that we shall be faced with another one year Bill for 1992–93. If we had any doubts about the acceptability of this Bill now, those doubts are reinforced and strengthened by the threat of the same procedure next time. It is entirely unacceptable to Parliament and it should be unacceptable to the people of this country that the Government should continue to attempt to legislate in this way. I have no alternative but to seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.
12.43 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 62.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Astor, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Birdwood, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Byron, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caldecote, V.

Mountevans, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clinton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller ]

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Downshire, M.

Plumb, L.

Dudley, E.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B..

Southborough, L.

Fortescue, E

Strathcarron, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L.

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wigram, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.50 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Statutory reduction of community charges: Scotland]:
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Compensatory grants]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert ("subject, in the case of any dispute falling within subsection (1A) below to any determination by an independent person appointed for that purpose.
(1A) A dispute in respect of which a determination may be made by an independent person shall be—

(a) a dispute between an authority and the Secretary of State concerning any claim in respect of expense incurred in accordance with this Act; or

(b) a dispute between an authority and the Secretary of State concerning the application to that authority of any formula in respect of deemed expense incurred in accordance with this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises directly out of a debate in Committee—
Baroness Hooper: Order!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that insubordination counts at ten to one in the

1203
morning. If I called a Division, does the House think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, would turn up to vote?
This amendment arises directly out of a debate in Committee, I suppose less than an hour ago, in which the Lord Privy Seal was—I said it then and I say it again—not only trying to be helpful but was actually being very helpful. In this amendment we are concerned with the issue in Clause 4 of the payment of compensatory grant to local authorities to compensate for the additional expenditure which is inevitably involved in the passage of the Bill.
I need not rehearse the way in which it will happen. It is well known that many poll tax bills have already gone out and will have to be replaced. Some of them have been produced but not sent out and will have to be pulped. Some of them are in dispute in post offices and the Post Office is saying that it is its duty under the Post Office Act 1969 to send out mail that has been properly posted. The local authorities are saying, quite reasonably, that it would be an absurd aberration if something that they know should not be sent out and that will cost them extra money if it is sent out is nevertheless sent out simply because the Post Office wishes to cover its back. We all know that enormous amounts of extra expenditure will be involved as a result of the Bill. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum puts the figure at £60 million. Following Mr. Portillo's statement on Monday night, I suspect that to be a severe underestimate.
In responding to my earlier amendment in Committee, the Lord Privy Seal was extremely helpful. He said that there were two ways in which compensation could be arrived at. It could be arrived at on an individual basis or on the basis of a formula. He said that consultation was going on with local authority associations at the present time about which it should be or whether both should be used and what the balance should be between the two of them. Virtually the only point on which we came to disagree concerned whether in the end, failing agreement, an independent person should be appointed to resolve the disagreement.
In his response the Lord Privy Seal placed a good deal of emphasis on the need to go on seeking agreement. I agree with him on that. It would be very much a last resort if we went for arbitration by an independent person. Nevertheless it is possible that there will be disagreement. Different financial interests are involved. It is desirable that the Bill should not leave the possibility of there being no way to deal with an unresolved dispute. That would not be good industrial relations practice and it would not be good legislative practice.
I pointed out to the Government that there was an analogy, to which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis had drawn my attention, in Clauses 92 and 95 of the New Roads and Street Works Bill which is still before another place, having passed through this House. We intend by way of this amendment—although not in the same words—to suggest that there is a simple way with good precedent of resolving any potential disputes which may still arise. I commend the solution to the House. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we support the amendment. I do not intend to repeat anything that I said in Committee. However, we have encountered a real difficulty. There is a possibility of disagreement as to what constitutes reasonable costs. It is possible that either the Secretary of State or the local authority could be seen as acting as judge and party in their own courts.
Money is a good deal tighter than it used to be in every form of public service. It may have been possible 15 years ago to say that this was the sort of cost that the local authority could well afford to bear. But these days it is not that easy. It will mean running into a deficit—and we have heard all about that—dismissing teachers or not equipping schools with books for the national curriculum. It will cause real hardship if there is a severe and unexpected loss of money. There is a difficulty in this respect. I am glad that the noble Lord has tabled the amendment. I am happy to support it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I also support the amendment. However, one of my worries is the lack of trust which exists between central and local government. It is unfortunate that this distrust and conflict has arisen. The fact that we do not have that trust grieves all of us at the national level in Parliament and those working at the local level. Such trust existed in the past. I do not necessarily blame this Government for the situation; indeed, it has been going on for many years.
I welcome the introduction of the amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it in the spirit that was intended: it is intended to be a mechanism to try to breakdown that aura of distrust which exists between local and central government. That distrust is debilitating for the whole nation. I do not believe that, if the mechanism was included in the clause, it would be called into play very often. The fact that the mechanism existed would—it is to be hoped—enable the rebuilding of a climate of trust between local and central government.
We should like to see an acceptance that actions taken by local government can be reasonable. They must also be seen to be reasonable by an independent authority. I suggest that a suitable independent authority would be the district auditor. The Government may recognise him as an independent authority to deal with the finance and the operations of a local authority. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment on the basis that it will contribute in a small way towards building the trust which is essential for the future relationship between local and central government.
1 a.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey referred to the New Roads and Street Works Bill. During its passage through this House I led for the Opposition. Perhaps I may reflect on the Government's accommodating posture in regard to arbitration in relation to costs which may arise as a result of certain circumstances relating to that Bill.

1205
I raised the matter in question in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was somewhat sceptical about the point at that time. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will remember the debate well. He wrote to me very helpfully before we reached Report stage to indicate that the Government thought that there was merit in the point I was making because it was necessary. I am not quoting from the Minister's letter.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to make a point? The Bill is in another place and could well be amended, therefore what he is saying now is irrelevant to what we are discussing tonight.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it has already been amended. I am quoting from the Bill, as amended on Report, as it left this House. I merely illustrate that the Government were accommodating on a point which is precisely the same in principle, as I see it, as the point we are now discussing. The Government thought that it was meritorious to agree to arbitration, as is stated in Clause 92(3) of the New Roads and Street Works Bill,
"Where under any provision of this Part a person is entitled in certain circumstances to recover costs or expenses incurred by him in executing works or taking other steps, any dispute as to the existence of those circumstances or as to the amount recoverable shall be determined by arbitration".
What is the difference in principle between the point we are now discussing and the point which was discussed during the course of that Bill, in respect of which the Government proved to be extremely accommodating? With great respect, the intervention that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, is irrelevant. His remarks are usually extremely relevant and he is being uncharacteristically irrelevant at this time. Perhaps the late hour explains it. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree. She can hardly say that the amendment is inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill. It is not a matter of fundamental importance to the Government, surely? It is an area where I join my noble friend Lord McIntosh, and hope that the Government will say, "Yes, this is a reasonable proposition; we are prepared to entertain it".
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships will agree with me that what is at the back of the discussion that has taken place spasmodically over the past few hours is whether the scheme set out in Clause 4 of the Bill is apt to deal with the situation where central government are to compensate local authorities for expenses incurred by them as a result of government policy. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the New Roads and Street Works Bill, but I suspect it has much to do with disputes between private owners and local authorities about street works. Whether I am right or wrong on it, I took advice when the House rose a short time ago. The form of Clause 4 is very usual indeed; it is the common form. It assumes that the Government will give undertakings to Parliament as to the way in which they will perform their duties.
1206
I feel that I have given clear enough undertakings tonight, merely repeating undertakings which have already been given by my right honourable friend. In those circumstances, it has been said absolutely plainly to Parliament that the Government will reimburse local authorities for expenses properly and reasonably incurred by them. It would be quite wrong to assume that there will be difficulties about the matter when I have no reason to believe that in similar circumstances difficulties have arisen.
Members of this House would be the first to pull up the Government if they failed to give proper effect to their undertakings. What could be more proper than that the Government should give undertakings and then be responsible to the House for fulfilling them? The department will discuss all these matters with the local authorities, with the aim of reaching a consensus with them as to the way in which the undertakings should be put into effect. We see no reason why the House should impose a requirement of independent arbitration in those circumstances.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Lord Privy Seal has given the House the courtesy of a proper reply to our amendment. I am grateful for that. I do not agree with him, but I am grateful to him for responding properly to an amendment which arises out of the Committee stage and which was seriously moved. I think the noble Lord is wrong about the analogy with the New Roads and Street Works Bill. That provision does not concern disputes between private individuals but between local authorities and central government as a highway authority. Therefore the analogy with this Bill is very precise. I am told by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that the arguments used at first by the Government when they were resisting the form of words which is now in that Bill were very similar to the argments which the noble Lord is now using.
I appreciate that the noble Lord will not allow this Bill to be amended and sent back to the Commons for further consideration. We have made progress in this debate. The undertakings which have been given by the Government are valuable and will be appreciated by local authorities. I do not regret having tabled these amendments as they have enabled us to make progress, even without a change on the face of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 21 at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall in first making any payment under this section lay before Paliament a statement of the proportion of total local authority expenditure which has been met by grant support out of money provided by Parliament over the ten financial years ending in the 1991 financial year.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment which requires the Secretary of State when he is making the first payment of grant to authorities—that will presumably occur early in 1991–92—to lay before Parliament a report on grant as a percentage of overall spending over the past 10 years. This matter has been referred to on a number of

1207
occasions. It was the matter on which the Secretary of State led on Second Reading in another place yesterday, and it has been the subject of debate in this House. I shall not go over the statistics of the matter but in view particularly of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in referring to the semi-permanent nature of the balance which has now been struck between central and local government contributions to local authority expenditure, it would be desirable for the Government to set out their position clearly on this important matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I make no apology for the brevity of my reply to this amendment. These proportions are a matter of public record. The amendment has no bearing whatever on the purpose of the Bill, which is to reduce charges in the coming year. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not be tempted by that reply to divide the House. I am disappointed. I do not think the reply is consistent with the attitude which governments in these days ought to take on their responsibility for freedom of information. I do not believe the Government's position has been clearly stated although certainly statistics have been bandied about. I do not think that providing statistics is an adequate alternative to making a statement on the Government's position, which the Government should do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert ("including the cost in the case of each authority of collecting the community charge from persons entitled to rebates.").
The noble Lord said; My Lords, this is another amendment which arises directly out of discussion in Committee. A few noble Lords may recall that we considered the issue of administrative expenses which an authority might reasonably be expected to incur in consequence of the provisions of this Bill. I fear that as I did not obtain a proper response, I pointed out more than once that Mr Portillo's announcement on Monday night on rebates and the community charge reduction scheme made dramatic changes to the way in which local authorities would have to recast their bills in response to this Bill and in particular to the money declaration.
With this amendment we propose to bring the Bill up to date so that it reflects Mr. Portillo's statement rather than the position as it was when the Government drafted the Bill last Thursday. Therefore we propose to include the words:
"including the cost in the case of each authority of collecting the community charge from persons entitled to rebates".
I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my colleagues on the Front Bench and I have explained in considerable detail a number of times during the passage of the Bill that grant will cover all reasonable costs. No extension
1208
of costs beyond those set out in the Bill is contemplated. Therefore I ask the Ho use to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again I shall not be tempted, but that is a most inadequate reply. It does not recognise the way in which the Government are still making up their mind as they go along, not only about the community charge but also about the rebate structure and about the community charge reduction scheme. It is, as will become evident over the months to come, a most unsatisfactory situation. The Government are clearly proud to have responsibility for this part of the shambles of local authority legislation. They will come to regret it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
1.12 a.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
It would be wrong for me to say no more than that. It is no use my saying again that I am sorry that this procedure had to be used, although I believe that it was necessary in this case. It is important that I should say that I really do believe that the past few hours have been used profitably. I should like to thank noble Lords opposite and Her Majesty's Opposition for the way in which they have scrutinised the Bill and fulfilled their duties so admirably. No one who has been watching the proceedings during the past few hours could think other than that the noble Lords who have intervened in this debate have done so in order to put the Government to the test and see how the Bill could be improved. I am therefore grateful to the House for the way in which it has responded in difficult circumstances.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. — (Lord Waddington.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has made it very difficult to respond in the way I should have liked to. I am grateful to him for what he said. It was a tribute not to any individual but to the spirit which prevails in this House of seeking to perform its responsibilities, even sometimes under virtually impossible conditions. Noble Lords have done that and, with the exception of a few responses in the past half hour, the Government have treated the amendments with the respect that they deserved.
That is tempered by the fact that we are conscious, as we have been conscious from the very beginning, that the Government simply could not afford to allow a grammatical mistake or a misprint to be corrected. The Bill had to go back to the other place in exactly

1209
the same form as it came, otherwise heaven knows what mayhem would be taking place in the other place in the next few hours. Therefore, we appreciated that the best that we could hope for was an indication of government views and the way in which the Government propose to implement the Bill. In many cases we have achieved that.
We have not achieved any indication of the place that the Bill plays in the policy making—if one can dignify it by those words—with respect to local government finance. It is quite clear that local government finance is in a shambles because the Government's thinking about local government finance is in a shambles. The Bill is only an indication of that shambles. Further indications will no doubt come before your Lordships' House and we shall then, as now, seek every opportunity to challenge the Government to put forward more appropriate and sensible conclusions and indeed to replace the Government by a government which truly understand local government finance.
1.15 a.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his kind words about the debate and the House, to which I am happy to respond. I should like to thank him and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the care and courtesy with which they have handled this debate. I agree that it has been an extremely useful debate. It has helped to clarify a number of important points in the Bill. I also agree that we have discussed this measure in a manner which does us credit.
I am grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for what he said about how rarely this procedure ought to be used. What has struck me throughout the day has been the wisdom of our usual procedures. I have never before been as aware as I have been today of the usefulness of being able to say, "I shall read that reply very carefully in Hansard and perhaps return to the matter at Report stage".
But although we have all operated under handicaps, I believe that we have done so successfully. I am very grateful for the replies that I have received about the meaning of Clause 4. I am extremely grateful for the assurance about the standard community charge. In that and many other ways this has been a very worthwhile debate. As for the future shape of local government finance, that is all to play for.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the Bill passes from this House I think it essential that we respond to what has been a shameful day in parliamentary history. In moving the Third Reading the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has just said that he believes that this procedure was necessary. Perhaps it was, but why was it necessary? It was necessary because the Government have produced such a shambles that they have to provide a stop-gap. Every time that we asked whether the Government regarded this Bill as a laying of foundations for the relationship
1210
between local government finance and central government finance, we were fobbed off with the answer that this measure is only for a year.
What kind of government are they to bring in a Bill of this kind for a year? What excuse can there be other than that the Government have got into such a muddle that they have had to bring in this stop-gap Bill until presumably they can have some more serious discussions with local authorities as to how local authority financing and the local authority structure will be related to that of the central government? That indicates that again the Government have got themselves into a position in which they are upside down. Instead of discussing a measure of local government finance today, we should have had a thoughtful and thorough debate on the structure, the purposes and the responsibilities of local government. Then, having decided on that - not in one day but by our usual method of consideration over several weeks - we should discuss how that should be financed. Instead of that we have had a spatchcock—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. He accused the Government of being upside down. I wonder whether he should reflect that this is the Third Reading of the Bill and not Second Reading. Perhaps he might be upside down.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am speaking out of the experience of having listened to the Second Reading debate and discussions while the Bill went through its Committee and Report stages. As I see it, I am putting together in the Third Reading debate the results of what has been discussed over the past few hours. This is not a Second Reading speech. I made my Second Reading speech some hours ago.
I return to the essential issues raised by the Bill. The Bill is irrelevant to the main purposes of local government. We have seen a steady increase in centralisation. The Government have refused to accept amendments moved by this side of the House during the Committee and Report stages. Have those Members of the Government who have been trying to impress us today bothered to refer back to the Layfield Report of 1976? That report laid down the relevant structures and relationship between the responsibilities of local government and central government. The Bill ignores the basic structure which is essential for the democracy of this country. It puts the cart before the horse. The Bill damages the basic fundamental issue which has still to be met.
As I understand it, the legislation simply postpones tackling that issue for 12 months. In the meantime we have been given the instructions that this is the way in which finance will be carried out over the next year with no suggestion as to how the Bill is related to the main issue which faces us today: the relationship between central and local government. We have seen the responsibilities of local government whittled away by this Government. We have seen a reduction in the proportion of money financed by local government and an increase in the amount financed by central government. This Bill almost doubles that amount. It is an indication that the Government are in a panic,

1211
that they are trying to get out of the chaos that they have created. We are being asked to misuse the parliamentary constitutional procedures of this country in order to get the Government out of the muddle into which they have got themselves.
The country will not forgive the Government. The country will see the Government's attitude to those councils that they accuse of being spendthrift when it is the Government themselves who have been cavalierly wasteful of public money. They have shown themselves during the debates today to be only picking up the pieces, yet still spending public money to get out of the mess they have created. They are wasting that public money through the millions of torn up community charge bills throughout the country.
1212
As I said at Committee stage, if a local authority had been guilty of such wastefulness it would have been ratecapped. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, its members would have been prosecuted and put on trial. They would have been surcharged for the mishandling of public money.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. — (Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Bill passed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past one o'clock.

  DEPENDENT TERRITORIES: VISA REQUIREMENTS
  DEPENDENT TERRITORIES: VISA REQUIREMENTS
  KUWAIT: TREATMENT OF FOREIGN NATIONALS
  KUWAIT: TREATMENT OF FOREIGN NATIONALS
  MENTALLY DISTURBED OFFENDERS IN PRISON: GUNN REPORT
  MENTALLY DISTURBED OFFENDERS IN PRISON: GUNN REPORT
  PASSPORT DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE AGENCY
  PASSPORT DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE AGENCY
  FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE EXECUTIVE AGENCY
  FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE EXECUTIVE AGENCY
  STANDARDS OF CROSS-MEDIA PROMOTION REPORT: COST
  STANDARDS OF CROSS-MEDIA PROMOTION REPORT: COST
  BEER SUPPLY: ACTION ON MMC RECOMMENDATIONS
  BEER SUPPLY: ACTION ON MMC RECOMMENDATIONS
  PUBLIC HOUSE TENANTS: PROTECTION
  PUBLIC HOUSE TENANTS: PROTECTION
  SHEEP VARIABLE PREMIUM
  SHEEP VARIABLE PREMIUM
  POTATOES: MARKET SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS
  POTATOES: MARKET SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS
  WINE ALCOHOL: EC SALES TO BRAZIL
  WINE ALCOHOL: EC SALES TO BRAZIL
  DISABLEMENT SERVICES AUTHORITY
  DISABLEMENT SERVICES AUTHORITY
  GREENWICH AND WANDSWORTH: REVENUE SUPPORT GRANT COMPARISONS
  GREENWICH AND WANDSWORTH: REVENUE SUPPORT GRANT COMPARISONS
  WEST YORKSHIRE RESIDUARY BODY
  WEST YORKSHIRE RESIDUARY BODY
  WEST MIDLANDS RESIDUARY BODY
  WEST MIDLANDS RESIDUARY BODY
  URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION POWERS: MODIFICATION PROPOSAL
  URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION POWERS: MODIFICATION PROPOSAL
  COMMON LAND: LEGISLATIVE SAFEGUARDS
  COMMON LAND: LEGISLATIVE SAFEGUARDS
  ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE
  ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE
  SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) ACT and VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
  SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) ACT and VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS