Sitting of 6 November 1991

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

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Between April 1979 and June 1991 almost 1·3 million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure is a measure of the popularity of selling council houses? But should not more of the proceeds from such sales be devoted to building additional houses, particularly for the elderly and one-parent families?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, which is shared by the Government. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Housing Corporation's spending is set to rise from £1·1 billion in 1990–91 to more than £2 billion in 1993–94. Many of the people to whom he referred will gain from that.
    Mr. Winnick: Why not take care to ensure that homes which have been sold off are replaced? Is not the Secretary of State concerned that nearly 7,000 families per month are losing their homes because they cannot keep up their mortgage repayments? Under the proposed scheme many such people will be unable to remain in their homes. Will the Secretary of State recognise at long last that there is an acute housing crisis in Britain? He talks about the number of dwellings that are sold off, but we want to ensure that people who are in such desperate plight can live in affordable rented accommodation.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman wants to keep people living in council houses, which they want to own, under Labour control for Labour party benefit. We were elected to pursue different policies and that is what we are doing.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will be visiting Norwich on 15 November? When he does so, will he take the opportunity to persuade Norwich city council to take a more imaginative approach not only to the sale of council houses but to provision for the homeless and to housing matters generally?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right that I shall be visiting Norwich and I confirm that it is part of a series of visits being paid by me and my ministerial colleagues responsible for housing so that we can talk face to face with local authorities about the housing that they provide. in the presence of representatives of their tenants' associations.
    Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State will agree that a great achievement of the current Administration has been the sale of many public authority dwellings to their tenants. In the light of that, will he suggest to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that it would be a retrograde step for him to repeal the right-to-buy legislation in Northern Ireland, as he proposes?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman so admires our foresight in introducing the right-to-buy legislation in the early years of the present Administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is a man of great wisdom and he will make the appropriate judgments with regard to Northern Ireland which I shall support.

    Planning
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role of the European Commission in the planning process.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): A number of Community measures affect the planning process, including in particular the directive on environmental assessment. The Commission has the duty to ensure that member states properly apply Community law and it is in this connection that they have recently initiated infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom on the environmental assessment directive. We will provide a full response to its complaint, but are confident that our implementation of the directive is fundamentally sound.
    Mr. Favell: The A6, which runs through the middle of Stockport, causes untold misery to my constituents, who have been waiting for a bypass for many years. They are now told that the bypass is likely to be delayed by the Commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that, like the channel tunnel rail link, this is a nook and cranny into which the Commission should not poke?
    Mr. Yeo: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. The Commission's role is clearly confined to ensuring that environmental procedures are properly followed. Decisions about the merits of any individual case remain a matter for the appropriate United Kingdom authority—and that is how we intend to keep it. I sympathise with my hon. Friend because the bypass to which he refers was first proposed in the 1970s. In my view, the lengthy delay reflects how careful we are in this country properly to examine any major planning scheme.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: May we have less humbug from the Government about environmental impact assessment directives? Was not the project commended to a Committee by the present Secretary of State for Health, when he was a Minister of State in the Department of the Environment? Did not the European Commission alert the Government in January and then write to the Government

    433
    on 24 March? Therefore, when the Prime Minister said in Harare, "We had no prior knowledge of it and the facts were not discussed with us," was not it simply untrue?
    Mr. Yeo: When it comes to humbug, we cannot compete with the hon. Gentleman and his party. No notice was given by the Commissioner of his strenuous efforts to obtain extensive publicity for his letter on 16 October. No warning was given at all. The fact that such strenuous efforts to obtain publicity were made by Commissioner Ripa di Meana suggests that he was more concerned with publicity and propaganda than with protecting the environment.
    Mr. Dykes: Did not the Commissioner behave irresponsibly in releasing his press release himself, rather than through the Commission's normal channels, after receiving the approval of the presidency and other Commissioners? Does not that situation illustrate the advantages of majority voting? There was a unanimous vote for the directive, including by the British Government, whereas if there had been proper majority voting, we could have organised a lobby of all member states to outvote it.
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the manner in which Commissioner Ripa di Meana issued his press release. That was the subject of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Mr. Delors, who acknowledged in his reply the sensitivity of the issue. The British Government's record on the directive is outstandingly good. We were the third-fastest country to implement it and we have the fourth-best record of compliance with European legislation in the entire Community.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: With regard to the notice given by the Commission of its action, has the Minister read Hansard for 12 July, when I and my hon. Friends raised the question with the Minister for the Environment and Countryside? We recognise and appreciate the Under-Secretary of State's comment that the Commissioner's powers are confined to ensuring that procedures are followed. Will he therefore dissociate himself from the Foreign Secretary's remark that the Commissioner is trying to dictate through which field a road should run?
    Mr. Yeo: The House knows full well that the Labour party has totally reversed its attitude to the Community on no fewer than five occasions over the past 30 years. On past form, we are due for another U-turn in the early 1990s. The hon. Lady's frantic attempts to suck up to Brussels on all occasions, regardless of how far the British people are pushed around, are unlikely to cut any ice with the Commission, but will certainly be noticed by the people who believe that British authorities should determine the merits of individual planning applications in this country.
    Mr. Jessel: Is not it intolerable that foreign officials should decide either on the procedure to be followed with or the merits of British planning applications?
    Mr. Yeo: It is no part of the British Government's policy to allow any foreign officials to decide the merits of planning cases in this country.

    Methane Sites
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Government plans to assist local authorities that discover methane sites in their areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The Government have set aside £28 million in the current financial year for allocation as supplementary credit approvals to local authorities carrying out gas control projects at closed landfill sites.
    Mr. Vaz: I thank the Minister for the positive response of the Minister for the Environment and Countryside at a meeting at the Department yesterday afternoon, at which the Government gave Leicester city council permission to borrow £25,000 to survey the Appleton Park site in Rochney Mead. That will come as a comfort to local residents. Can the Minister give an assurance that the council will receive an equally favourable response next February, when it may ask for permission to borrow £400,000 to secure the site?
    Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks.
    The cost of subsequent remedial works will, of course, be eligible for supplementary credit approval. As was made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, we shall consider such an application once the cost has been determined following the present survey.

    Local Government Finance
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to include the banding of property values in assessing new methods of local government financing.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): Our proposals for eight bands of property values are set out in the Local Government Finance Bill.
    Sir John Farr: When making his assessments and calculations and increasing local government taxes, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that those who live in larger properties are not necessarily able to pay more than people who live in much more modest surroundings?
    Mr. Portillo: An integral part of our arrangements is, of course, limiting the tax ratio, so that people living in more expensive properties pay more than those in cheaper properties, but not too much more. The maximum that can be paid in the most expensive property in a given area will be three times the amount paid in the cheapest. That is in marked contrast to Labour's proposals: Labour wants to return to an "envy tax", forcing those living in more expensive properties to pay exorbitant amounts. That is what happened under the rates.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister confirm that my calculations are correct? Under the banding proposals for the new council tax, is the Secretary of State for the Environment likely to pay about £270 for his central London accommodation? That is rather less than the

    435
    amount likely to be paid by a young couple of first-time buyers in Aberdeen, who will probably pay £280 for a £35,000 house or flat.
    If those calculations are correct, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State whether he mentioned them in his speech yesterday evening in Aberdeen?
    Mr. Portillo: People who live in local authorities that spend prudently will have lower council tax bills than those who live in authorities that spend less prudently. If my right hon. Friend has a residence in Westminster, he is likely to benefit from the low-spending policies of that excellent council, under the community charge, council tax or any other system.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the problems created for tenants, forestry workers, estate workers or clergymen who live in tied houses that are bigger than the houses that they would normally be able to afford and whose incomes are not reflected in their banding? This is a serious matter and I ask my hon. Friend to take note of it.
    Mr. Portillo: I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. I have a feeling that we shall have considerable discussion about such issues when we debate the Local Government Finance Bill in Committee. That is one reason why I am so keen for the time for discussion to be allocated sensibly, allowing all such serious matters to be discussed fully.

    Beaches
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made towards achieving EC directives on cleaning up beaches by 1992.
    Mr. Baldry: The £2 billion programme of improvements for bathing waters identified under the directive is on target to bring virtually all bathing waters into compliance by 1995.
    Mr. Jones: As the seaside holiday season is so short, does the Minister agree that, in view of the quality of many of our beaches, the work must be done quickly in time for the next holiday season? Is not it time that the Government took the lead? A vast amount of resources is required to clean up our beaches and much of the work is done by privatised water companies, local authorities and volunteers.
    Mr. Baldry: As I have made clear, a substantial sum is being invested by the water companies. About £2 billion is being spent on improvements to ensure that our beaches are brought into compliance with the directive as soon as is humanly possible.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend note that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, only last week the Anglian water authority launched a massive investment programme for the specific purpose of cleaning up the whole of Cleethorpes beach, thus ensuring that Cleethorpes can go forward as a tourist centre worthy of its name?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every water company with coastal waters is spending millions upon millions of pounds on ensuring that all our bathing waters comply with the directive as soon as is humanly possible.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Minister knows that there are two compliance standards under the European Community directive: one, for total coliforms, is 10,000 per 100 ml of water; the other, for E Coli, is 2,000 per 100 ml of water. According to the latest information for summer 1990, the figure for the bathing beach at Aldingham near Barrow-in-Furness was, for the filthiest sample, over 1,600,000 E Coli per 100 ml of water and, for the same beach, over 1,800,000 total coliforms. Does the Minister bathe there often?
    Mr. Baldry: The method for testing bathing water here is exactly the same as the Commission uses to assess compliance in all member states. The method that we use to test water was fully supported in recent reports by the National Rivers Authority and the Select Committee on the Environment. We have the most comprehensive sampling regime in Europe and look at bathing water quality throughout the year.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the level of investment by the water industry, now that it has been privatised, is very much greater than when it was under public ownership? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of Opposition Members to call for more investment without saying how they would pay for it?
    Mr. Baldry: Yes, Sir. It is worth recalling that the Labour party so mismanaged the economy that at the behest of the International Monetary Fund it had to slash, overnight, investment in the water industry.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister admit that the privatised water companies are diverting the funds that they have available into buying hotels and waste companies instead of speeding up the implementation of the directive? The construction industry is in such a bad shape that there are plenty of opportunities for speeding up the programme to clean our beaches. Is not it important to make sure that annex 5 of the international convention on the prevention of pollution from ships is properly policed—in British waters at least?
    Mr. Baldry: I am not confident that the Opposition understand the concept of £2 billion. Millions of pounds are being spent by the water companies. To take only a 40-mile section of the Yorkshire coastline, £30 million is being spent at Scarborough, £15 million at Filey, £9 million at Sandsend and £6 million at Robin Hood's bay. Millions of pounds are being spent to enhance and improve water quality and to ensure that our bathing waters comply with the European Community directive as soon as is humanly possible. The expenditure of a sum of money as large as £2 billion would not have been possible under a state-controlled nationalised industry.

    Housing Association Tenants
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to enable housing association tenants to own their own home.
    Mr. Heseltine: Secure tenants of housing associations normally have the right to buy, unless their landlord is a charity or a fully mutual co-operative. Housing associations, including charities, can also give grants under the Housing Corporation's tenants incentive scheme to

    437
    help tenants move out and buy a home of their own, thereby releasing vacancies for reletting to homeless families.
    The Government are discussing with the Housing Corporation the introduction of a programme of do-it-yourself shared ownership, under which tenants would find property on the open market which they would then buy jointly with a housing association. This scheme would be targeted on existing tenants in order to release property for reletting to the homeless.
    Mr. Bowis: Although that is welcomed in most parts of the country, does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of property prices in London, it is difficult for people to move to other properties within the area? Palms would be laid before his feet if he came to Battersea in the near future with the keys of home ownership for housing association tenants under the right-to-buy scheme—something which they were promised in an earlier Parliament, but which was delayed by an unholy alliance in another place. Will my right hon. Friend look again at that possibility, particularly for London?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend realises that there was a formidable political dialogue about that issue and we have no plans to reopen it now. I am always pleased to receive invitations to visit Battersea and I think that I have always accepted them.
    Mr. Fearn: Following the Minister's comments in the House on 12 July about commonhold, will he say whether his right-to-buy policy will be extended to long leaseholders who, at present, are not covered by legislation?
    Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have no further announcements to add to my statement on commonhold. I have clarified the position on housing association tenants in the terms of the consultation to which I referred today.
    Sir Anthony Grant: In addition to housing association tenants, will my right hon. Friend consider the position of tenants of Crown estates, many of whom have lived in their houses and taken great care of them for many years? Is not it only fair that they should have the same rights as tenants of council houses?
    Mr. Heseltine: I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we will extend the rights to cover that area. I shall look at the matter again in view of my hon. Friend's interest, but I would not wish to give any further commitment.

    Local Government
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of those responding to the local government structure review favoured an increased number of unitary authorities.
    Mr. Portillo: Of those who commented directly on the principle of moving to a single tier of local council, the vast majority expressed support for it.
    Mr. Watts: What representations has my hon. Friend received from Slough? Is he aware of the strong cross-party support in Slough for the abolition of Berkshire county council and its replacement by unitary authorities based on existing boroughs and districts?
    Mr. Portillo: We received a representation from Slough. As my hon. Friend says, it made the case for unitary authorities in general and for that solution to be applied in Slough. My hon. Friend will be pleased that we propose to set up a local government commission so that such views can be considered seriously in due course.
    Mr. Hardy: Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed support for unitary authorities and the term is now used frequently. Does the Minister realise that it causes a great deal of anxiety among members of parish, town and similar authorities? What is the Government's attitude to parish councils and so on, which have had to put up with a fair amount of inadequate concern from Her Majesty's Government in recent years?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State recently addressed a conference of town councils. The Government have not neglected them by any means and we think that parishes have an important role. The concept of unitary authorities is in no sense meant to detract from the good work that the parishes do.
    Mr. Cran: My hon. Friend will understand the enthusiasm of my constituents for a return to a single-tier, all-purpose local authority based on the borough of Beverley. To do so, we have to get rid of Humberside county council. Will my hon. Friend clarify the statement that he made yesterday and tell the House whether Humberside will be the first local authority to be considered by the new local government commission, or whether it will be among the first? If it is the latter, what does that mean?
    Mr. Portillo: It means precisely that Humberside will be in the first batch of authorities that we will recommend for consideration by the local government commission. To clarify that a little more, it means that the local government commission will have a regional structure. It will be able to consider more than one place at a time and I believe that Humberside should be one of the areas in the first batch. It will be one of the first places to be considered. I hope that that makes the position clear to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Gould: Why have the Minister and the Secretary of State in their Local Government Bill passed up the chance of proceeding on the basis of consensus? The Opposition would support a local government commission and we support the idea of flexibility to meet local needs. Why, therefore, are the Government insisting on a process that is apparently piecemeal, long-drawn-out and manifestly open to political gerrymandering? Are they serious about putting local government through the further chaos of creeping restructuring, which can only add to the confusion already felt by so many in local government about who does what? Have not they already done enough damage to local government without this further turn of the screw?
    Mr. Portillo: As usual, the confusion is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. Our consultation document, which the hon. Gentleman welcomed when it was issued, was perfectly clear and the Bill that we have published is in line with it. I am unaware of any response from the hon. Gentleman, because he does not wish to consult the

    439
    Government. His remarks are wholly inconsistent not only with what he said before but with what his colleagues in another place are saying.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that, after their constructive meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), my constituents are optimistic that they will have Rutland back as a unitary authority under the re-elected Conservative Government?
    Mr. Portillo: After meetings with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary most people are pleased, because of his renowned courtesy. It was important that we set out that the guiding principle of the local government commission should be to establish the proper services to be provided to local people, in line with their sense of local community—the sort of community with which they wish to identify. That is a welcome concept and I believe that, despite what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, it will be greeted warmly throughout the House.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to come into effect.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Our consultation paper, "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services", which was published yesterday, proposes that compulsory competitive tendering should be extended to a range of local authority services, and should come into effect at different dates from late-1992 onwards.
    Ms. Primarolo: Is the Minister aware that, for hundreds of thousands of women who work in local authorities, compulsory competitive tendering has meant that their pay has been cut, their hours lengthened and their terms and conditions considerably weakened? Given the Prime Minister's commitment to the cause of women's equality, will the Minister give an undertaking that compulsory competitive tendering will be cancelled as a gesture towards improving women's pay and conditions of work?
    Mr. Key: Compulsory competitive tendering is non-discriminatory and I have no intention of going down that path. I reassure the hon. Lady that the value for money that is emerging has nothing to do with sex.
    Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), his independent review of the operation of CCT included statements from the chief executive of a Labour authority that compulsory competitive tendering had created a much more efficient and slimmer organisation and had highlighted inefficiencies that it had not previously seen? Is not the real answer that on this issue, as on so many others, the Labour party is in thrall to the public sector trade unions?
    Mr. Key: Yes, I could not have put it better myself.
    Mr. O'Brien: The report published by the Department of the Environment, to which the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) referred, giving the findings of the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham university on the first year of competitive tendering in local government only adds to the confusion that the
    440
    Government have created about the role of local government in providing services to poll tax payers. There is no reference in the report to the quality of services to be provided under the competitive tendering procedure. Is not it time that the Government stopped messing about with the provision of local government services and delayed any further introduction of compulsory competitive tendering until the procedures and the quality of services have been resolved?
    Mr. Key: No. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman insists on looking backwards whenever we have questions in the House. The report has informed the Government's policies and if he would be so kind as to read the consultation paper, which we issued only yesterday, he would find that a quality threshold is specifically included in the extension of CCT to services such as architecture.
    Mr. Summerson: While my hon. Friend is doing his best to persuade Labour councils of the virtues of competitive tendering will he point out to them that the provision of services to community charge payers is for the benefit of the entire local community and that it is not merely to provide a multiplicity of overblown, unproductive jobs in town halls?
    Mr. Key: Yes, that is entirely the point. One of the advantages that Ministers gain in visiting a large number of local authorities of all shades of political opinion across the country is to learn of the unanimity of opinion that compulsory competitive tendering is good for the charge payers and for the recipients of services and that it is also good for the career structures of many of the jobs that go with it. It would be retrograde to go back on that.

    Local Government Finance
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit Halifax to discuss local government funding.
    Mr. Portillo: I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such plans, but I am sure that Ministers will wish to visit Halifax in force over the coming months.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Labour-controlled Calderdale council, which was named recently in a report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy as the second most efficient metropolitan council? Does not he think that that is a remarkable achievement as its standard spending assessment has, for some reason, been set lower than the metropolitan or national average? Does the Minister think that that is a good way to repay an efficient council which, if the same criteria are used this year for the SSA, will face £7 million of cuts? Is it not time that he abolished poll tax capping and allowed councils to get on with the job?
    Mr. Portillo: I always find it puzzling, when the Government increase the standard spending assessments markedly year by year, to hear that that leads to cuts by local authorities. Calderdale's SSA increased by 18 per cent. last year. We do not yet have the figures for next year, but we know that the average increase in total standard spending will be 7·2 per cent. As the Government have increased the money ahead of inflation, I find such talk of cuts rather tiresome.
    Mr. Batiste: When my hon. Friend takes the opportunity to visit Halifax to discuss local government funding, will he consider the future of the joint committees in West Yorkshire which were established following the abolition of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council? Will he consider especially the police authority and the growing concern in West Yorkshire that there must be better ways to fund that important service?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend raises important matters. However, he will know that in the Local Government Finance Bill which we published yesterday we have bitten off a considerable amount of possible change with the establishment of the local government commission. I think that the matters that we have laid—or intend to lay—before the commission are already sufficient and I think that some of my hon. Friend's concerns may have to wait for another day.

    Northumberland County Council
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the future of Northumberland council council.
    Mr. Heseltine: Six principal local authorities and one other organisation from Northumberland responded to the consultation paper "The Structure of Local Government in England". Of these, four commented on the structure of local government in Northumberland, including the role of Northumberland county council. The other three responses were general comments on our proposals.
    Mr. Amos: As all colleges and most schools will soon be free from local authority control, as more services will be put out to contract and as organisations such as Newcastle airport will be put into the private sector, where they properly belong, does my right hon. Friend agree—and I am sure that he will, because he is a reasonable man—that Northumberland needs a unitary authority, especially as Labour-controlled Northumberland county council constantly says that it does not have enough money to decorate schools but recently managed to find one third of a million pounds to give its senior officers a double figure salary increase and company cars?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend will put those points with his customary eloquence to the local government commission that we are about to set up and that he will welcome the fact that we have set it up so that he is able to do so.
    Mr. Bellotti rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Northumberland is a long way from Eastbourne, but let us see what the hon. Gentleman can do.
    Mr. Bellotti: Will the Secretary of State assure us that new structures for local government in East Sussex and in Polegate and Willingdon in particular, will not be imposed on local communities against their wishes. Also, if local communities do not like the results of the local government commission, will he consider local referendums? If not, what will he propose?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the objectives of our local government commission is to
    442
    consult local communities deeply and widely. It is designed to attract a structure of local government which is based on local loyalties and which reflects community interests. It is important that the House should have a chance to consider those matters, and the legislation that will come to us from another place will provide precisely that opportunity.

    Housing Associations
    Mr. Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have now transferred their housing stock to housing associations; and what steps he is taking to encourage such transfers.
    Mr. Yeo: During the past two years, 16 local authorities have transferred their stock of more than 76,000 properties to housing associations, with the approval of their tenants. Two more proposed tranfers, at Bromley and at Tunbridge Wells, have been supported by tenant ballots and many more local authorities are known to be considering this option.
    Mr. Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency the borough of Swale has transferred its whole housing stock to the Swale housing association, involving £55 million of assets? With all-party co-operation, the transfer is working extremely well and there is a high degree of tenant involvement. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look forward to the time, very soon, when all local authorities arrange such transfers and generally move out of direct housing management?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the enormous benefits that accrue from such large-scale voluntary transfers. There are benefits to the tenants in the form of improved stock condition, better repair services and guarantees on rents. The research that we have carried out on the early transfers shows that tenants feel that their landlords are taking a closer interest in them. If only the Labour party was not so slavish in its attachment to the out-of-date idea of councils as monopoly landlords, tenants in Labour-controlled local authorities might also be able to enjoy those benefits.
    Mr. Steinberg: Does the Minister agree that the transfer of council houses to housing associations will not solve the housing crisis? My district council, Durham City, has sold 3,000 houses under the right-to-buy scheme and we have 4,000 people on the waiting list. When will the Government lose their dogmatic policy and allow councils to build new houses so that people from those lists can be housed? So many people want rented accommodation provided by local authorities.
    Mr. Yeo: It is clear that it is the Labour party which has dogmatic policies, as it sees the local authority as the only answer to housing provision and it refuses to learn the lesson of Southwark, of Lambeth and of Hackney, where tenants are suffering from exactly that policy. The whole purpose of getting local authorities to sell houses is not only to allow the tenants the chance to enjoy the security of owner-occupation, but to be able to reuse the capital receipts in areas in which they are most needed. We redirect the borrowing power to those areas in which the housing need is greatest. The Labour party's proposals would not produce any more cash, because, as fast as the Front-Bench spokesmen go round the country whispering

    443
    to any pressure group that is willing to listen that Labour will spend a bit more cash, their colleague, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), rushes down to the City to say that that is exactly what Labour will not do.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my hon. Friend confirm that of the £162 million available to councils as a proportion of the receipts from the sale of houses to housing associations, less than half has been reapplied to housing? Would not it be a good thing for more of that money to be directed towards housing, especially towards the upgrading of existing housing stock, which would give a much-needed boost to the building industry?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to say that £75 million out of the available £160 million received from the large-scale voluntary transfers has been directed towards housing. It is entirely for the local authorities to decide how they will use the capital receipts. I should be reluctant to take even greater centralising powers to direct or force them to spend the money on housing stock. However, I have no doubt that in the areas in which housing need is considerable, my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends will talk to local authorities and try to influence the way in which they spend the money, in accordance with local need.

    Bolsover Coalite
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will ensure that an environmental study is carried out in the area around Bolsover Coalite; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Baldry: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has investigated emissions from the chemical incinerator at the Coalite works. Extensive studies are continuing. HMIP's investigations have shown that dioxins are present in the stack gases from the Coalite incinerator. Concentrations measured in the current emissions would probably account for only a part of the dioxins that have been found in the milk on the affected farms. The company is not in breach of the law in the manner in which it has operated the incinerator. The company is undertaking an urgent review of the incinerator design and will incorporate substantial modifications so as to meet the latest stringent standards. The modified incinerator will be capable of operation with minimal emissions of dioxins. The management has agreed that in order to commence the programme of engineering work, the incinerator will be shut down at the end of November. I shall write to the hon. Member once decisions on further work have been taken.
    Mr. Skinner: Now that the Minister has half admitted that there is a direct correlation between Bolsover Coalite, dioxin and the contaminated milk, does he accept that it has taken six months' probing to get someone at the Dispatch Box to contribute even that little bit to the argument? Will he now consult the Secretary of State, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and all the other relevant Departments to ensure that there is a proper environmental assessment and a public inquiry into the link between Coalite and the dioxin-contaminated milk? If there is to be any more waffle about the citizens charter, it is high time that the Government did something about this issue in Bolsover.
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to seek to draw those inferences from the information that I have given. His comments are also less than fair; extensive studies, including environmental studies, have been carried out. Those involve the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has been carrying out work at the affected farms, the National Rivers Authority, which has measured dioxin levels in fresh-water sediments from the area, and HMIP, which has investigated the emissions from the chemical incinerator at the Coalite works. Many agencies have sought to obtain as much information as possible, but it will be some time before the full results of the investigations at the farms are available. However, results will be published in the normal way, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will be made public.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has acquired on the impact of the extension of compulsory competitive tendering on the quality of local authority services.
    Mr. Heseltine: We have published our proposals for extending compulsory competitive tendering to professional and other services in our consultation paper, "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services". Our consideration of policy has been informed by research into the effects of the Local Government Act 1988 carried out by the Institute of Local Government Studies, and by a study of relevant local authority experience carried out by PA Consulting Group.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is evidence of deterioration in the quality of services? Will he confirm that some schools have had to close because of a lack of cleanliness, and that some contractors who bid low in order to defeat local authority tenders have had to pull out half way through the contract and let the local authority pick up the mess?
    Mr. Heseltine: Obviously, we are concerned to ensure that any infringements of safety standards or standards of health affected in such matters are carefully considered. If the hon. Gentleman would give me specific examples, of course I should treat them seriously.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House truthfully whether, if his house needed painting, he would rather have the local council direct labour force or a private contractor paint it? We all know the answer. Why should the Opposition wish to inflict second best on their council tenants?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am a Tory; how could I tell I lie? If I wanted to have my house painted—every so often, like everybody else, I do—I should get competitive prices. I know that in doing so I should get the work well done and at the lowest possible price. If Labour authorities would understand that, we should get better value for money out of local government.

    Poll Tax
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received for funds for local authorities to allay costs associated with the poll tax.
    Mr. Portillo: We have received a number of representations from local authorities.
    Mr. Cohen: Has the Minister looked up the statement made by the Secretary of State on 21 March? According to column 403 of the Hansard report, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would pay grants to local authorities which had lost income in collecting the poll tax, and would
    "cover authorities' additional administrative expenses".
    In the case of my local authority, that would amount to about £14 million—it has cost other local authorities millions of pounds, too. When I wrote to his ministerial colleague I was told that the Minister did not even know that such funds were available. Will the Government now pay up to the local authorities?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman misquotes from the column in question. What my right hon. Friend said was that we would
    "pay grant for the administrative expenses arising as a consequence of the Bill"—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 403.]
    He was talking about the Bill that brought about the £140 reduction in the community charge. We are paying grant both in respect of the income forgone because of the £140 reduction and in respect of administrative expenses incurred by authorities that had already sent out bills—authorities that had to send bills out twice. We are paying Waltham Forest money under the first heading. We have not yet had a claim for it in respect of its administrative expenses, but if it cares to send one in, we shall consider it.
    Mr. Ron Brown: The Government wrote off debts in excess of £15 billion when the public utilities were privatised. Is not it a bit odd, therefore, that, according to them, an amnesty cannot be granted to those who clearly cannot afford to pay this tax, which benefits the rich at the expense of the poor? If the Prime Minister can go to the third world—and the Minister must always remember that we have a third world in this country—and talk about writing off its overall debts, which I applaud, surely the debts of those in this country who are suffering unnecessarily because of a tax imposed upon them against their will can also be written off.
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman should have declared an interest in calling for an amnesty, as I believe that he is one of those who refuse to pay community charge. I welcome this opportunity to say that there will be no amnesty for those who have not paid their community charge—even though some of them have been so badly misled by those whom they elected to the House.
    Mr. Gould: Is not it clear that the greatest burden on local councils in respect of the poll tax is the 20 per cent. contribution rule—a point made forcefully, as the Minister will know, by the Audit Commission and by virtually the whole of local government? The Government have recognised that that rule was a mistake, as they have demonstrated by doing away with it for the council tax. Why will they not act on the same principle for the poll tax? Why do they insist that, by virtue of that rule, local authorities spend money that they have no hope of recouping and issue more than 7·5 million summonses in what is rapidly becoming the biggest debt collection exercise in the history of the world?
    Mr. Portillo: When we introduce a new system of taxation—which we hope to do with the co-operation of the Labour party, although we are not sure about that—we shall introduce a new system of rebates, but as long as we have the community charge, and as long as social security benefits are uprated by sums appreciably above the average amount of the 20 per cent. that people have to pay, it is right that those people should pay and that local authorities should take enforcement action. The hon. Gentleman would have done better in his question to condemn his colleagues who have been urging nonpayment and to make it clear where the Labour party stands on that issue.

    Repossessed Homes
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the standard community charge for repossessed homes in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: We received a number of representations following the introduction of the community charge and, as a result, we created an additional statutory class of property so that no standard charge could be levied on a repossessed home. This took effect from last April.
    Mr. Burns: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on making what was obviously the correct decision. But may I draw to his attention the problems facing those whose houses were unfortunately repossessed in the financial year prior to April 1991, many of whom now face community charge bills amounting to twice the personal community charge? As local authorities cannot now change that, will my hon. Friend's Department examine the problem and help people who would have been exempt had their houses been repossessed this year rather than last and who would thus not have faced a financial burden on top of the misery of repossession?
    Mr. Key: We have looked at the matter carefully, and I am sorry to say that I cannot give my hon. Friend much hope, although I pay tribute to him for the assiduous way in which he has looked after his constituents' interests. We have had copious correspondence about Mr. and Mrs. Pegrum in his constituency. We have now changed the arrangements. Of course, until last year, Chelmsford was a Liberal-controlled authority. I am glad that the Liberals are no longer in control. We trusted local authorities to be serious and sensible, but they were not. That must have been one of the things that caused the electors in my hon. Friend's constituency to chuck them out.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that there could be 100,000 repossessions of houses this year? Is he aware of the suffering and misery that that means for many people, which, in many respects, is caused by the Government's economic policies? What monitoring is the Department of the Environment carrying out in respect of repossessions? What additional resources are being made available to local authorities which have to rehouse people whose houses have been repossessed by the building societies? What discussions are taking place between Government Departments, the banks and building societies to see what can be done to alleviate the suffering?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has had detailed discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and recently announced his new initiative with the council with regard to repossessed properties being passed to housing associations for temporary letting to homeless families nominated by the local authorities. That brings empty properties back into use and provides homes for families. It also restores confidence in the market. Incidentally, it also means that the balance of rental income after the administrative costs to the housing association goes back to the lender and that helps to keep the defaulter's debt down as well.

    Council Tax
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the computer industry concerning the implementation of the proposed new council tax.
    Mr. Key: The Department has had preliminary discussions with major suppliers and has commissioned a study of the feasibility and desirability of a national software specification. Now that the Local Government Finance Bill has been published, we will be discussing the computing aspects in detail with all interested parties.
    Mr. McAllion: As the computer industry, council finance officers and many other non-partisan critics are sending the same messages to the Minister and to the Government that the new tax is ill-prepared, the timetable for its introduction is too tight, it will require a poll tax-type register and will be even more risky and difficult to introduce than the poll tax, why do not the Government for once follow a sensible course and scrap the poll tax, abandon their proposals for the new tax and leave it to the next Parliament and a Labour Government to introduce a fairer rates system?
    Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is not only scaremongering, he is wrong. Sadly, not all those involved are unanimous in their approach. Some organisations, including the local authority associations, do not want a national specification and that does not make it easy. However, I can offer some reassurance to the House, because we hope that we will have some of the regulations in draft by Christmas. We will discuss the regulations and the Bill with the local authority associations tomorrow.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it his intention to continue to take firm measures next year to protect local taxpayers from overspending by local authorities.
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. We intend shortly to announce for 1992–93 provisional capping criteria which will be in a similar format to the criteria adopted for 1991–92.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, is he aware that when a finance system is changed, it results not simply in the headline-grabbing activities of a few local authorities, but in excessive spending by many local authorities? Therefore, if he wants to ensure that the people of this country receive value for
    448
    money for their local authority contributions, those controls should apply throughout the country and not just to the extremes.
    Mr. Portillo: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. When the community charge was introduced, many local authorities took the opportunity in the upheaval to increase their spending. I am determined that, when we change the system again, no such opportunity will be provided.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Minister end the rhetoric about local government and begin to address the real problems in our towns and cities which, since the Government came to power, have experienced a reduction in spending to a point at which they are now compelled to sell off the heritage of the people of those cities and towns? When will the Government realise that they are presiding over the downfall of our towns and cities?
    Mr. Portillo: The future of Liverpool—if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to—is now in rather better hands after some of his friends from the Labour party lost control of Liverpool city council. The prospects for Liverpool have been vastly increased by the City Challenge announced by my right hon. Friend which, I am pleased to say, Liverpool has embraced with enthusiasm.
    Mr. Butler: What protection will my hon. Friend offer to local taxpayers of councils such as Warrington and Halton which award themselves contracts far in excess of private sector tenders?
    Mr. Portillo: The measures that we announced yesterday in the Local Government Bill and in the consultation document that we issued at the same time show our determination to extend compulsory competitive tendering and to make sure that there is a more level playing field so that there will be fair play between direct service organisations and outside contractors bidding for local authority work. I hope that that is reassuring to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Blunkett: Given that the year-on-year increase in central funding for local authorities next year is only 4·7 per cent., and given that the Chancellor is going to announce nothing this afternoon for the education of children in schools or the care of the elderly, children or the disabled in social services, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State's comment on Radio 4 on 20 October that there are no cuts in local authority services and will be no cuts next year? Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State knows perfectly well that there are cuts and will be cuts and therefore is a knave, or is he simply a fool in making such a statement when people's lives are being affected day in and day out by the cuts in education and social services which the Government have inflicted on them?
    Mr. Portillo: Despite the hon. Gentleman's colourful language, the figures and the arithmetic are against him. We are increasing total spending next year by 7·2 per cent., and the grant that is being made available by central Government is also increasing by 7·2 per cent. The Government are able to increase funding by more than the rate of inflation, and that is made possible only by the economic policies being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Autumn Statement
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
Cabinet agreed the Government's expenditure plans this morning, so I am now able to inform the House of the expected public expenditure outturn for this year; the plans for the next three years; our proposals for national insurance contributions in 1992–93; and my forecast of economic prospects for the year ahead.
As usual, the main public expenditure figures, with the full text of the economic forecast, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I sit down. The printed autumn statement will be published next Wednesday.
This year's public expenditure survey has been a difficult one. There is no more challenging task in government than to choose between competing expenditure priorities, while keeping public spending as a whole under firm control. But there is also no greater test. Let me at once pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary, who has shown great skill and judgment in bringing the survey to a successful conclusion.
Firm control of public spending has been, and will remain, a key element in this Government's economic policy. From its peak in the early 1980s, we have reduced the ratio of public spending to national income by over five percentage points. This has been achieved by reducing the size of government; by a rigorous search for greater efficiency and value for money; and by prudent management of the public finances, which has led to a large saving in debt interest.
Over the past decade, this careful and responsible approach has enabled us not only to cut tax rates and reduce public borrowing but to make substantial and well-targeted spending increases in areas of priority; and it is this approach that will continue to underlie the Government's plans over the years ahead.
The prospect now is for renewed economic growth, but the recession has inevitably added to the pressures on public spending both this year and next. I expect public expenditure within the planning total to be almost £205 billion in the current fiscal year, slightly below the revised level I set in the Budget. An increase in programme spending, largely the result of weaker activity, will be offset by additional privatisation proceeds.
After four successive years of debt repayment, I made it clear in the Budget that we would see a return to public sector borrowing this year. I now expect a PSBR in 1991–92 of £10·5 billion, about 1·75 per cent. of GDP. Our fiscal position compares well with other Community countries. It remains the Government's policy to balance the budget over the economic cycle.
Last year, we made provision for substantial increases in expenditure over the next few years. So our objective in this year's survey has emphatically not been to make significant across-the board additions to existing plans.
But I have judged it right to allow expenditure to rise to meet the unavoidable consequences of weaker economic activity. Our priority has been to meet in full our commitments to the most vulnerable members of society; to maintain the expenditure programmes which contribute most to the long-term strength of the economy; and to improve the quality of public services.
450
For next year, the planning total has been set at £226·6 billion, some £5·5 billion above the figure published in the Financial Statement and Budget Reports. The planning totals in the two following years have been set at £244·5 billion and £258 billion respectively.
The planning total for 1992–93 assumes privatisation proceeds of £8 billion, the same level as we now expect in the current year. For the two following years, the level assumed is £5·5 billion, the same as in the last year's plans.
The new plans also include reserves of £4 billion, £8 billion and £12 billion respectively. These are higher than the corresponding figures in last year's plans, but by no more than I judge prudent and realistic. I am determined to contain pressures next year within the reserve.
Let me turn now to the individual spending programmes. First, health. Once again, we have provided for substantial improvements to patient care. Planned national health service spending in the United Kingdom in 1992–93 has been increased by £1·5 billion. Additional capital expenditure will enable the health service to make faster progress in upgrading buildings and equipment. Total national health service spending in England will rise by 4·2 per cent. in real terms between this year and next, and spending on hospital and community health services will rise by a full 5 per cent.
These latest increases will bring the total real increase in national health service spending since 1978–79 to well over 50 per cent. In England alone, this has funded an increase of 1·5 million acute in-patient and day cases a year, with 16,000 more doctors and dentists, 51,000 more nurses and 500 major capital schemes completed. At a time when tough decisions have been necessary across a range of public service programmes, we could not have made our commitment to the national health service more clear—[Interruption.]—We will not take any lectures from the Labour party, the party which in 1977–78, cut national health service spending by 3 per cent. and which cut capital spending by no less than 22 per cent.
The investment programmes of British Rail and London Transport amount to more than £2½ billion next year and will contribute substantially to the efficiency and competitiveness of the economy. But their income from passengers and asset sales has been adversely affected by weak trading conditions. We have therefore provided for increases in finance of over £1·4 billion in 1992–93 to support that investment. Public transport has rightly taken priority within the transport programme, and provision for expenditure on roads has been held to its planned level.
Social security represents over a quarter of all public spending. We have added £4·25 billion to plans in 1992–93. This reflects both higher unemployment and increased take-up of other benefits. In addition to full indexation of benefits, the new plans allow for higher rates of income-related benefits for disabled pensioners and those over 80, the Budget increase in child benefit, and the two new benefits for disabled people which come into operation next April.
The July local authority grant settlement made provision for an extra £1·4 billion of central Government funding next year to maintain the new balance between local and central funding of local services that I announced in the Budget. The Government are determined that this generous level of support should not be used to fund massive extra spending at the expense of local taxpayers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the

451
Environment has made it clear that he will be prepared if necessary to make full use of his recently extended powers to cap local authority budgets.
Approaching half of local authorities' revenue spending is on education, so the settlement should allow for a substantial increase in current spending on schools. Provision for capital work on all maintained schools next year will increase in real terms by 10 per cent. Taken together with lower construction costs, this will allow for a significant increase in school building work.
Public funding for universities and polytechnics will rise by 4·6 per cent. in real terms next year. This will help to finance a further increase in student numbers, enabling one in four of our young people to enter higher education next year compared with one in eight in 1979. By the end of the decade it should be one in three—a remarkable achievement. The proportion of students completing their courses in Britain is one of the highest in the industrialised world—a testimony to the quality of our higher education institutions.
The science budget, which pays for basic and strategic science carried out by the research councils, will rise by around 3 per cent. in real terms between this year and next. By 1994–95 it will be more than 7 per cent. higher than it is now.
We have made additions to nearly £500 million to employment spending in Great Britain next year. Overall, publicly funded expenditure on training, enterprise and vocational education will be two and a half times as high in real terms as in 1978–79.
The plans for defence include an increase of £830 million in 1992–93. They provide for the continuing costs of the Gulf conflict—in particular, the replacement of ammunition and equipment. They also meet the transitional costs—redundancy payments and works—needed to implement the new force structure and to secure the longer-term savings.
Full details of the new plans for other programmes are being made available separately.
We recognise that we cannot expect the private sector to control its costs if the Government do not do the same, so the plans we have made assume further improvements in efficiency and firm downward pressures on pay and other costs across the public sector. That underlies the tight settlements that we have made both on programmes and on running costs.
Reflecting the economic cycle, I expect public spending as a proportion of gross domestic product to rise slightly in 1992–93, before resuming its downward trend. Even at its peak, the ratio of public expenditure to national income will be significantly lower than the levels that had to be financed following earlier recessions. That is good news for taxpayers, both present and future, and good news for the economy. It is a testimony to the Government's prudent and disciplined approach to the public finances over the past 12 years.
I come now to national insurance contributions. As usual, the review this year has taken account of advice from the Government Actuary on the income and expenditure of the national insurance fund, and of the decisions on benefit rates set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in his statement to the House on 21 October.
The lower earnings limit at which national insurance contributions begin will rise by £2 a week to £54 in April,
452
while the upper earnings limit for employees' contributions will go up by £15 a week to £405. The contribution rates for both employers and employees will remain the same, and the profits-related contribution rate for the self-employed will also be unchanged.
My economic forecast for 1992 was published today. Developments since the Budget have broadly confirmed the forecast that I made in March.
Over the past year, we have made dramatic progress on inflation. Retail prices index inflation has been more than halved, from almost 11 per cent. a year ago to about 4 per cent. in September. Measureas of underlying inflation have fallen too, though less sharply. RPI inflation, excluding mortgage interest payments, is down fromn 9·5 to 5·75 per cent. Producer price inflation, excluding food, drink and tobacco, is down from 6·5 per cent. to 4·75 per cent.
Also encouraging is the evidence of much greater realism in wage settlements. Average earnings growth has fallen from a peak of more than 10 per cent. to 7·75 per cent. in August; and those figures almost certainly understate the speed of the turnaround. According to the CBI, settlements in manufacturing industry averaged 5·5 per cent. in the third quarter, the lowest figure since the summer of 1987. Unit labour costs in manufacturing have actually fallen over the past three months. All that augurs well for the future, and suggests that the British labour market has benefited substantially both from our trade union and our supply side reforms.
As special factors drop out of the calculation of the RPI, inflation as measured by the RPI may rise slightly early next year, but it is forecast to fall back to 4 per cent. in the fourth quarter. Underlying inflation will continue to fall. Producer price inflation, excluding food, drink and tobacco, is expected to be 3·5 per cent. at the end of 1992, the lowest figure since the 1960s. The increase in the gross domestic product deflator, the widest measure of inflation in the economy, is also expected to fall next year.
I have never wavered from the view that the defeat of inflation is a necessary condition for economic success. The best performing economies are low inflation economies. Our objective is to match those economies, or better them. Our achievements on inflation are essential steps along the way.
To achieve that objective, we have followed a prudent and cautious monetary policy whose credibility has been underscored by our firm commitment to the ERM. The success that we have achieved on inflation has allowed us to cut interest rates without jeopardising sterling's position in the ERM. Interest rates have fallen 4·5 per cent. since last October, and are now below the average of the past 12 years. Our interest rate differential with Germany is at its lowest for 10 years.
As inflation and interest rates have fallen, it has become increasingly clear that we are emerging from recession. Consumer spending fell in the year to the second quarter of this year, but has been rising slowly in recent months. Service sector output seems to have stabilised in the second quarter, and manufacturing output may also now be picking up, though again slowly.
The monthly rate of increase in unemployment peaked in March and is likely to moderate further in the next few months as recovery gets under way. Consumer confidence has increased throughout this year as mortgage rates and inflation have come down, and it is likely to go on rising

453
as the fear of unemployment begins to abate. I expect to see personal consumption rise by 2·5 per cent. in 1992, providing impetus to the recovery.
As I forecast in the Budget, output is likely to fall by about 2 per cent. this year. However, that fall is now behind us; the economy may have already started to pick up. I expect GDP to rise 0·75 per cent. in this half year.
With consumer spending expected to go on rising, an end to the business investment recession in sight, and the rundown in stocks likely to slow, I expect GDP to rise by 2·25 per cent. next year. Growth will gather pace through the year. The increase in output from the second half of this year to the second half of next is expected to be 2·75 per cent.
The performance of our exporters this year has been remarkable. Our exports of manufactures have shown renewed vigour, up 5 per cent. in volume terms over the past year. Our volume share of world trade in manufactures looks as though it may rise again in 1991, for the third year running.
The current account deficit in the first nine months of this year was less than £5 billion. For the year as a whole, we are on track for a deficit of about £6·5 billion, or 1 per cent. of GDP, half the size of the deficit in 1990 and closely in line with my Budget forecast.
Some rise in the current account deficit is to be expected at this stage of the cycle, but I expect the rise to be moderated by a continued good performance on exports. The current account deficit is forecast to be £9·5 billion, or 1·5 per cent. of GDP, in 1992. With prudent financial policies in place, I foresee no difficulty in financing it.
Turning to companies, business investment has fallen over the past year. That is never welcome, but it must be set in the context of the boom in the late 1980s. Investment rose by 45 per cent. in the three years to 1989 and was at a record level in the first half of 1990. Even now, after the fall over the last year, business investment is nearly 40 per cent. higher than in the first half of 1979; and the share of the country's resources going into investment remains higher than at any point in the 1970s.
Investment usually lags the cycle in total activity, but it is likely to rise from about the middle of next year as profitability recovers, company finances improve, and the general pick-up in activity gathers pace.
The last few months have seen a surge in business optimism in nearly every sector, nearly every region, in businesses large and small. [Interruption.] The October CBI survey was just the latest—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important matter.
Mr. Lamont: —but the most authoritative—of a whole succession of recent surveys to confirm this. Business confidence is at its highest level for three years. Output expectations are up, investment expectations have improved, export optimism is rising. This gives powerful support to our view of the recovery.
The spending plans that I have announced not only honour our commitments in full; they also provide substantial additional resources for health, public transport, and education. Once again we have demonstrated that there is no inconsistency between prudent fiscal and monetary policies and high-quality, well funded public services.
454
Those are the policies that have allowed us to reduce inflation and to cut interest rates. They are the policies that have enabled us to increase spending on the health service, more than by half since 1978–79, to help the most vulnerable, and to invest in the young people who are Britain's future. They are the policies which are leading Britain to a sustained, non-inflationary recovery, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. John Smith: The autumn statement, as always, reviews the prospects for the economy for the year ahead as well as revealing public expenditure proposals. The House will recall that just 12 months ago the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave an upbeat and optimistic forecast of the economy for 1991. He told us:
"the British economy is coming back on track".—[Official Report, 8 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 125.]
The word "recession" did not cross his lips. I remind the House of what the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said about economic growth. He said that it would resume early in 1991 and that the economy
"is expected to grow by over 2 per cent. in 1991".—[Official Report, 8 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 121.]
In fact, the right hon. Gentleman's successor told us today, rather diffidently, that growth for 1991 is minus 2 per cent.
According to the Prime Minister a year ago, fixed investment would experience what he called a modest downturn of 1·75 per cent. Today's statement shows that it has plummeted by 10·75 per cent. In last year's statement, unemployment was assumed to be 1·75 million in 1991. Today, we know from the Government's own figures that it is 2·46 million.
Far from "coming back on track", we have experienced a deep and damaging recession. Let us look at the cost in human terms. There have been 45,000 business failures—a record level of 860 every week; 85,000 house repossessions—a record level of 635 per week; and unemployment has risen by 750,000. That is the price that the Chancellor thinks is worth paying by the people of this country.
Today, the Chancellor provided the evidence that condemns the Prime Minister's economic forecast as no more and no less than a gigantic confidence trick. The House and the nation would be well advised to treat with scepticism any economic forecast that the Government produce, let alone one that covers a period that must include a general election.
Given the Government's past performance, it is no surprise that once again they are promising good times just around the corner, but in the detail of the Government's own predictions, and in the forecasts of independent commentators and institutions, there is revealed disturbing evidence of the real state of our economy.
According to the International Monetary Fund's most recent survey, the United Kingdom will be the only country among the G7 nations in which investment will fall during 1992. Both the Confederation of British Industry and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research predict an even deeper fall in manufacturing investment of between 8 per cent. and 9 per cent.—that is, a further fall on top of the precipitous decline this year.
Earlier this week the average of independent forecasts conveniently compiled by the Treasury revealed that in 1992 employment growth will fall by 1·2 per cent. and unemployment will rise to 2·8 million. I ask the Chancellor

455
how we can he expected to believe his forecasts of successful and sustained recovery if in the year ahead investment continues to fall and unemployment continues to rise.
Why is it that next year the United Kingdom will be the bottom of the G7 league table for investment and employment growth? When the Chancellor's own forecast shows a £3·5 billion widening in the balance of payments deficit, is it not clear that our economy continues to suffer from a serious imbalance, which can only be corrected by investment in manufacturing industry, new technology, and training?
In that context, why is it that the autumn statement confirms continuing cuts in the Department of Trade and Industry's budget, which after the statement will be only half the size it was three years ago? When training is properly regarded as crucial to our prospects for recovery, why is it designated a non-priority area? Is it not the case that there will be no increase in real terms in the budget for youth training and employment training? Is it not the case also that the increase in the Department of Employment's budget is almot entirely to deal with the cost of extra unemployment and not with any real addition to training?
The Government claim to have increased spending on education by 8 per cent. in cash terms. Will the Chancellor confirm that the increase in real terms is half that amount—4 per cent., or about £290 million? Can it seriously be argued that education is a Government priority when the latest available figures for all education spending show that the proportion of gross domestic product committed to education has fallen from 5·5 per cent. to 4·6 per cent.?
We welcome any additional expenditure on health; it is much needed. The Chancellor claims a cash increase of £2·7 billion; but, if we apply the GDP deflator, is it not clear that the real increase is £1·2 billion?
Does not the Chancellor appreciate the scepticism that is aroused by public spending increases in a pre-election period, given the Conservative party's recent history in this regard? Before both the 1983 and the 1987 general elections, the Government made expansive announcements about public expenditure increases; yet, as we know—and as is clear from our national accounts—the following years were years of cutback and recession.
An example of that technique is contained in the public transport proposals. I note from the detail of the Government's figures that the external financing of British Rail is forecast to increae by £500 million in the next year 1991–92.
Mr. Julian Brazier: We are not borrowing it from the IMF.
Mr. Smith: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman who interrupts me that the Government are forecasting a £500 million increase in 1991–92. The forward plans, however, show that external financing will be cut by £1 billion in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. Is not that abundant evidence of yet another confidence trick in the making?
The public must be aware that, at the same time as giving the impression that they are committed to increasing public expenditure, the Government are making promises to cut the standard rate of income tax, not merely to 20p in the pound, but below that. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do that on every possible occasion.
456
The Government's record on economic growth is pathetic: and average of 1·75 per cent. annual growth from 1979 to 1991. [Interruption.] Let me repeat those figures, in case Tory Members did not hear them because of the hubbub that they were creating. Average annual economic growth between 1979 and 1991—as is revealed by the Government's own answers—was 1·75 per cent. The Government cannot, therefore, reconcile their commitment to increase public expenditure with a simultaneous commitment to make dramatic reductions in income tax—unless, of course, they plan large increases in value added tax.
In both their economic forecasting and their public spending proposals, the Government are engaged in a process of deception, which, as they will soon discover at the election, will not fool the British public.
Mr. Lamont: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) implied that the plans that I announced were optimistic. He quoted selectively from what the IMF was saying, and from its projections for economic growth in this country. What he did not tell the House was that the IMF is predicting that Britain's economy will grow as quickly as the G7 average, and will actually grow faster than Germany's economy in the second half of next year. That has been predicated, not by the Government, but by the International Monetary Fund.
What the right hon. and learned Gentleman ignored was the fact that our forecasts are in line with those of independent organisations such as the IMF, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the London Business School. Those institutions have confirmed that our forecasts are realistic, and cautious as well.
This time last year, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not believe that we would get inflation down to 4 per cent.; but we did. He does not acknowledge what he was saying a year ago.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked again about investment. As I explained to him in my statement, investment is already at a high level. It has fallen during the recession, but we experienced three years of sharp increases in investment. The ratio of investment to gross domestic product is higher today than it was under any Labour Government, including the last Labour Government.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the Department of Trade and Industry's budget. There are cuts in that budget, and rightly so. What matters to industry is the environment—the conditions for and the profitability of industry—not the DTI spending money. The Government's innovation programme will at the same time be maintained and over the survey period will increase.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the Department of Employment's budget. That will be increased by £480 million, including £178 million for Employment Action. As a result of the package that I have announced today, nearly I million people will be helped by the Department of Employment's programme next year. That is the increase we are making, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have welcomed it.
The right hon.and learned Gentleman implied—as did his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the shadow Chief Secretary, on radio—that in

457
the past we have announced expenditure plans that sometimes were not implemented. If he is more worried about that than the control of public expenditure, which I am much more worried about, that must mean that he thinks that recovery in activity is going to be stronger. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand the point. Public spending would be reduced if expenditure on social security and losses in some of the nationalised industries were lower as a result of a recovery.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that the rate of growth will not be achieved. He points to what he thinks is the Government's poor record compared with that of the Labour Government. He ought to look at his figures more closely. Between 1974 and 1979, non-oil GDP grew by 1·2 per cent. under the Labour Government. Between 1979 and 1991, non-oil GDP grew by 1·7 per cent. under this Government. We are not making the comparison at a particularly favourable moment—in the trough of a recession. There is little evidence that the policies of the right hon. and learned Gentleman will achieve any growth. His most revealing comment was that he welcomed any increase in public spending at all. He can tell us that again. He is committed to an increase of £35 billion a year on top of the plans that we have already announced, which are realistic.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we have a debate tomorrow on this subject and that there will be a public expenditure debate later. Therefore, I ask for brief questions, please, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer recall that, in its report on the Budget, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee stressed that it was important that the so-called automatic stabilisers should be allowed to operate fully and that there was a case for supplementing them with discretionary increases in public expenditure? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that what he has said this afternoon is in line with that? Is it not important, however, to stress, particularly for the benefit of the foreign exchange markets, that some increase in the public sector borrowing requirement at this stage in the cycle is entirely appropriate and in no way reflects any weakening of his determination to win the battle against inflation?
Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The increase that I have announced today to some extent reflects weaker trading conditions and the recession. That causes part of the increase in social security and part of the increase relating to the transport nationalised industries. Over half the increase in programme spending arises in three areas—social security, transport and the national health service. We are following precisely the policy that my right hon. Friend suggested. We felt it right to accept the inevitable costs at this stage in the economic cycle and not to cut back on long-term plans that will strengthen the economy.
This is a prudent and moderate settlement. Because of shouting by Opposition Members when I made my statement, I was not able to point out that the increase in
458
the ratio of total Government expenditure to gross domestic product, both central and local, is only half a percentage point next year. That will bring it to 42 per cent., which is way below the peak in previous cycles and way below the proportion of public expenditure to GDP under the last Labour Government in similar conditions.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Chancellor recognise that his optimism about 2·25 per cent. growth is not shared by all commentators and that if he is proved wrong these figures will be shot to pieces? How can he believe that the fear of unemployment will go away while unemployment has continued to rise?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the figures that he has announced for training and education will go nowhere near far enough to fill the skills gap? The figures for railways might sound encouraging, but, when looked at in detail, they fall away sharply in the subsequent two years. The most eloquent comment was when he talked about his desire, once the election is out of the way, to resume the downward trend. Having seen the decline in public services over the past decade, I hope that he never has that opportunity. Is this not a quick election fix rather than a programme of long-term investment to improve our competitiveness?
Mr. Lamont: I explained to the House why I believe that the forecast that I have made is both cautious and realistic. I explained that it is in line with forecasts being made by the IMF, the OECD and the London business school. We are expecting that the British economy next year should grow in line with the G7 average. All we are expecting at this stage is modest growth in this half year. I see no reason why we should not accelerate again up to the average of the G7 countries. It has happened before and, with falling inflation, we will achieve the growth again. We did it before, and we have the same conditions again.
The increase in growth will come from exports, which have done remarkably well by increasing their share of world trade for three successive years. We are expecting exports to rise by 6 per cent. again next year. Also, some of the growth will come from consumer demand.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the increases for transport. What I have announced today are additional to the existing base line. Last year's published plans already show substantial increases in investment. For example, investment for transport nationalised industries will double over the next three years compared with the past three years. Spending on roads will double from the period 1988–89 to 1992–93. We must look at the existing base line plans, not just those announced today. The hon. Gentleman does not seem able to make that simple distinction.
Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the moderate increases in health, transport and education will be widely welcomed throughout the country, if not in all parts of the House? Does he agree that the public sector borrowing requirement for this year and next year should be set against a background that, over the past three or four years, the Government have repaid some £27 billion of the national debt? That is what we should look at when we are talking about the public sector borrowing requirement. In 1979, the public expenditure burden on the taxpayer was some 44 per cent. of the national income. Even with the

459
moderate increases announced today, the figure is very much lower—about 41 per cent.—and is proof positive that the Government still have a firm control over public expenditure.
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is correct in intimating that, if we make international comparisons, the fiscal position of the Government, even at this stage of the cycle, compares well with that of other countries. At 42 per cent., the ratio of public spending to GDP is well below the European Community average. The public sector borrowing requirement is also below the level of Germany, which is about 5 per cent. now. Our PSBR is less than in previous recessions and at comparable points in the cycle in the past. Under the Labour Government of 1975–76, the PSBR was 9·5 per cent. of GDP—the equivalent of £55 billion today. It is now a different world, and we intend to stick to it.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I may be a little old-fashioned, but I can never rejoice in a definition of a recession that includes vastly increased unemployment. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear where the money is coming from? Will not the extra money come from more privatisation? He is selling more of the family silver year by year, but when it has gone what will he do?
Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman, whom we all respect and like, knows that the way in which we treat privatisation proceeds is in accordance with the way in which they are treated by other Governments. Of course the costs of recession are unpleasant, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) said, they have been reflected in the increased borrowing requirement. That is where the main adjustment has been made.
The right hon. Gentleman asks where the money is coming from. We continually ask Labour Members that question.
Mr. Charles Wardle: If my right hon. Friend's spending plans are to have the most beneficial effect on the economy, will not it be essential to contain all public sector pay settlements well within the target rate of inflation?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will recall that in my statement I stressed the need for the Government to look after their own running costs and pay settlements in Government Departments. His comments apply to the public sector more generally and more widely; we cannot let the burden fall on the private sector. The less the discipline in the public sector, the more it will hit the private sector. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his drawing my attention to that point.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Chancellor aware that a recent survey showed that the cost of basic foods in British supermarkets was one of the highest in Europe? Does he realise that he has done nothing today to help the millions of people who are living in poverty because of the Government's inaction in dealing with high interest rates and unemployment?
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman says that we have done nothing to deal with poverty and the more disadvantaged members of the community. He will be aware that a large part of the social security increase that
460
we announced will be spent on unemployment benefit, but perhaps he was not here when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made his announcement, which included help for older pensioners and a number of measures designed to help the weaker and most disadvantaged members of society. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
Sir Ian Stewart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on sticking with his policies of getting inflation down and keeping control of public expenditure, despite the background to the economy in the past year. Will he confirm that reducing the proportion of GDP that goes on public expenditure to its present level, which is much lower than in previous recessions, gave room for the reductions in personal taxation in the past 10 or 12 years? That is the main difference between economic management under a Conservative Government and the Labour Governments that went before.
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Our past prudence in public expenditure gives us a considerable advantage today. Because we controlled public expenditure in the past, the burden of debt interest is less, and in the longer term that enables us to devote a little more to programme expenditure. We intend, as my hon. Friend advocates, to continue to reduce public expenditure as a proportion of GDP. That policy is not incompatible with increasing and improved provision for basic state services.
Mr. Peter Shore: An increase of £21 billion in public expenditure is certainly welcome, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet told us what is to be the size in 1992–93 of the PSBR. Will he confirm that it will be above 4 per cent. of GDP'? Is he aware that if it were above 3 per cent. of GDP he would not be able even to make his statement in the House if he signed the present draft of the treaty of economic and monetary union in Maastricht which would limit not only this Chancellor but any other Chancellor to spending not more than 3 per cent. of GDP through public borrowing? What does he say about that?
Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that it is not normal in the autumn statement to make a forecast of the PSBR for the coming year. As with various other matters, an assumption is published and the assumption in the documents is for a PSBR of 3 per cent. next year. That assumption reflects the lagged fall in corporation tax receipts, which tends to continue even after recovery has begun.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to prospective rules that might emanate from Europe under provisions for a single currency—binding rules on budget deficits. No such rules have been agreed and, in any case, we intend to stick very closely to maintaining a tight fiscal position. As I explained, our fiscal position compares well with that of other countries. Our proportion of public expenditure to GDP is well below the average of other European countries.
As for the PSBR, I dread to think what the right hon. Gentleman thinks he could do to that with expenditure plans of £35 billion. Will it rise to 9 per cent. of GDP, as it did last time?
Mr. David Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the very pleasing results of his announcement today is that it is confirmation that, despite

461
the recession, the Government have managed to sustain the health, welfare, social security and education programmes throughout the recession without any significant cuts and, indeed, with significant increases in expenditure? Is that not in complete contrast with the problems of the previous Labour Government, when the only solution to the economic crisis in which they placed the country was to cut, cut and cut again from the health and welfare programmes? Is this not a major achievement by the Government?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The previous Labour Government did what the right hon. Gentleman is threatening to do again: they overspent and overborrowed, had too high inflation and were forced to do what they professed that they did not want to do. They cut back massively on state services and on capital investment in them. As a result, total spending on the national health service is now 5·7 per cent. of GDP, compared with 4·8 per cent. when the Opposition were in power. Even as a proportion of public spending in total, spending on health in 1992–93 is 15 per cent. of total public spending compared with only 12 per cent. in 1978–79.
There can be no gainsaying the fact that we have made considerable increases over the years in spending on the health service. There has been a 54 per cent. real increase since 1978–79. As I said, for hospital and community health care services there is a 5 per cent. real increase next year, which everyone who is impartial and able to consider the issue with an unbiased and fair mind would regard as a very generous and well-intentioned settlement.
Mr. William Ross: Surely the Chancellor today told us that he expected public expenditure to rise by about £53 billion over the next three financial years—an increase of more than a quarter of the current financial year's expenditure. Is he also prepared to say that he expects tax revenues to rise sufficiently to meet that increased expenditure—or does today's statement really represent a decisive shift from the doctrine of balanced budgets?
Mr. Lamont: It is an extremely important point that our intention and our policy are to balance the budget over the cycle. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. As he knows, corporation tax is paid a year in arrears and corporation tax receipts, therefore, very much lag behind the cycle. That is why we expect the public sector borrowing requirement to continue to be high next year, even though the recovery will be well under way. The plans that I have announced today and what I have said about the PSBR are consistent with our firm policy of balancing the budget over the cycle.
The right hon.Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to public sector borrowing of 3 per cent. next year. We had a public sector debt repayment of 3 per cent. at the peak of the cycle. We balanced it over the cycle and we will balance that 3 per cent. just as we balanced the previous 3 per cent.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the only way to accelerate recovery now is substantially to reduce interest rates? The very slow increase in both credit and the money supply show that that is both safe and wise. My right hon.
462
Friend is prevented from taking that necessary measure simply by our membership of the exchange rate mechanism.
Mr. Lamont: I sometimes suspect that my hon. Friend is not quite as stern and unbending as he likes to pretend. We could not have got on top of inflation and reduced inflation in the way that we have—more successfully than any other country in the past year, because we have had the most dramatic reduction in inflation—if we had followed my hon. Friend's advice. If we had let the exchange rate go, that would simply have added to inflationary pressures. It would have lowered living standards and it would have done nobody any good. I realise that a projection of 0·75 per cent. growth in this half year is modest, but we normally come out of recessions gradually, and I have every confidence, based on what we already see about consumer spending and on the figures that we have seen for output, that the forecast that I have outlined to the House today, which is in line with many other forecasts, will be realised.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Have the increases in public expenditure announced in the autumn statement in November been influenced in any way by the fact that a general election will take place in the first six months of next year?
Mr. Lamont: I have explained to the House that the targeted increases are ones that, for the most part, we believed we had to make because of weaker activity. I explained how more than 50 per cent. of the increase in the planning total came from social security, from the transport nationalised industries and from the health service. I should be very surprised if the right hon. Gentleman were suggesting that the increase in the health service was in any sense unjustified. Given what I have told the House about the ratios and about our PSBR compared with that of other countries, I believe that the increases are prudent and cautious, and can in no way be described, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to imply, as some sort of cynical giveaway.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that he deserves considerable congratulation, first, on the decision that he and the Prime Minister took last year to join the exchange rate mechanism, which enabled us to bring down interest rates by 30 per cent. and inflation by 60 per cent. over 12 months—an extraordinary achievement—and, secondly, on getting his forecasts consistently right? He got the balance of payments outturn more or less exactly right. He said that growth would resume in the second half, and we are getting growth resuming in the third quarter—right now, in this quarter. He got the inflation rate for the end of the year right to the last decimal point. That is a very impressive record.
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows that I am always very cautious about economic forecasts, and always treat all forecasting with some scepticism, as is right, and as we emphasise in our published forecast. But it so happens—perhaps surprisingly—that my forecast in the Budget has proved extremely accurate on both inflation and output, and, as my hon. Friend said, on the current account. I am grateful to my

463
hon. Friend for what he said about inflation and interest rates, and I believe that the progress that we have made has been welcome to the country.
Mr. James Lamond: Does the Chancellor recall that, about a year ago, from a comfortable job and home, he told us that the only acceptable way out of the mess that his Government had got into over the past 11 years was for people to sacrifice their businesses, their homes and their jobs in order to reduce inflation? After hundreds of thousands of people have done just that, today the right hon. Gentleman tells us that inflation will creep up again. Would not any reasonable person, hearing that, decide that the Government should not be returned at the next election?
Mr. Lamont: I have always made it clear that there is no conflict between fighting inflation and fighting unemployment. We know that, if we let the spectre of inflation get worse, it would he disastrous for our exporting companies and for employment, so there is no contradiction involved in wanting to fight inflation, too. That is the priority that we must have, and that is the battle we have had to fight—with very little support from Labour Members, who are not remotely interested in inflation.
Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more he increases public expenditure the more the Opposition demand further increases, especially on health? Will he tell the House to what extent the increases announced today will delay both a return to a balanced budget and further reductions in taxation?
Mr. Lamont: As I have explained to the House, our policy remains to achieve a balanced budget over the cycle. I believe that the plans that we have announced this year are compatible with that. When setting the PSBR for next year, I shall bear our objective in mind. My hon. Friend is right to stress that objective, because it is and must remain our policy, and we should not depart from it. We have made it clear that our medium-term objective—not necessarily over one Parliament—is further to reduce the rate of income tax. I believe that that would be compatible with the policies that we have followed and will continue to follow.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Chancellor confirm that the rate of growth that he suggests for the first six months is only half that needed simply to stop unemployment from continuing to rise? Will he also confirm that his full-year rate of growth is less than the likely rate of increase in productive potential, and that he is therefore planning for rising unemployment throughout the next 12 months? Will he come clean and tell the House what assumptions about unemployment underlie the expenditure plans announced today?
Mr. Lamont: I do not accept for one minute what the right hon. Gentleman says. The monthly rate of increase in unemployment has come down sharply. In March it was 110,000; last month's figure was just over 35,000. [Interruption.] I am answering the right hon. Gentleman's question. I expect the monthly trend to continue to decline.
As for whether the rate of growth that I project will be sufficient to stop the rise in the rate of unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the rate of growth projected for the second half of next year—2·75 per cent. on the second half of this year—is very close to the
464
long-term trend growth of the British economy. Therefore, the premise on which the right hon. Gentleman's question was based is not correct.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospects for a sustained and non-inflationary recovery of the economy at this phase in the cycle are greatly improved by the fact that unit labour costs in manufacturing have been moving downwards and by the fact that our proportion of world trade has been moving upwards? Is it not perfectly clear that that policy and approach to the economy is greatly to be preferred to that of the Labour party, which seems to rely on overspending, over-borrowing and over-taxing, which will keep them over there?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend might have added that the Labour party's policy is also to encourage every inflationary wage claim in the public sector. I have never yet heard Labour Members not support such a claim, and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was at it again on television the other day.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: one of the most welcome developments is that our unit labour costs are falling. It is not just the rate of increase that is falling: our costs have actually been falling. That means that there is a much better outlook both on inflation and for exports, and, as my hon. Friend said, our exports have done extremely well in recent months.
Mr. Giles Radice: Will the Chancellor tell the House what assumptions about unemployment he has given the Government Actuary for the coming year?
Mr. Lamont: Yes: 2·4 million.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that someone listening only to the black propaganda about what we are doing to destroy the national health service would be forgiven for believing that the money spent is going down, whereas the chart shows that, since 1978–79, the money spent has increased from £6·5 billion to £34 billion—a 50 per cent. increase in real terms. That shows a great commitment to the national health service on the part of the Conservatives than the socialists—the only party to have reduced spending—have shown in their lives?
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising the point. I think that I have already made the point about the increases that we have made, the proportion, of GDP, the proportion of public expenditure and so on. There is no doubt that this Government have provided well, and provided massively, for the health service. The Labour party is interested in spending more money on the health service; it is not remotely interested in ensuring that it is better run and better administered.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Given that the autumn statement offers no change in this Government's no-hope economic policies, does the Chancellor still think that unemployment is a price well worth paying—yes or no?
Mr. Lamont: I told the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that I think that it is necessary to fight inflation, and fighting inflation gives the best prospects for employment. The low inflation countries are those that

465
have the best record on unemployment. That is why, even given the current recession, there are now 800,000 jobs more than there were in 1979.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the twelfth year running that the Government have produced an autumn statement in the autumn and the twelfth year running that they have produced a Budget in the spring, whereas, under the Labour Government, and when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was Chancellor, the economy was in such a spiral of decay and disorder that, at one stage, statements were coming before the House monthly?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, if he reads his own speech, he will see that he did not mention the IMF—because he did not need to mention it? Does he recall that, when the Labour party was in government, the name of Mr. Witteveen was on everybody's lips because the Labour Government were constantly going cap in hand to the IMF? Is it not clear that the reason why the people of this country trust the Government's economic policies is that we do better for them?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right that, like all our autumn statements, the present autumn statement contains no tax measures, whereas the Labour Government were always having to introduce emergency budgets and tax measures in the autumn. My hon. Friend is right: every Labour Government in my lifetime have made the same mistakes and ended up the same way. A future Labour Government would be no exception.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I acknowledge the Chancellor's belated—almost deathbed—conversion to the sanity of Keynesian economics, even if it has been done for the shabbiest of electoral reasons. Will he confirm, however, that, after allowing for inflation, real interest rates are still among the highest this century? When will they come down in real terms?
Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first assertion. The fact of allowing and conceding the automatic effects of a recession does not tally with what he likes to call Keynesian economics. He may have noticed that there was an interesting article on this very theme by Mr. Gavyn Davies—formerly, I think, an adviser to the Labour party, but an admirable commentator none the less. He disagreed with what the hon. Gentleman has just said—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman has read the article, he has misunderstood it. I am afraid that he has also misunderstood the point about interest rates. It is true that in real terms in recent years interest rates have been historically high across the world. Our real interest rates are not out of line with real interest rates in other European countries.
Mr. Tim Smith: Should not my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury be congratulated on a successful outcome to a public spending round that was carried out in difficult circumstances? Did not Labour, when it was in charge of the Treasury, cut hospital spending by 20 per cent. in one year and also cut nurses' pay in real terms? Should we not compare that with the remarkable announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
466
today that health spending has risen by an increadible 54 per cent. over 12 years and that no less than 4 per cent. is forecast as the increase for the forthcoming year?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend's comments about my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are absolutely right. Various people have implied that the settlement is in some way influenced by the general election. We have of course tried to come up with a settlement that we believe is responsible and prudent. However, without revealing any secrets, let me say that the task of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary was made difficult in recent months as a result of the rise in the political temperature. However, he has done an absolutely exceptional and outstanding job in very difficult circumstances.
On my hon. Friend's second point, we have made considerable increases in health service spending: £2·7 billion is the year-on-year increase, and I believe that the House should welcome that.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Why cannot we get away from this ritual of an autumn statement and a Budget the following year? It reminds me of a witch doctor who is called in by a primitive tribe in the hope that there will be rain and sunshine and a bountiful harvest some time in the future. Why is there no comfort in the Chancellor's statement today, or in his Budget, for manufacturing industry? Why is he doing nothing about the chronic underfunding of training when even TECs, set up by the Government, claim that as a result of a lack of funding they cannot guarantee a place for the young and long-term unemployed? What we have today is a fourth-rate statement made by a fourth-rate Chancellor.
Mr. Lamont: In his opening remarks, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was attacking the procedures of the autumn statement. It was not the purpose of this autumn statement to review the general way in which we tackle expenditure and separate it from taxation. As he knows, that matter is widely debated. I do not agree with him that there are not things in the statement that will be welcome to manufacturing industry. Industry will welcome the continued and increased expenditure on public transport. That is exactly what employers and the Confederation of British Industry have been asking for. They have also welcomed the considerable increase in roads expenditure which is already present in the base line. Above all, I am sure that manufacturing industry will welcome the fact that next year we are going to get back to growth in line with the G7 average.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 8·5 per cent. increase in spending on education and the 10 per cent. in real terms on school buildings will be particularly welcome in Cambridgeshire? Since 1979, the number of young people entering higher education has doubled. Do not those facts demonstrate that the Labour party's claim to be the only friend of education is sheer bunkum?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend puts it extremely succinctly. Spending per pupil has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979, and that adds force to my hon. Friend's observations.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Is it not clear that the freeze in real training budgets which the

467
Chancellor announced today means that yet again there will be no increase in the abysmal level of youth training allowances? Had those allowances, which were introduced in April 1978, risen in line with the level of average earnings, youngsters on youth training schemes would be on £68 a week—about £40 more than the £29·50 that they actually receive. It is clear that, among today's pre-election, elastoplast political announcements, 16 and 17-year-olds have no vote.
Mr. Lamont: We have honoured all our pledges on youth training. I announced today that there will be additions to plans of £480 million to the Department of Employment's programme. That includes more for employment training and £178 million for employment action. Next year, the Government will be spending 2·5 times more on training in real terms than in 1978–79. Most of my colleagues and most fair and unbiased people would regard the increases that I have announced as very substantial. Only a party that was totally divorced from financial reality could go on asking for more.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirm that the recollections of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about the outcome of election pledges are quite erroneous? Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in 1987, the Labour party pledged that another £2 billion over and above the current levels would be necessary to sort out the problems of the national health service? Can he confirm that this Government exceeded that figure within months of once again gaining office and that the present levels of expenditure, coupled with today's announcements, are beyond Labour's wildest dreams and certainly beyond what it could ever achieve?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Expenditure on the health service has been averaging 3·6 per cent. in real terms. We have done more than the Labour party said at one stage that it would do. However much we do, Labour always promises to do more. Labour is not interested in containing public expenditure or taxation.
Ms Kate Hoey: Is the Chancellor aware that his statement offers nothing in terms of improving housing to the millions of people who listened to his statement who live in substandard, overcrowded and squalid housing? Does he realise that housing is in crisis, not just in inner-city areas such as mine, but throughout the country? What is he offering in his statement to people who need adequate and affordable housing?
Mr. Lamont: If the hon. Lady looks at the expenditure plans and the base line, she will see that there are considerable resources for housing. We made very large increases in the amount available to the Housing Corporation. I hope that she will not be misled by figures for the housing revenue account which are affected by interest rates: the point is the expenditure made available by central Government to the Housing Corporation. In the past two years we have made substantial additions; it is now a substantial programme. I do not accept that the situation for people in difficulties is without hope. We have done a lot.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our export performance over the past year is particularly encouraging, bearing in mind the fact that our
468
major trading partners—France, Canada, the United States and Spain—have all been in recession? Does he also agree that it would be virtually impossible for us to maintain our international competitive advantage if he ever followed the policies advocated by the Labour party?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. As I have said, we have seen an increase in our share of world trade. I expect that our exports will be even more successful next year. That, of course, is reflected in the current account deficit, which is much smaller this year than last. That is largely due to the strength of exports.
Mr. Terry Patchett: Several times this afternoon the Chancellor used the term "targeted increases". Would he use the same terminology to describe the present unemployment figures?
Mr. Lamont: The expenditure increases are targeted, and they are targeted at those areas that we think are most deserving and most in need, but, at the same time, we want to follow responsible and prudent policies to balance the budget over the medium term.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to target extra expenditure on the key public services. However, would it not be that much more difficult to achieve that in order to keep a reasonable PSBR if there were no future revenues from privatisations, which are £8 billion next year and £5·5 billion in the years thereafter? Is not that what the Labour party would recommend delivering—no revenue from privatisations and therefore a much more difficult task of boosting public services?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it is relevant to our £35 billion costing of Labour's programme. Opposition Members will not tell us what they regard as wrong with that £35 billion figure, but, in fairness to them, one of the points that we have not made is that they would not have the benefits of privatisation receipts, and that is why their public expenditure proposals are even greater nonsense than the country already realises.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It may not be possible to call all hon. Members who wish to speak, but I will allow questions to continue for a further five minutes. If hon. Members are brief, most of them may be called.
Mr. Peter Hain: The people of Wales have about as much confidence in the Chancellor's policies as they have in the antics of Eddie the Eagle. There is a great gap between the Chancellor's promises to reduce income tax and the spending promises of his spending Ministers. Is not the only way that that gap can be bridged by the Chancellor increasing VAT? If the Government are re-elected, will the Chancellor increase VAT—yes or no?
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. One can increase spending and cut taxes at the same time. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been—he has not been in this House very long—but we have been doing that ever since 1979.
Mr. Robert Litherland: As the Chancellor claimed that business is gaining confidence, what does he think of the words that emanated from the

469
CBI last week when it lambasted the Department of Trade and Industry for the unneccessary recession that has cost British industry billions?
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman talks about the CBI. I have looked at the CBI's booklet entitled "Competing with the World's Best", its report on manufacturing. I noticed how it very much endorses our view that there has been a remarkable improvement in the performance of British industry. For example—one did not read this very much in the press—it states:
"Most of those responsible for running British industry believe that there has been a marked improvement in performance during the 1980s, which has been more than a temporary phenomenon."
That is the view of the CBI, and it is also our view.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that the increase in social security spending is due to what he terms weaker economic activity, which is a euphemism for the millions in unemployment, for which the Government are responsible? Will he confirm that the cost in increased social security expenditure and lost tax revenue will be about £20 billion? Does he agree that it would be far more sensible to spend much more than 10 per cent. on capital expenditure in education in a city such as Bradford, with its crumbling schools after 12 years of neglect by successive Tory Governments, to create jobs in buildings that are much needed, and to reduce the dole queue rather than spend money on sustaining it?
Mr. Lamont: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about the social security budget, there is an increase of about £4·25 billion, and about £2 billion is for unemployment benefit. There is also the take-up of other benefits, the new benefits for disability and the increase in child benefit, which I thought was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman. His caricature of the social security settlement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House is not wholly accurate.
On capital spending, £1·25 billion has been added to capital spending plans. That is about a fifth of the increase in the planning total. There is a very considerable increase in capital spending in the health service and also on education. I said that support for voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools capital will be up by about 10 per cent. in real terms. When we add that to the increases that they had last year, we realise that there is a major programme of capital works in the education services.
Mr. Gavin Strang: When the Chancellor tells the people who have lost their homes and the people who are suffering poverty and demoralisation on the dole that it has been worthwhile to get inflation down, is he not concealing the underlying truth—that all that would have been unnecessary if it had not been for the Government's disastrous financial and economic policies?
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the recession is confined to this country. I do not know what he thinks is happening in the United States, Canada,
470
Australia, some Scandinavian countries, and New Zealand. Over the past year, the world economy has grown more slowly than for many years. Many other countries are in recession. The hon. Gentleman is not living in the real world.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will bear in mind the hon. Members who have not been called today if they wish to participate in tomorrow's debate.

BILLS PRESENTED
  SEVERN BRIDGES
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Wakeham, Mr. John Selwyn Gummer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. David Mellor and Mr. Roger Freeman, presented a Bill to provide for the construction of a new bridge over the Severn Estuary between England and Wales and roads leading to the new bridge and associated works; to make provision for the levying of tolls in respect of use of the existing Severn bridge and the new bridge; to make other provision for and in connection with the operation of the bridges; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First, Second and Third time, pursuant to the Standing Order of 18 October, and passed.
  EDUCATION (SCHOOLS)
  Mr. Secretary Clarke, supported by Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Tim Eggar, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Michael Fallon and Mr. Robert Atkins, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the inspection of schools and with respect to information about schools and their pupils: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That (1) Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
  In paragraph (4) the word "eleven" shall be substituted for the word "ten" in line 43; in paragraph (7) the word "eight" shall be substituted for the word "ten" in line 64; and in paragraph (8) the word "two" shall be substituted for the word "four" in line 66;
  (2) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 17th, 24th and 31st January, 7th, 14th, and 21st February, 20th and 27th March, 3rd April, 1st May, and 5th June;
  (3) Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business on 29th November, 6th and 13th December, 28th February, 6th and 13th March, 8th May, and 12th June, and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on 13th, 20th and 27th November, 12th, 19th and 26th February, 22nd April, and 20th May;
  (4) On Monday 3rd February and Monday 27th April, Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business until Seven o'clock and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Thursday 16th January and Thursday 2nd April; and
  (5) No Notice of Motion shall be handed in for any of the days on which Private Members' Notices have precedence under this order in anticipation of the ballot for that day.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 October].
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Peter Walker].
  Question again proposed.

  Debate on the Address

    Council Tax
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
    4.55 pm
    Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
    But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no guaranteed way of ending the Poll Tax by April 1993 and neglects the urgent need to abolish the minimum 20 per cent. Poll Tax contribution levied on the poorest members of society so as to relieve the increased difficulties in collecting the Poll Tax now faced by local government in England, Scotland and Wales; recognise that the proposed council tax combines an unsound valuation process and a banding structure, which takes no account of regional variation, with a personal taxation element or head tax which requires the maintenance of a register of those liable; and deplore the continuing unfairness of a local tax which, by exempting the wealthiest from paying their proper share, forces up the bills for others and fails to provide the stable and fair financial basis that local government needs.
    This is a lacklustre Queen's Speech which is remarkable for only one reason. It is the first Queen's Speech in history to be dominated by a Bill that purports to undo the damage done by the same Government earlier in the lifetime of the same Parliament. This Queen's Speech is the work of a Government who want us to believe that they have undergone a deathbed repentance. The pity of it is that the posture is so unconvincing. It is not that the deathbed itself lacks conviction—few can doubt that these are the dying clays of the Government. Nor can there be much doubt about the genuineness of the Government's desire—a desire amounting to panic—to be seen to be washing their hands of t he poll tax. They have even reached the point of using the dreaded term "poll tax" to describe their great error—almost as though steeling themselves to label it correctly at last is the first and necessary step towards exorcising it.
    Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the annunciators are wrong. This matter is of great concern to the Labour party, but there are only 10 Labour Back-Bench Members present. Could you check whether the annunciators are working?
    Mr. Speaker: There is nothing wrong with the annunciators.
    Mr. Gould: I was saying that the use of the term "poll tax" for the first time by Ministers in their press conference last week was presumably an attempt, by labelling the tax by its correct name, to take the first and necessary step to try to exorcise it. They know all too well that the judgment
    472
    of the electorate cannot now be long delayed and that a Government with the poll tax on their record cannot hope for much mercy.
    There can be no doubt, either, that the Government have a great deal to repent about. The damage done by the poll tax is now too well attested to and too deeply seared into the nation's collective experience to require much by way of elaboration. The evidence of that damage is too damning to be gainsaid by the faint protests of innocence from the Government's dwindling band of supporters.
    This is, after all, the tax which has driven millions of ordinary citizens to anger and despair, which produced riots on the streets of hitherto peaceful communities, which forced those without means to break the law and encouraged others to flout it, which broke up families, which induced hundreds of thousands to trade their vote, which cost £14 billion of taxpayers' money—money which should have been spent on health and education—which continues to cost £18 million for every day it survives, which has left local government in chaos and with £1·5 billion of virtually uncollectable arrears, which will require by the end of this year the issuing of 7·5 million summonses, which will clog up our magistrates courts and stretch the police to beyond their breaking point: the biggest debt collection exercise in the history of the world.
    It is the tax which has destroyed everything that it has touched, from its original begetter to the very rationale that was advanced to justify it. With comprehensive capping, the poll tax has claimed as its victim the very accountability that was supposed to be its last saving grace, and with that accountability has also gone the Secretary of State's credibility. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) condemned comprehensive capping when he was out of office, but he is now compelled by the poll tax to eat his words.
    Mr. David Sumberg: In relation to comprehensive capping, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that if there is a Labour Government, he will get rid of all the capping mechanisms that now exist, thus ensuring that all the extreme left-wing Labour authorities, such as Lambeth, Manchester and Liverpool, can penalise and threaten all the people living in their communities? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that such people will not receive any protection from central Government?
    Mr. Gould: I am very glad to confirm that we are opposed to the poll tax in principle because we believe in local democracy. I shall explain a little later why our fair rates bills will necessarily be lower than the bills proposed by the Government.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) asked the hon. Gentleman a specific question. Will there be provision for capping in any systems of local government finance that a Labour Government might introduce?
    Mr. Gould: Unlike the Secretary of State, I shall be precise. There will be no provision for capping in any legislation that we introduce. I look forward to hearing similar precision from the right hon. Gentleman when he is asked questions about his proposals.
    As I have said, there is plenty for the Government to repent. However, it is the genuineness of the Government's repentance that is in doubt. We have had no word of regret

    473
    or apology from them, only the repellent spectacle of a Government who are trying desperately to shift the blame on to the victims of their errors. We have had no attempt to correct the error at the first opportunity—only vague promises that the poll tax would, at some future date, make way for some almost equally objectionable successor. Worst of all, we have a Government who, with the Local Government Finance Bill, are pretending to put an end to the poll tax, but who are keeping the poll tax and its malign principles very much alive. In fact, the Government are about to put a new poll tax on to the statute book.
    We know that the Tory flagship was found to be unseaworthy. We know that there was a mutiny against the captain, who was made to walk the plank, but the attempt to scuttle the flagship has been an abject failure. The poll tax remains afloat—waterlogged, it is true, but still drifting and a danger to shipping. As the mutineers deserted the sinking ship—"mutineers" being a rather more parliamentary term than the one that usually springs to mind when people are described as deserting ships—it has become clear that the new vessel is no more seaworthy than the old. The council tax suffers from exactly the same design faults as the old poll tax, and it is captained this time by someone who does not seem to know where he is or what he is doing.
    We should, of course, have been warned. After all, this is the Prime Minister who said of the poll tax:
    "I don't know what we'll have to do and neither does anyone else."
    On that issue at least, the Prime Minister has been as good as his word. This is the Prime Minister who apparently believes that wish is as good as fact, and who told The House Magazine that the poll tax had already been abolished. If the Prime Minister really believes his own propaganda, it is no wonder that he is all at sea on the council tax, Europe, the health service—on everything. In my constituency, the latest joke is to ask, "How does the Prime Minister differ from a supermarket trolley?" The answer is that a supermarket trolley has a mind of its own.
    This is the Prime Minister who sought to excuse the poll tax fiasco on the grounds that, to use his own words, it had been "bounced" through the Cabinet. Whatever the truth of that excuse, the right hon. Gentleman was one of the guilty men who then bounced the poll tax through the House of Commons, the Tory party, the local government world and through all the worries and fears which, sadly, turned out to be so well founded.
    The Prime Minister was one of those who pooh-poohed all the doubts and difficulties about the poll tax and arrogantly insisted that he and his ministerial colleagues knew best. They and he are at it again. If the poll tax was bounced through, the new poll tax is being smashed through. The preparation for the poll tax was positively leisurely by comparison with the sketchy and hasty pretence at consultation that has proceeded the new measure and by comparison with the draconian guillotine with which we are now threatened, which offers us only half the debating time that was given to the poll tax.
    Mr. Robin Squire: The hon. Gentleman has laid some emphasis on constancy. Roughly speaking, how many changes of policy on this subject have emanated from the relevant shadow spokesmen since—I shall be
    474
    reasonable—1987, and does the hon. Gentleman still cling to the four-part valuation system that I believe was part of his latest policy earlier this year?
    Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman has betrayed his ignorance of such matters by giving that date. Our proposals were published in full well over 15 months ago. We have not departed from them. They have been widely accepted and welcomed and we are intent on proceeding towards implementing them at the first opportunity, because they are the only and best way of getting rid of the poll tax.
    Returning to the new Local Government Finance Bill, earlier I recalled the assurances that were used to allay the fears of Conservative Back Benchers as well as hon. Members of other parties and people throughout the country when the poll tax was railroaded through the House. We are sure to hear the Secretary of State and his minions make the same assurances and the same arrogant and airy dismissals of people's doubts and fears as we heard when the poll tax made its progress through the House. This time, surely, Conservative Members can have no excuse if they fall for it yet again. They are on notice that a disaster of poll tax proportions is in the making. Their constituents will not listen this time to pleas of "not guilty". What, after all, are they for if not to protect their constituents against the mistakes of government?
    However, it is not only Members of Parliament who are under pressure. Local authorities, which are having to struggle with the dying spasms of the poll tax without any relief from the ludicrous irrationality of the 20 per cent. contribution rule, are at the same time having to prepare for a totally new and untried tax, involving a new valuation register, prepared on new valuation criteria, banded according to new principles, and requiring the preparation and maintenance of a new register, new discounts and new rebates, all to be handled by new software as yet unwritten.
    It is no wonder that there is increasing scepticism about whether all that can be done in time to issue the new council tax bills in April 1993, irrespective of when the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. It is not only the Opposition who are saying that; so are all the independent experts and institutions, the software companies and an increasing number of local authority treasurers. Their concerns are understandable, and centre on the administrative problems that they will face. Those administrative problems are scarcely affected by the timetable for the legislation. The Government's real reason for pushing the legislation through in such a hurry has nothing to do with the administrative timetable, but everything to do with their own short-term electoral considerations and with the need to clear the decks in case they should suddenly acquire the nerve to face the electorate in March.
    It now seems virtually certain that, under the Government's proposals, poll tax bills will keep on coming—not just next year—1993—but in 1994 also. It is no wonder that the Secretary of State, true to form, and realising that his Bill is a recipe for keeping the poll tax alive for another two years, is busily trying to shift the responsibility for yet another failure. That is all of a piece with his characteristic refusal to serve on the Committee, and yet more evidence of his unwillingness to face the music.

    475
    The Secretary of State's claim that we may somehow be responsible for delaying abolition of the poll tax is a piece of barefaced cheek from a Secretary of State who seems to believe that the more outrageous his claim the less it will be subject to scrutiny. We yield to no one in our anxiety to get rid of the poll tax at the first opportunity. That is why we have repeatedly offered the Government our co-operation in pursuing the one guaranteed way of abolishing the poll tax by 1993—the enactment of our fair rates proposals.
    The Government have turned down that offer, and have insisted on their own proposals. We regret that fact. Nevertheless—I wish to make this crystal clear—we have no intention of delaying the Bill or filibustering during its passage through the House. Indeed, we remain ready to discuss with the Government, at any time, a sensible timetable which will allow proper time for debate without jeopardising the Bill's passage.
    We will insist, however, on doing our proper job as an Opposition. This is not just a Bill to get rid of the poll tax. It is a Bill to replace the poll tax with a new tax—a new poll tax—and we are determined to ensure that this tirne the measure receives the scrutiny that it needs. We will not be deterred from proper parliamentary scrutiny by the antics of the Secretary of State. I look to Conservative Members for support in undertaking that important task.
    That task is crucial because the new tax is deeply flawed and it inherits many of the most objectionable features of the poll tax. Like the poll tax, it is totally untried and untested. Like the poll tax, it is complicated and difficult to administer. Indeed, by combining a totally new property tax—if one likes, a capital values tax—with the head tax element of the poll tax, it is arguably even more complicated than the poll tax to administer and collect. It will be a tax, in other words, on the roof over one's head and on the heads under one's roof.
    We shall pay a heavy price for these complications. The collection costs will be high; the collection levels will be low—certainly lower than in the case of fair rates or the rates of times gone by. Those two factors will inevitably push up the size of council tax bills, just as the poll tax bills were pushed up.
    Under the Government's proposals, the bills for average families will also be higher than they need be because of another good old poll tax principle—unfairness. The valuation process and the artificial compression of the valuation bands have many unfortunate consequences, not least for families in the south and the south-east, many of whom will find that they are paying at or near the top level although they live in perfectly ordinary houses.
    We shall want to explore those problems with Conservative Members, but when they come to consider banding, they might do well to remember the Prime Minister's statement to the Financial Times on 27 November 1990 just before he became Prime Minister, when he said, "Banding does not work." Does he still hold to that view? Do Conservative Members? Does the Secretary of State? Or is this, like so much else, just so much water under the bridge, to be swept away in the panic to do something, anything, as long as it is not the poll tax?
    The real unfairness arises because, as with the poll tax, the best-off people are to be allowed to duck out of paying their proper and fair share. Under the Government's proposals, the ratio of property values in the top band and
    476
    the bottom band is 8:1—in the real world it is, of course, much greater—yet the ratio of the highest hills to the lowest bills is only 3:1. The result of excusing the best-off is that hills for the rest of us are necessarily higher.
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, will he maintain the proportion of public expenditure now covered by VAT? Can we therefore say that there will be no change in VAT rates if his system, as opposed to the council tax, is introduced?
    Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman had followed these matters at all closely, he would have known that we said exactly that in the debates on the Budget.
    We can test the fairness of the council tax by looking at the bill that the Secretary of State himself will face. The Secretary of State is a millionaire. He lives in an expensive house in the heart of London. His bill will be just £273—£100 less than the bill for the lowest value property in Langbaurgh. How can that be fair? I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State defend that concept of fairness.
    For all those reasons—administrative costs will be high, collection levels will be low and average bills will have to compensate for the special help given to the wealthy—the council tax bills will be higher than fair rates bills would have been. On average, they will be £67 higher.
    The Government's figures—let us for the moment assume that they have an accuracy which the Government's abysmal record on predicting poll tax bills certainly does not justify—show that average council tax bills this year in Langbaurgh would have been £470 and in Middlesbrough £447—£170 and £153 respectively higher than the equivalent fair rates bills. Those figures—the £170 and the £153—represent the surcharge that Langbaurgh families will have to pay for the continued life of the Tory Government. What is true of Langbaurgh is true of the rest of the country.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): Do I take it from what the hon. Gentleman just said that he now has figures for every local authority under his proposals? I do not believe that we have seen them before. Will the hon. Gentleman please lay them on the table?
    Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman may remember that the chairman of the Tory party professed to be gobsmacked when we produced precisely those figures. There is perhaps a little mystery in these matters. It is now clear that the chairman was gobsmacked because he saw the figures which we produced. It is clear that the Minister of State has remained ungobsmacked because he has resolutely refused to look at the figures which we produced. I shall gladly send him a copy.
    Mr. Portillo: What the hon. Gentleman has produced is a meaningless average figure for Great Britain. He has never produced figures for every local authority. That is what we now wish to see.
    Mr. Gould: We are beginning to unravel part of the continuing mystery of why the poll tax went so badly wrong and why the new poll tax will also go so wrong. It is because we are confronted by a bunch of ignoramuses who do not do their homework. They do not keep up to date and do not keep abreast of the facts which are put before them. I shall gladly send to the Minister the figures

    477
    which we produced—I think, from memory, at the beginning of April—and which had such an immediate impact on his senior colleague and an even more gratifying impact on the electorate, who voted in huge numbers up and down the country for Labour candidates.
    We are promised in the Queen's Speech a further local government Bill. At first sight, this offers much more promising ground. It contains some proposals that we accept—indeed, some that we think do not go far enough. We are keen, for example, to ensure that local authorities should make a public response to auditors' reports. Our own "Quality Street" proposals recommend that councils should publish information about standards to be met and their performance in meeting those standards. We shall want to avoid some of the pitfalls of what seems to be a muddled approach by the Government to those questions. For example, we shall table an amendment which would require councils to issue customer contracts of the type pioneered by Labour councils. We have no intention of letting local government off the quality hook.
    The disappointment of the Bill is the way in which it has ignored, on the issue of local government structure, the possibility of proceeding by consensus. We favour a local government commission. We want to see flexibility and sensitivity to local needs. But we shall hope to convince the Government—indeed, it is essential that we do so—that a piecemeal, long, drawn-out process which is manifestly open to political gerrymandering and is certain to lead to further confusion is not the best way to proceed.
    What we need from the Gracious Speech was an apology for the poll tax and a guarantee to put matters right. Instead, we have an apology of a Bill—the typical work of a Secretary of State who is happier making the airy gesture than doing the hard work. The Bill is hastily prepared, it will be rushed through, it takes enormous risks, it will be unfair, it will threaten civil liberties, it will put local councils under intolerable pressure—yet even then, it will not end the poll tax by 1993. When and if it should replace the poll tax, it will simply reproduce the most objectionable features, the unfairness and the confusion of its hated predecessor.
    The new poll tax is a fitting epitaph for a Government who do not know how to say sorry, for a Government who are desperate to run for cover, and for a Government who have run out of ideas and out of time. We and the British people will put the Government and their new poll tax out of their misery as soon as they give us the chance.
    5.20 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): My hon. Friend the Minister made the point that when the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) rose to speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech, on the vital topic of local government, there were only 10 Labour Members to follow him over the top on such a critical issue. Even when the Labour party Whips toured the Corridors of the Palace of Westminster, all they could drag into the Chamber was about 28 people. The single group of people who have a vested interest in keeping the poll tax on the statute book were gathered together to listen to the tragic case that we have heard this afternoon.
    478
    The Gracious Speech covers some of the most far-ranging reforms of local government with which we have had to deal in the House for many a long year. It covers a new regime for local government finance and proposals to set up a commission to consider the boundaries of local government. It includes proposals to extend competitive tendering to a wider range of areas. It deals with the scandal of Labour councillors voting for high budgets and then refusing to pay their fair share of them.
    The Gracious Speech is set against the background of the Government entering into a wide-ranging partnership with local government through city challenge and competitive housing investment programmes. We are achieving standards in local government that have never been seriously considered by the Labour party, yet all that we have is a weary parade of inaccurate stories about the poll tax from the hon. Member for Dagenham. We are determined to replace the poll tax at the earliest possible moment, but the Labour party will use every device that it knows to keep it on the statute book.
    I can tell the House why the Labour party wants the poll tax to remain on the statute book: it sees it as the only argument that it has left with which to try to fight a general election. If anything was revealed to me this afternoon, it was that the Labour party has no policies to deal with local government. It has no credible alternative for financing local government. It wants to use the poll tax to hide the high levels of extravagant expenditure in which Labour councils indulge.
    Mr. Dave Nellist rose——
    Mr. Heseltine: I give way to the arch-exponent of that policy.
    Mr. Nellist: Can the Secretary of State explain why schedules 3, 4 and 8 of the council tax Bill provide exactly the same enforcement procedures as apply under the poll tax? Four years ago, the Government abolished imprisonment for debt under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, yet the council tax maintains imprisonment as a penalty in England and Wales. Why the difference? Why keep such medieval barbarity?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one third of the 90 people who served a term of imprisonment in England and Wales were caught by the 20 per cent. rule—30 unemployed people and three on invalidity benefit? Will that happen under the council tax?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that people on the 20 per cent. benefit level were compensated for what they were expected to hand over to the local authority. The 20 per cent. arrangement will not apply to the council tax. The issue for the hon. Gentleman is simple. We were elected to the House to pass laws and to keep within the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman consistently undermines the credibility of the democratic process by refusing to pay legally raised bills, which he then foists on his constituents.
    If that is the voice of the Labour party, I challenge its leader to say whether that is the message that he wants spread from one end of the country to the other. His supporters are flouting the law. Is that what the leader of the Labour party wants? [Interruption.] As the right hon.

    479
    Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) will not speak for himself, I give way once more to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist).
    Mr. Nellist: I shall be brief, in deference to my hon. Friends who also wish to speak. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the introduction of the poll tax, every month and on time I have paid a uniform business rate that is five times the level of the personal poll tax in Coventry? Every month, on time, I have paid my national income tax. My refusal to pay the poll tax will be maintained until the Government introduce in England and Wales what they have already introduced in Scotland—the removal of the barbaric practice of putting pensioners, the unemployed and others in prison for the crime of being poor.
    Mr. Heseltine: It is a simple matter. Does the leader of the Labour party think that a Back Bencher has the right to defy a law that was passed by a majority in both Houses? Is that a sign of what Labour, if it were in power, would advocate to the country? I happen to believe that the right hon. Gentleman does not support the views of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. It is an open secret. I cannot understand why he does not have the guts to stand up in the House and say so.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: The Secretary of State is talking about the Conservative Government bringing in laws and obeying them. What about the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)? How many times did he break the law? The Secretary of State should get up and tell me that.
    Mr. Heseltine: The issue with which the hon. Gentleman must deal is simple. Does he think that he should pay the community charge in his constituency while his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East does not pay it in his? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to defend his hon. Friend's position? That is the question and it is one with which the hon. Member for Dagenham did not deal during his speech.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: The Secretary of State referred to breaking the law. Is he aware that many Conservatives are telling people to break the law and trade on Sundays? The Tory party gets money from people who recommend breaking the law on Sunday trading.
    Mr. Heseltine: I have no hesitation in saying that the law must stand. I defy the hon. Gentleman to say that those who represent the Conservative party in the House are inciting people to break the law.
    The issue is simple: it is whether right hon. and hon. Members have a right to take part in a democratic process and then ignore—indeed, frustrate—the conclusions of that process. That is the road to anarchy and it is indefensible. It is one of the ingredients in the legislation with which we shall be dealing and I will want to know whether the Labour party will resist that, as it intends to resist so much of what we are trying to do. We have made it absolutely clear that the poll tax has to go at the earliest possible opportunity. The interesting point is that, every time we try to take positive action to bring about the end of the poll tax, it is the Labour party that hawks itself round the country saying that it cannot be done. It is
    480
    trying to undermine the credibility of what we are trying to achieve because it has a vested interest in doing precisely that. The fact is that it will be done. We are going to do it, and we shall do it by April 1993.
    Very soon, on Second Reading, we shall have the chance to consider our proposals. They will be exhaustively considered during the usual procedures of the House. The ideas that we have put forward are now clearly understood. There will be a property-based valuation which will broadly reflect the circumstances of the people living in those properties. There will be an eight-band system ranging between a payment of one to three depending on the valuations of the properties.
    Mr. Adley: My right hon. Friend will know that, as one who consistently voted against the poll tax, I welcome the Government's commitment to replace the real unfairness of the poll tax and many of the perceived unfairnesses of the previous rates system with the new proposals. However, does he agree that the hundreds of thousands of people who live in mobile homes do not enjoy the sort of property values which equate with the bandings that he has produced? Will he at least say that he is prepared to consider a separate band for people living in mobile homes who really have only the value of the pitch on which they live to represent the value of their properties?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in this. All these matters must be fully ventilated in Committee. I do not want that to be taken as saying that we can help in one way or another, but it is important that we should deal with the details in Committee.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No.
    The proposals involve issuing a bill on the assumption that a household is occupied by two people. Anybody on full income support will be entitled to a 100 per cent. rebate and there will be a discount for a single person amounting to 25 per cent. of the bill. As the House knows, we shall discount students, student nurses, people on the youth training scheme and apprentices. We shall introduce transitional arrangements in order to help people who face difficulties in moving from one system to another. In those ways, we have carefully designed a system that will be simpler to administer and cheaper to collect. It will undoubtedly be—and already is—widely regarded as fair.
    I come now to some of the specific points of the hon. Member for Dagenham. First, I ask him whether he is against banding. Is the concept of banding something with which he can agree? That is an important question, the answer to which I wish to establish in order to discover the differences between our carefully worked-out proposals and the detailed intensive work which is apparently being conducted behind closed doors by the Labour party. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of or against banding? I think that the House will accept from me that he does not know the answer to that question. There is no answer to whether the Labour party is for banding or not.
    I took the trouble to do a little research of my own and I discovered that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has said that the Labour party had no objection in principle to valuation bands. It is interesting that, if one does one's research and reads with care the

    481
    Municipal Journal, one can find out what the Labour party thinks. But if one asks the official Opposition spokesman, he does not know.
    Mr. Gould rose——
    Mr. David Blunkett rose——
    Mr. Heseltine: I give way to both hon. Members.
    Mr. Gould: It is a matter for regret that the Secretary of State seems to suffer from the same weakness as the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. The answer to that question, and I suspect the answer to almost any question that he may care to put to us, is provided clearly in the fair rates proposals which, as I said in answer to an earlier intervention, we published 15 months ago. It is the Secretary of State's own look-out if he is too lazy to read that document.
    However, since we are on the question of banding and who believes in what, would the Secretary of State tell us whether he agrees with the Prime Minister's statement which I quoted, to the effect that banding does not work? Does he agree with that or not?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister supports the proposals that we have made, so he does agree with them. That is the answer to the question. But let me be frank with the House. I want to find out what the Labour party believes in. That is why I stood at the Dispatch Box a year ago and asked the Opposition to come and talk to us. We gave them a chance to consult, to explain. We might even have gone further. They might have helped us to design the proposals. We could not find the answers in the document "Fair Rates". The document is so vague, almost vacuous, that it contains nothing that would enable anybody to draft any legislation. We asked the Opposition to come and talk, but they would not. Now we ask them about banding and the hon. Gentleman obviously does not know. I accept that his No. 2 does know.
    We have established that the only real substance against the banding argument is that the Opposition want to put the bands up higher into the valuation range. That is completely consistent with their policy of going back to the rates. One of the only principles left in Labour's financial proposals for local government is an envy tax. They will not raise any money by that, but they want to cane the rich. Having taken 59p in the pound off them in income tax, they want to milk them in another way by introducing more complicated ways of raising more money, and that is in addition to what they intend to do to small businesses in local government, putting the uniform business rate back under the control of Labour authorities. That is a chilling thought to anyone who happens to be living near a Labour-controlled authority. Sadly, there are too many of them——
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Yes, Iancashire.
    Mr. Heseltine: —not just in Lancashire. They now see that there will be higher bands to raise more money from the rich and 59p in the pound in income tax, and that British businesses will be milked for more money for
    482
    Labour extravagance. That is where we are beginning to head in Labour's alternative proposals for local government finance.
    Let us move on to the figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) has an immense number of virtues and very few weaknesses, one of which is not laziness; it is not a lack of diligence for his task. Nobody knows more about the matter than he does—although, compared with the hon. Member for Dagenham, that is not saying very much. It is known that he knows. The hon. Gentleman says that my hon. Friend has not checked up, but my hon. Friend was right. The hon. Gentleman produced a document which was relevant to the first year of Labour's proposals if we went back to the rates.
    Mr. Gould: I was intrigued and amused, as was the whole House, by the Secretary of State's assertion that his ministerial colleague knew and that it was known that he knew. Has the right hon. Gentleman checked that he knows?
    Mr. Heseltine: Yes. I spend my life trying to keep up with my hon. Friend, and it is one of the races that I am losing. But he is younger than I am.
    Let me continue with the delicate subject of Labour's figures. My hon. Friend has done his homework and he knows, as I know, that the only figures that the Labour party has produced are on the assumption of a return to the rates.
    Mr. Gould: No.
    Mr. Heseltine: Oh, yes.
    I return to the Municipal Journal of 25 October and I shall tell the House how the fair rates proposals are going to be valued. This is what it says:
    "They have suggested a mixture of capital values, rebuilding costs, repair costs, and rental values."
    Before anyone thinks that that is a finite definition of the process by which they have worked out all these figures, and before we get carried away and pinned down into thinking that this is all that accurate, step forward the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who told the conference:
    "We are open to persuasion and to ideas."
    That was not 15 months ago or even 15 days ago. It was last week that the hon. Gentleman was saying all that.
    Can anyone tell the House how one can pin down the figures that they claim to have published if one has not made up the basis of valuation upon which one is going to do it? Will either the hon. Member for Dagenham or the hon. Member for Brightside, or any Labour Member, intervene at this stage, so that we can understand their logic? [Interruption.] Not from a sitting position—if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, he should get off his butt and do it.
    Mr. Gould: The Secretary of State is making a valiant attempt to get himself ungobsmacked, but in taking this debate back seven months to a point where we comprehensively established our position to the great discomfort of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that we enjoyed the support of independent experts, not least the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, for the calculations that we made.
    Mr. Heseltine: I know that Labour have been consulting CIPFA, so please can we have the benefit of

    483
    that consultation? Will Labour Members explain how the system will work? Of course, we all know that there are no answers to those questions. There is no conceivable way in which anybody could work out what proportion cif what value was about building costs, capital values, rental costs or anything else, because they do not have those figures. Why? They are terrified that they might actually be questioned about the realities of their proposal.
    What has Labour done in its fair rates document? Fair rates? I see that the Leader of the Opposition has gone. Quite rightly, he has abandoned ship, and the reason why he has gone is that he could see where I was coming to in my speech.
    The leader of the Labour party was describing rates as the unfairest tax that he had ever come across. VVhat is Labour's policy but to go back to them; not for ever, but just for one putative year, while they try to work out some of the details that they have not begun to approach up until now.
    Let us move on to the most interesting and constructive intervention in this debate. Labour's proposals—when it has worked them out, costed them, and designed them—will have one absolutely inviolate principle built into them; that local Labour parties can spend and spend and spend as though there is no tomorrow, and in that way there probably will not be a tomorrow. We have it on the record—no capping and no restraints.
    The interesting thing about the departure of the leader of the Labour party is that the shadow Chancellor never came at all and nor, to the best of my knowledge, did the shadow Chief Secretary. I think that the Whips had. better go and get them, because we have had another vast extravaganza this afternoon—uncontrolled local authority expenditure, all on the public sector, with no control whatsoever.
    Mr. Gould rose——
    Mr. Blunkett rose—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Gould: It is rather unfortunate if Conservative Members are to exploit my hon. Friend's obvious difficulties.
    As the Secretary of State is talking about unbridled extravagance as a consequence of not having any capping powers, does he remember his very definite espousal of exactly that position in the article which, from memory, he published in The Times on 9 April 1990? Does he remember his condemnation of any power of universal capping and the very forceful and persuasive grounds on which he made that condemnation? Why has he departed from that principle, or is it another example of the Government, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister standing on their respective heads?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is very simple. We reduced the community charge by £140 per person, and we are determined that it stays for the benefit of the people and is not gobbled up by extravagant local authorities under Labour control. How much worse it would be if the capping regime were taken off, to make it even more certain.
    I have nothing but respect for the hon. Member for Brightside. He actually understands these matters and he can add up. His figures make sense—whereas I do not think that the hon. Member for Dagenham can add up. At least, I did not think that he could add up until I heard him
    484
    doing a broadcast about his place in the shadow Cabinet, when he was obviously able to add up to determine exactly where he had come. The hon. Gentleman's figuring ability is focused, but not on local government finance.
    I have only one final point that I want to draw to the attention of the House.—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."] No, one final point, on the Bill that the House will consider very shortly. It is always complex to design a local government tax and no taxes will ever be popular, so there must be a proper consideration. However, we should all be able to unite in that if the proposals, as the House and another place determine them, pass into law. They will become the law of the land. That is why we were elected to come here. That is why we do not fight it out on the barricades. That is why we do not behave as badly in this country as others with less sophisticated parliamentary systems do. We have learnt.
    Mr. Gould: What about a speech?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman asks, "What about a speech?" What about a principle? What I want to know is very simple. When we get to that part of the legislation which takes away from Labour councillors who do not pay their bills the right to vote on matters that affect the budgets of their councils, will Labour vote against us or will it not?
    Mr. Gould: Of course we will.
    Mr. Heseltine: I heard the answer, even though it was from a sedentary position—"Of course we will vote against."
    Mr. Gould: As the Secretary of State is so concerned on. all occasions to devote his time to our position, let me make it clear, in case he is yet again unable to comprehend the simplest proposition, that we made it plain on the very day that he made his rather bravura statement to the Tory party conference—not, I might say, to the House—that we would support those measures and that particular part of the Bill. There has never been any mystery about it. I am sorry to deny the Secretary of State his great peroration.
    Mr. Heseltine: We had all the poll tax demonstrations and no complaint from the Labour party. We had all the "Won't pay" councillors and no complaint from the Labour party. We had hon. Members saying that they would not pay and no complaint from the Labour party. There was defiance of the law. The Tories stand up and do something about it and then they come in and agree that we were right. Why did they do nothing to discipline their own councillors and Members of Parliament? In the end, it is always the Tories who have to take the difficult decisions. It is always the Tories who have to deliver the quality of service and to keep control over public expenditure. All we get is trivialisation, exploitation and incitement from the Labour party—frightening innocent people with their claims and counter-claims. We will have no part of it. They are an Opposition and bad at that. We will never give them a chance to be a Government and bad at that.
    5.49 pm
    Mr. Allen McKay: Of the Secretary of State's performance—and it was a performance—I can only say that he treated the House as

    485
    an extension of the Conservative party conference. How wise Conservative Members were not to choose him as their leader.
    Yesterday we debated rights, freedoms and responsibilities. In fact, that theme runs right through the Queen's Speech and our debates on it. All these matters are important to my constituency: the right to work, the right to education, the right to a free national health service, the right to walk around without fear, the right to an adequate standard of living after retirement and the right to fair remuneration while in work. Those rights complement each other, combining to provide the quality of life to which people are entitled.
    If that is to happen, however, the right policies must be implemented, both nationally and locally. That applies to Government policy on employment and education, for instance. My area also needs to continue its industrial development by extending existing workplaces and attracting inward investment. It needs to rebuild its economy, and thus offset the unemployment that has been caused by the policies and beliefs of the present Administration.
    I do not wish to be churlish and fail to recognise the help that we are now being given. There is, however, a long way to go before we can replace the thousands of jobs that have been lost, and repair the resulting damage to the local economy. Since 1979, the so-called reconstruction of the coal industry has brought about rapid and continuing colliery closures. My constituency, once the centre of the Yorkshire coalfield, now has no collieries within its boundaries, although mineworkers travel to other coalfield areas. The problem has been compounded by the restructuring of the steel industry.
    As a consequence, unemployment in my area is twice as high as the national average: it is now at 14 per cent., and is still rising. Meanwhile, crime is also on the increase, which is not helped by the under-financing of our hard-pressed police force. Our fire service chief recently warned the Government that the underfunding of the service would cause another fall in manpower; he has subsequently told them that the current strength of the service is below the Home Office requirement.
    The Rothschild report contains proposals for the reduction of the coal industry to about 18 collieries, in preparation for privatisation. Government thinking appears to confirm that intention. The Coal Industry Bill raises the limit on grants to about £2,500 million—possibly up to £3,000 million. That amount just happens to coincide with a reduction in manpower of 40,000-plus, in line with the Rothschild report.
    What measures will the Government take to deal with the devastation that those redundancies will cause to the coalfield communities? One way of helping them would be provided by the RECHAR money which, although it is available in Europe, the Secretary of State is denying to local authorities, for purely ideological reasons. The Government are simply being intransigent. The money was intended to go to the coalfield communities; it was not meant to go where the Government want it to go.
    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I know the hon. Gentleman's integrity, and I am sure that he does not intend to mislead the House. If given the opportunity, however, my right hon. and hon. Friends on
    486
    the Front Bench would tell him that the European Commissioner came here some months ago, agreed with three Secretaries of State on how the RECHAR money could be distributed and was content with the arrangements in Britain. Only after he returned to Brussels did he change his mind. It is not the Government who are delaying the payment of the RECHAR money; it is Bruce Millan in Europe. That is the truth, and the hon. Gentleman should accept it.
    Mr. McKay: It is not true. In any case, the Secretary of State has just been lambasting us about compliance with the law. Commissioner Millan has acted in accordance with the law of the EC and the rules of distribution. He is not stopping the payment of the money; the Secretary of State is doing so, purely and simply because the areas identified by Millan and his committee are not acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman. The money is available, but the Secretary of State is helping to prevent the rejuvenation of the coalfied areas. The money would help tremendously—although, of course, further action would still be necessary.
    The Government also plan to take steps that no Government should take, irrespective of politics. They plan to revoke the 1908 legislation and to allow any future mine owner to increase the permitted hours of working and to brush aside the years of struggle that it took to regulate the health and safety arrangements and protect miners from unscrupulous mine owners. The legislation should not be revoked without being replaced by adequate protection measures.
    The Secretary of State for Energy should make a statement about what the Government intend to do in the event of privatisation of the mining industry. Who, for instance, will supply concessionary coal to pensioners, employees, widows and redundant miners? Will the cost be met by the new owners or by the Government? What will happen to the payment of cash in lieu of fuel allowance? What provision will be made to continue existing pension rights for retired mineworkers, their widows, pneumoconiosis sufferers, future pensioners and those who have been party to redundancy agreements? Will the new owners make those payments or will the Government?
    Will those people be sold down the river, as the employees in the sold-off skill centres have been? Astra workers, despite assurances from the Government and the Secretary of State that their civil service retirement and redundancy agreement would be honoured, are now being given a take-it-or-leave-it choice: they can sign away their rights under the new agreement or they can be given the sack. Some of my constituents stand to lose some £27,000.
    What is to happen to the £11·5 million that was given to Astra to retain those civil service pensions? Will the Government take it back, or will they allow it to go to the Astra management?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, unlike the earlier debates on the Queen's Speech, today's debate is on an amendment, to which the hon. Gentleman's remarks should be addressed.
    Mr. McKay: I mean no disrespect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we are debating the Queen's Speech, are we not?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is a distinction between the early days, when we debate the whole of the Queen's

    487
    Speech, and days such as today, when we are addressing an amendment. Today's debate is more restricted than previous debates.
    Mr. McKay: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have always understood that, as the debates on the Queen's Speech actually constitute a single debate, the contents of the speech are debatable throughout. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me repeat what I have said. In the early days, when no amendments have been selected, our debates are on the Queen's Speech, and any subject is therefore in order. Today, however, we are debating an amendment, to which the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks. The same will apply tomorrow if amendments are selected.
    Mr. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept your ruling; I had forgotten about the amendment.
    I hope that central Government will stop their vendetta against local authorities. Local government consists of the people on the ground who are trying to deal with the problems that have been created by central Government, including the increase in crime.
    The Secretary of State's failure to deal realistically with my authority's standard spending assessments should urgently be reassessed. I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 14 years. During the whole of that time, no Secretary of State has refused to meet a delegation led by me. However, when I approached the present Secretary of State for the Environment and asked him to meet a delegation led by me regarding the new council tax, he refused. I accept that he asked the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to meet us, but it was wrong of the Secretary of State to refuse to meet directors of finance of seven local authorities to discuss the standard spending assessments, how the poll tax affected their authorities and how the new council tax is likely to affect their areas. That should not happen again.
    The Secretary of State's failure to deal realistically with the authorities is causing a great deal of trouble. The Secretary of State referred to bad, left-wing local authorities and to capping. Local government has never overspent. I accept that the Government set the targets for overspending. Since 1979, however, the Government have denied local government its proper share of finance. Each year, they have reduced the grant. It was 72 per cent. It is now 33 per cent. Local government therefore had to find the money from somewhere else. The only way to do so was by increasing the rates. That resulted in the Government's introducing capping.
    Local authorities are doing exactly what the people in their area want them to do. My authority has been Labour-controlled for 52 years. The authority has 60 Labour councillors and three others, two of whom are Conservatives. Those Labour councillors are elected year after year. How can they not be carrying out the wishes of the people in the area if they are returned to office? The authority is regarded as overspending because it is a low-rated area. The rates have therefore been increased by much more than the Government wanted. The directors of finance wanted to talk to the Secretary of State about that, but he refused to meet them.
    Capping has an effect on local government services. If we want to regenerate the economy, we ought not to have capping. The local authority already spends 65 per cent. of
    488
    its income on education. Our education programme, however, ought to be geared to the regeneration of the area. Capping ought to be stopped so that money can be raised in accordance with local authority requirements. In 1974 the authority decided to introduce nursery education throughout its area. That had to stop when the authority was capped, with the result that only half the area is providing nursery education. That part of the area which is without nursery education wonders when it is going to be provided. All I can tell the people in that part of the area is that, as soon as we get rid of this Government, they will have their nursery education.
    In an effort to attract sufficient money to meet its statutory obligations, the authority had to axe all its adult leisure activities—300 courses. That affects the unemployed and the elderly in particular. I wanted the Secretary of State to meet the local authority so that that case could be put to him, but he refused.
    The council tax will not work. If the Government's assessment of the money that will be raised by means of the council tax is wrong, where will it be found? Do they intend to ask local government to raise the amount of money locally without capping or by setting capping at a higher rate? Some property in my area has been adapted for use by handicapped people. If a broad assessment of an area is made for council tax purposes, how can those properties be identified? All the houses look alike. All these matters will have to be considered in Committee. If, however, there is insufficient time to consider them in Committee, because of the guillotine, we shall face the same difficulties as we experienced with the poll tax.
    Today, the Secretary of State used the same arguments about the new council tax as the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley) used when he introduced the poll tax Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be fair; it was not. He said that it would be easy to collect; it was not. He said that it would not be expensive to collect; it was. All that the right hon. Gentleman said during the passage of that Bill has been disproved. We are suggesting, as we suggested when the poll tax was introduced, that, rather than rush the council tax Bill through, we should return to the rateable value system so that all the parties can get together and introduce a proper system by means of which local government can raise the money that it needs. We should not rush bullheaded at it and make as much of a mess of the new council tax as we did of the poll tax.
    6.7 pm
    Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I am delighted to have the opportunity to say goodbye to the community charge, or to the poll tax as it became known. It is well known in the House that I did not support the Bill that introduced the community charge. I felt that it would be disastrous, particularly in my area of Yorkshire and for the majority of the people whom I represent. Some of them did gain, but the majority lost. The poll tax turned out to be a disaster.
    My constituents and I welcome the £140 reduction that the Government have introduced this year. It made a tremendous difference to the amount that my constituents had to pay to the local authority. I also welcome the capping powers that will protect people from excessive council spending. I am amazed, however, that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said clearly that

    489
    Labour would remove all the capping legislation, thereby giving the opportunity to many Labour-controlled authorities to spend even more. I hope that my constituents in Batley and Spen are listening to the debate. Their authority is Kirklees. The one thing that they do not want is the reins to be taken off Kirklees. They cannot afford the bills that they now receive from Kirklees. If capping is removed, my constituents will be unable to afford all the money that Kirklees will want to spend.
    I welcome the introduction of the new council tax, which appears to be much more reasonable to the majority of my constituents, as well as to many other people. However, I shall monitor closely the Bill's progress in Committee to ensure that there are no hidden bits that I have missed. I also welcome the extensive rebate scheme of up to 100 per cent. for those on low incomes and the scheme of transitional relief to protect people from any excessive increases during the switch from the community charge to the council tax.
    I note that students' halls of residence will be exempt from the tax, as will student nurses on Project 2000. I know that that will be greatly welcomed because many people involved in such areas felt that it was unfair that they should have to make a contribution to local services, even though they may have used them, at that stage in their lives.
    I welcome the provisions to bar councillors who have not paid their community charge or council tax bills from voting on the level of spending in their authority. I was brought up with the principle that one cannot have rights without responsibilities. In such circumstances, one has to pay a tax if it is the law of the land; otherwise there should be no right to vote on the level of spending.
    If the council tax had been in operation in 1991–92, no council in England that was spending in line with the Government assessment of the standard level of spending would have had to charge more than £267 for a two-person household in the bottom property band. Under the community charge, the authority in Kirklees wanted to charge £750 for a two-person household. The Government's £140 reduction per person has still left those households with a bill of over £500, which is a tremendous amount of money. The new council tax will make a great difference to such people.
    Second homes have always presented a problem. It is not always a matter of someone being able to afford to have two homes. Often it may be a vicar who is approaching retirement and who lives in a manse but will need somewhere to live when he retires. Obviously, the Church will want his property back immediately. It may be someone unable to sell a house after an elderly relative has died. The new arrangements say that a property that is not someone's sole or principal residence will be liable for half the bill. That reflects the property element of the tax and I am sure that it will be welcomed.
    There must be some charge on empty properties because the owners will still expect some local services. They will expect the roads to be repaired, the fire brigade to come if there is a fire and the police to protect their property if there is a break-in.
    Houses in multiple occupation have always been a problem and the community charge has not been easy to collect in such properties. Therefore I welcome the fact
    490
    that the owner of such a property will be subject to the council tax and that it will be up to the owner to decide how much is passed on in the rent to the people who live in the property. It will make the tax much easier and cheaper to collect, particularly in student areas and cities where there are many flat dwellers. In such areas, a great deal of tax has gone uncollected in the past.
    It is difficult to comment at this stage, because I must admit that I have not perused the Bill line by line as perhaps I should have done. However, I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I shall do so shortly. If I find that there are any little bits that I do not like, as in the past, I shall be quick to point them out. However, at this stage, I can give a warm welcome to the new council tax because it will be a great help to people in my constituency and in the north of England where I know properties better than I do in the south.
    6.13 pm
    Mr. David Bellotti: We were "entertained" by the Secretary of State, whose comments, sounded more like an after-dinner speech than an intelligent exposition of an extremely important Bill. I noticed that the Secretary of State left the Chamber less than an hour after the start of the debate. Also, the right hon. Gentleman was not present during the debate on the important matter of the capping of local authorities, which was before the House recently. His interest in the subject before us is limited and he revealed today that he does not have a unique grasp of the detail of the Bill. In fact, I wonder whether he has read it. It was fair for the Secretary of State to say that most of the knowledge resides with the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, but it is a matter of regret that he is not present to hear this important debate.
    The majority of people in this country and in the House know that the rates were discredited. The system was unfair because it fell upon people who were unable to pay. Also, the majority of people know that the poll tax was unfair, although many in the House arrived at that conclusion rather late in life. Now, the Government are giving us a combination of those two most unfair local taxes. The poll tax has become discredited and has had to go, in the same way as the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) had to go. The two issues are related.
    The poll tax cost the country millions of pounds to introduce. That money would have been better spent not on administration but on services that our local communities desperately need. It has left millions of pounds of local taxes uncollectable and that money will never be seen. Local government will have to raise it in other ways if it is to pay for the important services.
    The Government say in the Bill that students and those on income support should not pay local taxation. If that is so, why do we not have before us a Bill that includes the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution to the poll tax from 1 April 1992? There can be no excuse for the lack of such a provision if the Government are asking us to accept the provisions in this Bill from 1993. Even at this late stage, will the Government consider abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution from 1 April 1992? It costs so much for local authorities to collect that abolition would make good financial sense as well as being fair to those most in need.
    There is one system of local taxation that is used in many countries across the world. It is cheap to administer,

    491
    easy to collect and, most important, related to the ability to pay. That system is a local income tax. We know that such a system could be in place by April 1993. The information that is needed is contained already in the Inland Revenue computers, and a programme could be introduced within six months. It has been proven in use in other countries and the Government should consider it seriously. They have not done so. Although I regret that, the debate must centre on the Government's proposals.
    The proposals for the council tax hinge on valuations. We are to see a repeat of the costs of introducing the poll tax. The Government admit in the Bill that it will cost £250 million to introduce the council tax. About 500 extra staff will be needed in the valuation offices and tribunals. Even with all the extra staff and at such a huge cost—money that could be much better spent on services—the detailed valuations will be hit or miss. Clearly, it is not intended to assess every house and dwelling individually. In many cases it will involve somebody standing at the end of a street deciding that all the houses in that street will fall into a certain band.
    The bureaucracy will be the same as that involved in the poll tax. The Secretary of State said some time ago that there will not be a register for the council tax. However, it appears that there will be a list. I should like the Secretary of State to tell the House the difference between a register and a list. Those who wish to apply for a discount will have to fill out a form, and their details will be compiled in some list or register. At the end of the day, the Bill will give the public the right to examine——
    Mr. Eric Illsley: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about a list or register. Can he give his opinion on how he thinks that the Government will compile such a list, and the time scale involved? Will local authorities produce a list before the service of the first bills or will they compile it after the first bills have been issued and when people come back to the valuation officers with their complaints and to ask for their discounts? How will it fit into the time scale?
    Mr. Bellotti: The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point. The Government have not answered many points of detail. The Secretary of State made a fairly long and amusing speech, but it was low on content because he has not thought the issue through. I am sorry that I cannot share my view on the issue with the hon. Gentleman; we shall have to wait and see what the Government have to say on that and other important issues.
    Under the Bill, people will be able to take copies of the valuation list and third parties will be forced to reveal information. It would appear that if those who are compiling the list believe that they can obtain information about the value of a property, they can write to, say, National Westminster bank and it will be required to supply that information within 21 days. If that is what the Government intend, they are breaking new ground.
    The Bill gives a valuation officer the authority to call on a household in the middle of the night. If he puts a note through a door to say that he will be back in just over 24 hours, the owner of the property or the tenant must: allow him in. A call can be paid in the middle of the night with only 24 hours notice being given. One wonders whether that is the Government's intention; I hope that it is not.
    492
    Appeals against the valuation band will be held in public. The general public will be able to file in and obtain subsequent information on the outcome of the appeal.
    Mr. Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman seems to be going on about personal privacy. Am I not right in thinking that one of the disadvantages of a local income tax is that everyone's privacy will be invaded, because town halls will have the personal income details of every individual eligible to pay the local income tax?
    Mr. Bellotti: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he gives me an opportunity to explain how the income tax would work and to give him the categorical assurance that no town hall would have details of a person's income. The local authority will set the local income tax in exactly the same way as it previously set the rate. That will be communicated to the Inland Revenue, which already has confidential information about national taxation on its computers. If we assume that the local tax rate across the country is 3·3 per cent., that would be added to 25 per cent. and 28·3 per cent. would be deducted under the PAYE system. It is extremely simple.
    Mr. Burns rose——
    Mr. Andrew MacKay rose——
    Mr. David Wilshire rose——
    Mr. Bellotti: It is extremely simple, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to explain it. May I commend hon. Members who would like more information to visit some of the many countries that operate a local income tax, because they would be enlightened?
    Mr. Burns: Am I right in thinking that the Inland Revenue will add an average of 3·3 per cent. to the 25p standard rate of income tax, collect that under PAYE and then pay it to the local authority? If so, surely it would not take a sophisiticated mathematician to work out, if anyone were so inclined, the income of each individual who is paying the local income tax.
    Mr. Bellotti: I am extremely grateful again. The total is passed to the local authority. It is not passed with a list of what individuals have contributed—that defeats the whole point of it.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo rose——
    Mr. Bellotti: I shall not give way again because I want to refer to the local income tax later. Only five Conservative Members were present earlier; I am glad that my speech is encouraging them to come into the Chamber.
    I want to deal with the clauses that are vindictive. A councillor who is two months behind with payments of the council tax will be required to declare that and will not be allowed to vote at a council meeting. I can think of nothing more ludicrous than someone who is one month and 29 days behind with his payments being able to vote at a council meeting while someone who is two months and one day behind has to remember to declare that and cannot vote. Have the Government thought through how this will work? The Bill puts the onus on the councillor to remember whether he or she is more than two months behind. It is a crazy and vindictive proposition.
    A second area of vindictiveness is the attachment of earnings. The Government will attach the earnings of anyone who has not paid the council tax. When I referred

    493
    to the local income tax earlier, I might have expected grumbles about employers having to collect it, but if there is no objection to employers collecting local taxes, what is the objection to the local income tax, which they would collect?
    Under the Bill, there is to be a 25 per cent. discount for a single household. The Government always seem to get their maths wrong. If a standard household has two people, and if the Government want to be fair, one as a fraction of two would lead to a 50 per cent. discount.
    As with the poll tax bill, the phrase "jointly and severally liable" appears in the Bill. How fair can that be? Surely, under a property tax, the person who owns or rents the property is taxed. Other occupants should not be taxed jointly and severally. The person who rented or owned the property may have moved or split from their partner, yet the remaining partner will be liable for the ex-partner's tax. That is hardly fair.
    The whole Bill is unfair. A wealthy single person living in a big country mansion may pay less than a pensioner couple who are spending their retirement in a high-value bungalow on the south coast of England.
    Some hon. Members applied to discuss the future financing of local government with the Secretary of State but we were denied an audience. I asked the Secretary of State or the Minister of State to meet the two local authorities in my constituency—Wealden district council and Eastbourne borough council. One is run by the Conservatives and the other by the Liberal Democrats. That request was refused. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) had a similar request turned down.
    Are the Government not prepared to meet local authorities to discuss the financing of local services? Will this be the standard answer that hon. Members get? Perhaps the Government are trying to cover up what will happen when the council tax takes effect in April 1993.
    I must tell the Government that their proposals will win little support in Eastbourne. The rates in Eastbourne were unpopular because of the high value of houses. The poll tax was unpopular. A two-adult household in Eastbourne of one earning and one non-earning adult paid £274 each—a total cost of £548. Under the council tax, the average value of a house in Eastbourne would fall into band C—a total cost of £390. Under the local income tax, a youth worker earning £16,134 would pay £322·45p, with a non-earning partner or spouse paying nothing.
    In nearby Lewes, the position is even worse. Under the poll tax, a similar household would have paid £245 each in poll tax, a total of £490. Under the council tax band E the average bill in Lewes, where average house prices are higher, would be £444. Again, however, under a local income tax a youth worker in Lewes earning £16,134 would pay just £255·74, with the non-earning spouse paying nothing.
    In local authority after local authority, the council tax will be unpopular. In some places, it will not be an improvement on the poll tax and in others the improvement will be only marginal. The Government have clearly not done their sums—they have not worked out what its effect will be.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman uses as an illustration someone working in Eastbourne and someone
    494
    working in Lewes. The House is anxious to know whether the collection of tax by employers is relevant to where people work or to where they live. The young man working in Lewes may live 50 miles away, for all we know, so will the hon. Gentleman deal with the problem of how on earth the local authority will know who works where? Local authorities do not have that information at the moment. If the tax is not based on where people live, how will the money eventually end up with the local authority in which they live? How will a local authority know how many working people live within its area?
    The hon. Gentleman's party has not thought about any of those issues. He says that such a system works in other countries. His party's spokesman in another place refers to local taxation in Canada and in the United States. California is the size of this country and some of the Canadian provinces are 10 times that size. Can the hon. Gentleman relate that to a local income tax in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Bellotti: I am again extremely grateful for that intervention. I shall not take any more interventions, as I am coming to the end of my speech and many hon. Members wish to speak.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: I enjoyed it.
    Mr. Bellotti: I enjoyed it, too.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) for his intervention. A local income tax would work according to where a person lives. The Inland Revenue has the necessary information on its computers, because it has everyone's postal code. Only this summer, I went to the Inland Revenue offices to check, and the postal codes are on the computer. Every local authority knows exactly which dwellings are in its area so, by matching the postal code to the authority, all the money would go to the right local authority. I am grateful for the opportunity to enlighten the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his question.
    There has been an overestimation of property prices in the Government's thinking. Since the Government first thought of the council tax, property prices have fallen, so the income generated will be less. The effect will be that the eventual figure for the poll tax—now the council tax—will be greater. There will be millions of losers who live in high-price property who enjoyed the poll tax but will now pay much more under the council tax. Many of them are in the south of England, in seats held by Conservative Members of Parliament.
    I should like a response from the Minister about the proposal to privatise the revenue collection service in local government. Colleagues in local government have been saying for some time that the Government have said that, at some point, the revenue collection services in local authorities Would be privatised and would go out to tender. I seek an assurance that that will not be for at least three or four years after the introduction of the council tax. If it were introduced before that, it would cause absolute mayhem in town halls.
    The Bill refers to the collection costs, which the Government have estimated at 40 per cent. of the cost of administering the poll tax. However, the Audit Commission has challenged that figure, and has said that it would be nearer 50 per cent. The Bill refers to £200 million a year being saved on the cost of collection, but it does not mention whether that £200 million is a saving on

    495
    the cost of collecting the poll tax or on the cost of collecting the original rates. The Government introduced the discredited poll tax, which cost an enormous amount to collect, so there is not much joy or credit if the new system still costs more than the original system.
    Instead of the council tax and the unclear proposals, it would be far better to introduce a system that will work. Let the local authorities control, for example, the business rates; let us remove all the capping powers and increase the quality and accountability of locals services by making people locally responsible to those who elected them. With less Government interference, more local competence will emerge.
    In Committee, we shall consider every detail of the Bill and we promise to consider carefully every clause. We want to ensure that people are not landed with a second taxation system which is as unfair and unjust as the poll tax.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I call Mr. Allen McKay.
    6.35 pm
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: We have already heard Allen, and he cannot speak twice.
    I do not wish to appear uncharacteristically churlish, but I wonder whether I alone raised an eyebrow when the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) questioned whether the Secretary of State should have left the debate after an hour when the hon. Gentleman has been the only member of his party to be here throughout the debate—until the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) scuttled in towards the end of his speech. Wisely, he missed the first half, but sadly, the second half wa.s not a great improvement.
    I commend the hon. Member for Eastbourne on one half of his speech. He quickly glossed over Liberal Democrat proposals on local income tax and rightly stuck to debating the official Opposition's amendment. It was clear from the telling interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that there are many unanswered questions.
    The only question that the hon. Gentleman answered clearly—I am grateful to him for that—was to the effect that there would be no capping under Liberal Democrat proposals. So, if we had local income tax, however it might be collected and whoever it might be collected from—wherever people happen to live—there will be no limit on the tax, which means that a profligate local authority could levy huge sums. That was fascinating to learn. But that is enough about the Liberal Democrats' local income tax.
    Mr. David Alton: The hon. Gentleman must understand that in a city such as Liverpool this has been a serious issue. If the poll tax or rate cappers had been the people themselves, that city might not have run into the problems that it experienced. Militant might not have been given the opportunity to blame the Government if there had been far more local accountability. That is why my hon. Friend's point was well made.
    Mr. MacKay: There were problems in Liverpool before rate-capping was introduced, but I shall not be diverted
    496
    from the amendment because we wish to consider carefully what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said when he moved it.
    Perhaps the Labour party has been out of office for too long; it has forgotten what government is about. It has forgotten that it is about making hard decisions and that there are complex problems associated with the raising of income for local authorities. I presume that that is why in the past four years the Labour party has come up with 70 different policies.
    Mr. David Amess: Is my hon. Friend sure?
    Mr. MacKay: It was very difficult to decide what the hon. Member for Dagenham had in mind, even when he was being prompted by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
    All of us who have studied the problems over the years can point out the shortcomings of alternative policies. As I said in the previous debate on the subject last year, what was required was to combine the best of the old ratings system with the best of the poll tax, or community charge, and local accountability. That has been achieved in the council tax and I strongly support it.
    You may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you were in the Chair during that debate, some of my reservations about the poll tax, which have now been addressed satisfactorily by the Government. I said that it was nonsense to collect 20 per cent. poll tax from students. It is unfair to the students concerned, and the cost of collection outweighs the money that comes in. I am delighted that, when the council tax is introduced, there will be no charge for full-time students.
    I also expressed concern about some of the poorest in our community who found it difficult to pay even 20 per cent. of the poll tax. I know full well that, in effect, they are not paying that, because they have gained increases in social security which offset the 20 per cent. that they pay. But that is not good accountability. The real problem is that those people often spend the money in advance and then find it difficult to raise the sum when required. I am, therefore, delighted that the rebate will go up to 100 per cent. for the least well-off in the community.
    The third group that worried me when I spoke before were the families in my constituency in which the breadwinner or breadwinners were on a low income which was not sufficiently low to be eligible for community charge benefit. Almost inevitably, most of those people live in properties of relatively low value. Under the council tax, they will pay less than they were paying under the community charge, and that is right. There should be some element of ability to pay. I am satisfied that the banding system is sufficiently wide so that those who live in houses of a higher value will pay somewhat more for services which they can clearly afford.
    The reason why I was so opposed to the old rating system and why I campaigned for so long to have it changed was the blatant unfairnesses, especially for single people, whether they were young people starting out in life or pensioners, widows or widowers, living on their own. They had to pay the same as their neighbour who lived in an identical house. We have all heard that argument before and it is correct. It was wrong that such people should pay the same, so I am delighted that there will be a full 25 per cent. discount on the council tax for single people.

    497
    The first most serious flaw in Labour's proposals is that there is no discount for single people, so that widows and old single people will pay the same under Labour's so-called fair rating system as will their neighbours in identical houses. That cannot be right, and I hope that all those single people are well aware of Labour's proposals.
    Labour's proposals share their second great flaw with the proposals of the Liberal Democrats. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), aided and abetted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, flushed out from the hon. Member for Dagenham the admission that there would be no capping. If there were a Labour Government, or a Labour Government aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrats as we had between 1974 and 1979, there would be no capping. That meant that for every irresponsible council such as Liverpool council, against which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) fought so courageously, the sky was the limit.
    I am amazed that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill can go along with that idea because he has considerable practical experience in Liverpool of what life is like for his constituents if there is no capping. That is now Liberal Democrat policy and it is Labour policy.
    We should not have needed to debate the issue tonight if, on day one of the community charge, there had been the 2·5 per cent. increase in value added tax which had led to £140 reduction per head in poll tax. Like colleagues in other parts of the country, I have found that in my constituency it was not the principle of the community charge—except for the anomalies that I have just mentioned—that concerned people and lost public opinion, but the size of the poll tax bills.
    From knocking on doors in my constituency, I have found that, although the poll tax was a great issue until 18 months ago, when in the Bracknell end people were paying £396 and in the Windsor end they were paying £450, following the reduction of £140 and with prudent spending by the local councils—the poll tax is now £230 in Bracknell and £287 in Windsor—it is no longer a major issue. That is deeply significant and it is a great pity that, when the poll tax was introduced, the increase in VAT did not take place. If it had taken place, we could have amended the anomalies such as discounts for students, and we should have had no problems.
    It is only because the poll tax is holed below the water-line in public credibility that we need to move to the council tax. The council tax offers the best compromise between the two previous systems of rates and of poll tax. We have the best of both worlds without the worst of either.
    Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in my constituency, as in many constituencies in which there are low rateable values, many pensioners living alone find it strange and inconsistent with the Government's claimed policy of getting rid of the rates, and going on to the poll tax and now the council tax, that, as a result of the concession on low rateable values, a single pensioner living alone often pays more poll tax as an individual than do two, three or four individuals living next door? People living together tend to get more relief in lower rateable
    498
    value properties. How does the hon. Gentleman justify that, when one of the Government's original claims was that the poll tax would help single pensioners living alone?
    Mr. MacKay: As the hon. Gentleman knows, single people on the whole have been helped immensely by the community charge and they will be helped by the council tax as well. Much depends on the amount of relief that is given. As I have already pointed out, up to 100 per cent. relief will be given to those on the very lowest incomes to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. That has been satisfactorily addressed under the council tax and the hon. Gentleman should appreciate it fully.
    I shall explain how satisfactorily the council tax will work in Bracknell and Windsor. The average house in Bracknell comes under band D. Band D will be charged £367 compared with the £230 a head which we pay at present under the poll tax. The figure was £396 before the reduction due to the VAT increase in this year's Budget. In Windsor, where the largest single band is band E—25 per cent. of people are in that band—people will pay £495 council tax for a house compared with £287 a head poll tax. The figure was £450 before the Budget.
    The council tax is a good deal for my constituents and they will also deem it a fair deal. They will be pleased that their student children do not now have to pay poll tax and they will be delighted that the least well-off in the community will get up to 100 per cent. discounts and full relief. I commend the council tax to the House. I am delighted that Ministers have listened to what I and others said in previous debates and in private.
    If democracy means anything in our society and if our constituents making representations to us means anything, saying, "Yes, we are wrong and we need to amend the proposals" should be applauded and not laughed at by hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I can remember sitting on the Opposition Benches on many occasions and seeing mistakes made by the previous Labour Government. They never retracted those mistakes.
    The fact that many of us who supported, and still support, the principle of the community charge, and who voted for it, believing that it was right, but nevertheless saw mistakes in it, made representations to the Government and speeches in the House, and now have the perfect compromise in the council tax, should be commended. That is what good parliamentary democracy is all about. The average voter, the average member of the public out there, would like to see politicians change their minds more often and amend policies taking public opinion and practical experience into account. If they did so, politics and politicians in this country would have a much better name than they do now.
    6.50 pm
    Mr. Bill Michie: The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) said that the Government at least had the courage to admit when they had made a mistake. I have no doubt that they are making another mistake now. The argument seems to be that there was nothing wrong with the principle or the administration of poll tax, it simply cost people too much. What sort of argument is that? That is precisely what the problem was, not just to ordinary ratepayers but to the nation as a whole.

    499
    If the Government claim to be honestly admitting that they have made mistakes, why do they not have the honesty to say that the poll tax was a complete and utter disaster? They were told both in Committee and on the Floor of the House how bad the poll tax would be, and what effect it would have. Unfortunately those predictions came true. We cannot be glad that the poll tax died in that way, because it did so only by causing suffering to many of our constituents.
    The poll tax was a disaster.
    Mr. Illsley: It still is.
    Mr. Michie: Indeed, the poll tax is a disaster, and will continue to be. The council tax is "son of disaster". Elements in it are the same as those in the poll tax legislation; it will cause the same problems to the ratepayers; it will meet the same fate. Again, it will be rushed through. We shall not be able to examine every comma, phrase and sentence. That was not allowed in the poll tax debate, and it will not be allowed in the council tax debate.
    I understand why the Government want to rush the council tax through. Nevertheless, mistakes will be made again, because we shall not have enough time to scrutinise all the details. I am pleased that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen do not wish to delay the legislation for the sake of delay. They do not want to be blamed for keeping the poll tax in its present form. But the Opposition cannot play footsie with the Government when the Government say, "Come and help us with our Bill and share the blame as well as the glory." Unfortunately, there will be no glory, and so far as I am concerned the Government can take the blame.
    I am angry about what has happened to local authorities over the past few year, because local authorities are one of my first loves—the work they do and the services that they provide, or at least, used to provide. With the council tax, bills will go through the roof, yet it will not help local government in its function of helping the people who elected it.
    Local government has suffered for at least 10 years. Even the rate support grant was fiddled, messed about and changed so much that local authorities found it more and more difficult to cope with their yearly rate assessments and bills. Our amendment at least stresses that we would get rid of poll tax immediately and replace it with a fair rating system.
    The only way to cure the immediate problems of local government is to scrap poll tax entirely. That would help to stave off further suffering for local taxpayers, who have already suffered for many years, not only in financial terms but from the stress caused by trying to find out whether those such as young people, single people or unemployed people were eligible for help. The poll tax caused division within households as well as within cities.
    The Secretary of State said that he believed in democracy and that the Opposition did not. I dispute that. For me, democracy does not consist in letting the Government run amok with the nation's expenditure without question, nor in saying that the Government alone can make decisions and know what they are talking about. Democracy involves the whole structure of society, including local government. Without local government we should not have a democracy for long; there would be a dictatorship from Westminster. I do not want to hear any
    500
    more about our people not believing in democracy because we defend local rates and local authorities. We do that because we are democrats and believe that local government is a good democratic institution which helps people and the nation as a whole.
    If there were not so much fiddling with the standard spending assessments, and all the extra burdens of responsibility imposed on local authorities without the wherewithal to implement the legislation, local government would be in a better position. Local authorities have no room for manoeuvre to help people in need in their areas. Local economies are in a sorry state because of Government policies, and nowadays local government has neither the power nor the wherewithal to help local people in difficulties, or even local industry—that is a factor in my constituency.
    This is the fag end of the Government. As several of my hon. Friends have said, there is not much in the Queen's Speech. The biggest part of it concerns the council tax. I have learnt from other Members who have spoken that we are not allowed to stray from the subject of the day's debate—local taxation—and deal with the main issues in the Queen's Speech. But there is no doubt that the way in which local authorities are funded has an effect on the economy of cities, constituencies and regions.
    Over the years, because of the restrictions placed on local authorities, democratically elected councillors have become less and less able to help people in distress or need. It is said that the Government have been trying for years to slim the nation down—to get it fit and ready to fight, to compete with other countries. They call that lean and hungry. That is not what I call it. The Government have emaciated and starved the nation. The investment which should have been made at national and local level is no longer there; our industry is dying around us. Our nation is emaciated because training programmes are few and far between and are of nothing like the quality which should be expected in a modern society. It is emaciated, too, because of the siphoning off of our national assets and the squandering of North sea oil. The profits from those assets, and the benefits of North sea oil, have not flowed, or even trickled, down to local government.
    The nation is not lean either; it is starved. It has been starved of caring because of the idea, encouraged and perpetuated by the Government, especially the former Prime Minister, that there is no such thing as society, and that everyone is on his own. That is the sort of society that has been created; it is not the sort of society that we want.
    Local authorities are still trying their best to keep communities together and help in any way that they can, but they cannot do that without proper powers and legislation—certainly not without proper financing. Community spirit in our constituencies is now at rock bottom. There is a shortage of cash, an atmosphere of hopelessness. And what about caring communities? Even under the council tax legislation, if it gets through, if local authorities such as mine decided to help the community in any way, they would be liable to capping or other forms of restriction, as in the past.
    It is not local authorities' irresponsible actions or overspending that are to blame: the local authorities have been starved of cash. It is no good the Government saying, "That is your allocation: like it or lump it," if, when something goes wrong, and when the fabric of society in an area falls down, they ask, "What was local government doing about it?" If there is a child abuse case, the

    501
    Government immediately ask, "What was the social worker doing about it?", but we all know that the social worker in question was probably dealing with a caseload twice as heavy as that with which he or she should have been dealing and was receiving no extra resources to help.
    The Children Act 1989 is welcome; of course it is. But where is the wherewithal to implement it? The Government have made what would appear to be a generous offer, but an examination of the small print reveals that the money needed to implement the Act has been taken away from other areas on the assumption that the Act will take care of them. That is not the case. More and more responsibilities are being placed on local government while less and less cash is being provided to it.
    Let us consider how much cash has been wasted on the poll tax. What is it now? Almost £6 billion has been wasted in one year. That is £19 billion in total, or £173 million per week. The mind boggles. What could we not have done with that in terms of home helps, social services, children's nurses, the rising fives and so on? You name it. That money is all gone—wasted on some daft scheme arising from the Government's bitter hatred of local government and its representation of its people. What has happened? The money has been wasted, services have been slashed and local authorities are no longer in a position to identify and deal with areas of weakness and vulnerability in society. If they do, they are penalised for overspending; if they do not, they are criticised by the local electorate.
    I know from my experience of local government that, before the bad old days of Toryism, local authorities used to be able to take all sorts of initiatives. We did not just automatically help young people who wanted special training and special courses. Labour-controlled authorities went to the trouble of forming employment departments that adhered to the strict philosophy of trying to help not just local community groups but local businesses. Working hand in hand with the banks, they sought to help private businesses and small businesses—for example, by trying to help companies with cash flow problems. They bought land to enable people to set up businesses and so create jobs and wealth.
    That was all down to the local authorities. If we spent that sort of time and money now, the Government would condemn us as overspenders, because such activities do not fall within the criteria that they have set. Local government has been wrongly accused—indeed, I feel, abused—by central Government, when most of the responsibility lies precisely with that central Government.
    While on the subject, I have something to say about a subject connected with local authorities. The demise of the nation's manufacturing base has certainly affected my area of Sheffield, where we have lost 30,000 or 40,000 jobs. Little can be done quickly in terms of the provision of Government money, although we have quangos growing up all over the place trying to tell local government to get over a problem that it did not create in the first place. There is no way in which local authorities can get organised to help to cushion the blow of massive redundancies in such a short time. On the one hand, the Government are destroying the nation's manufacturing base while on the other the local councils in areas that are
    502
    drastically affected by that destruction are totally restricted both financially and by legislation. That leaves thousands of our people without hope.
    Mr. Wilshire: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the only way in which a local council or local councillors can achieve anything is by spending money?
    Mr. Michie: Of course, strictly speaking, that is not the case. But if the hon. Gentleman wants local authorities to give advice, he must acknowledge that they will incur costs. Or does he want people just to go to the corner shop and ask for advice? Is not it more sensible for them to go to the town hall? If one wants expert advice, one sees an expert, and that expert will be employed by the local authority. If one wants good planning, one employs a good architect, and one pays that architect.
    Do the Government want children to have proper accommodation? Do they want people to be protected from abuse of all kinds? If so, they cannot send Joe Bloggs, or anyone who happens to be handy that day, to see people; they must send the relevent expert—social workers or architects. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that all those services can be provided free of charge, in which case that perhaps explains why local government is no longer provided by central Government with the resources that used to be at its disposal.
    Local authority initiatives are no longer possible and there is little hope unless we scrap the poll tax completely and bring back some form of fair rates system. That is what the Labour party proposes, and that is what it will do on its return to government next year. In that way, we shall be able to start rebuilding the nation's prosperity. That cannot be done starting from the crackpot ideas of a Tory Government. It must be achieved starting from good initiatives from a Labour Government and, certainly, from local democracy.
    7.6 pm
    Mr. David Wilshire: There is nothing quite like a local government debate to clear the Benches on both sides of the House. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, may feel that you are looking at the same old faces, but I sincerely hope that you are not hearing the same old speeches even if some of what all of us say on these occasions is quite familiar.
    When I contacted Mr. Speaker earlier to ask him whether I might speak, I explained to him that, although I fully understood that the topic for today was the council tax and the Opposition amendment connected to it, I wanted to speak particularly about the other local government Bill which is to come before the House, which is much more relevant than you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members may suppose.[Laughter.]You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, they laugh before they hear anything, which shows that they do not want to listen. If Opposition Members read history books—no matter the country in question and no matter the political philosophy of its Government—they will discover that, in the long term, structure is much more important to the health of local government than finance.
    My second reason for wishing to speak about the Local Government Bill is that I do not believe that the House can expect to get the finance of local government right without

    503
    knowing exactly what it is that we are seeking to finance. I hope that that second point will keep me in order during the rest of my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The snag about the Local Government Bill is that it covers three topics—the extension of powers to the Audit Commission, the extension of competitive tendering, and restructuring. All three matters could be the subject of long speeches but, because of the constraints of time, I shall confine myself to just one of them—restructuring. Let me first explain why I think that the subject of restructuring needs to be thought about at this stage. Someone needs to urge our colleagues, both in this House and in the other place, to avoid the mistakes that have been made in the debates that have taken place so far outside the House and in the lead-up to the legislation that we are now considering.
    For my sins, I have listened carefully to a huge number of people in the course of this year. I have studied submissions from 282 of the 335 affected councils, and they do not make happy reading. The process has been profoundly depressing. Throughout my listening and my reading I have found errors resulting from a failure to understand what we are all about. All the time, one finds the same muddle and confusion arising from the failure to think through what it is we are trying to restructure and refinance.
    Let me give the House one or two examples. The first error is that the size of a local government area's population matters; it does not. It does not seem to matter in the Scilly Isles, where a couple of thousand people get all their services, nor does it matter in cities with more than 1 million people. Both communities seem to get on quite well. Therefore, population does not matter.
    Another error is that the resource base matters. No, it does not if the House gets the Local Government Finance Bill right because that Bill and the contribution from the centre will deal with that. Another error that crops up time and again is that council and service boundaries must be coterminous. That belief led to the foul-up and disaster when we last restructured local government. On that occasion, we drew up the boundaries for service delivery convenience.
    An example of the muddle and confusion is that far too many people claim that meeting needs equals providing services. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) exhibited that confusion. Meeting needs means ensuring that services are provided, and that is very different from providing them oneself.
    More confusion and muddle is revealed by the statement, "I'm in favour of unitary authorities because I believe in all-purpose authorities." No one, not even someone on the far out-of-sight, left-wing of the Labour party, would suggest that local government should have all-purpose authorities to run every supermarket, and do-it-yourself shop and every solicitor's and doctor's practice. We must be grateful about that confusion.
    Another mistake is to believe that accountability means local democracy. It does not. The deliverer of every service, from a corner shop to a hospital, is accountable to every client or customer. Accountability does not necessarily need the intervention of a councillor or any other politician.
    How should we avoid those traps? We should home in on and think seriously about one small part of the Local Government Bill. Clause 13(5) provides that the review that is to take place must have
    504
    "regard to the need—
    (a) to reflect the identities and interests of local communities; and (b) to secure effective and convenient local government."
    That provision raises four big issues which should be at the heart of the debate that will take place in this House during the winter: what are the identities of local communities? What are their interests? What is local government? How are we to make local government, when we have defined it, effective and convenient?
    The first issue—to identify local communities—sounds simple, but mistakes have been made about it on so many occasions that I have almost lost count of them. Only that issue should be allowed to determine local government boundaries. There is only one way to identify local communities, and that is to ask and trust local people and therefore resist temptations to impose solutions from the centre.
    However, we must be clear about what we mean by local communities if we are to get things right. That requires us to have regard to the fact that human society, wherever we find it, is highly territorial. In the real world, human society has many levels of community. The implication is that we all belong to several communities so that there is no such thing as one natural community which, if we could find it, would make everything well. We must be clear about what the local government community should be doing. It should respond to service needs and define the area in which people move around for their services. That is the fundamental issue, but we are still talking about local communities.
    Mr. Bill Michie: Who is going to pay?
    Mr. Wilshire: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will stop and think about it. Obviously local people and central Government would pay—or does he want all local government to be paid for locally, irrespective of how we define it? That would be grossly unfair. Alternatively, if it was all paid for by central Government, the element of local democracy would disappear. I am not suggesting anything vastly expensive. I am simply suggesting that we should listen to local people. If they say that they want something small, let them have something small. If they want something big, let them have it.
    Irrespective of issues such as finance, rate capping and charge capping, boundaries must not be drawn for service convenience or for financial consideration. They must be drawn according to what local people want for themselves. There is no ideal or minimum size and there is no standard solution. The Cornish may want to remain Cornish and simply retain Cornwall. However, I am certain that Bristolians do not have the slightest desire to remain in Avon or to be put in Somerset or Gloucestershire.
    Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that, no matter what size the local community wishes to be, it can be classed as a local authority perhaps alongside a large area in which, speaking purely in geographical terms, the people want to be a large authority. Surely there would be losses through economies of scale if that was the case. Surely there must be a minimum size.
    Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman reveals one of the muddles—that meeting needs and delivering services are the same thing. There are different ways of achieving economies of scale in a small community as opposed to a big one. If the natural community boundaries with regard

    505
    to the Local Government Finance Bill are defined for service convenience, we will fall into the trap that people fell into years ago.
    We must also consider the interests of local communities. It is important to be clear what those interests are not. They are not simply confined to local government services. A local community is as interested in its hospital as it is in its dustbins——
    Mr. Bellotti: It is not allowed to be.
    Mr. Wilshire: Yes, it is. That is the point. That confuses being interested and allowing councillors to be involved.
    The interests of local authorities do not involve who employs the people who empty the dustbins or who employs swimming pool attendants. It is all about the quality of those services. The interests of the local community are not about who owns the electricity company, but about the quality of service provided. They are not about how hospitals—which are topical at the moment—are managed, but about the quality of the service provided.
    If that is so, what does it mean for the interests of local government? It means that we should be talking not about economies of scale or about size, but about whether the values of local communities are upheld; whether the needs of local communities are met—whoever meets them; whether local priorities are being set and followed and whether they are being set by local people instead of being foisted on them. Local people are interested in service quality being of the highest possible level and service costs being at the lowest possible level. That is the true role of local government and of councillors.
    The next consideration in the Local Government Bill is effective and convenient local government. However, we must first be clear what we mean by local government. There are two concepts floating around on both sides of the House—this is not a party political point—about what local government means. The first is that local government is owned by central Government, and the other is that local government is owned by local people.
    This Government, the previous Labour Government and virtually every other Government that I have ever come across have tended to focus on ownership of local government from the centre. But the truth is that central Government simply devise the local framework, and then central Government allocate services, but central Government and this House do not own local government. Local government is owned by local people. The implications of that——
    Mr. Donald Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is against capping.
    Mr. Wilshire: I shall put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. I am not against capping, and he will see why in a moment.
    The implications of what I have said are profound. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to intimate that I have said something significant, but it is not what he thinks I have said. The implications are profound for the Local Government Finance Bill, but not for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gives, and they are even more profound for the future of local government itself. If we cannot get
    506
    back to the concept of local government being owned by local people, the future of local government looks pretty bleak.
    Mr. Graham: It is bleak just now.
    Mr. Wilshire: It is bleak because too many people, particularly in the hon. Gentleman's party, are locked into spending money on interfering in things that local people do not want them to interfere in, or they are wasting money. All those things make the future of local government pretty bleak at the moment.
    Having decided what local government means, we can then consider how to make it effective and convenient. If we want to make it effective, we need to look at what the dictionary has to say about the word "effective" and then what it has to say about "convenient". Effectiveness is one of the three Es of the Audit Commission—effectiveness, efficiency and economy. It is interesting that only one of them is mentioned in the Bill. That is absolutely right, because effectiveness is about meeting needs and it is highly political, which is why the Audit Commission and others have always found it difficult to have anything helpful to say about effectiveness.
    Efficiency and economy are left out of the Bill for one simple reason—that is, efficiency and economy are about delivering services, not meeting needs. Thus, if we think about effectiveness, we focus our debate upon the needs of local people, and that is absolutely fundamental. Effective local government is about working with local people in areas with which local people identify, irrespective of how the services are provided, and in ways that best meet the needs of local people and not the convenience of service deliverers.
    If we want to achieve convenient local government, the dictionary becomes very unhelpful indeed. I wish I could be more positive about that, but I cannot. My dictionary says that convenience means freedom from difficulty or trouble. I wish that it were possible to have freedom from difficulty or trouble in local government, but it is not. Tension is inevitable, for three good reasons.
    First, local government is subservient to central Government in any nation state, and that is bound to bring conflict and tension—it is inevitable. Secondly, in the United Kingdom, there is no formal regional organisation. It is perfectly possible to do without it, but it does not half make for additional tension if the absence of a regional organisation is not handled carefully. The third reason why tension is inevitable is that change in society is rapid and great and totally outside the control of politicians. I suspect that, in respect of trying to achieve convenient local government, the best the House could hope for is to achieve the least inconvenient, because that is the reality of the situation.
    Thus far I have quite deliberately said little about services, because that is what the Bill wants us to do. It is about local people, local communities and their needs, not about services or the convenience of their managers, and it is not directly about the economy and efficiency of service provision. However, outside the House, the debate about the Bill has been dominated by such issues. It has been dominated by considerations of who controls which service. It has been dominated by debates about making sure that there are areas big enough for efficient provision. But both are issues totally separate from the issues that we should consider when we restructure local government.

    507
    The correct way forward for services is that each and every service must be designed separately and independently of natural community boundaries. Surely nobody suggests that the service boundaries of the gas supplier or the Post Office, for example, should automatically coincide with local government boundaries. Of course we do not say that. Why, therefore, should we automatically assume that education, social services or refuse collection boundaries should automatically coincide with a natural community boundary?
    The other point about making progress in that direction is that each and every service needs to be allocated separately to the person——
    Mr. Bellotti: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that every local authority service could have a different boundary? If so, it is rather incredible, and I should like the hon. Gentleman further to explain.
    Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. He said "every local authority service". We should not be considering simply local government services. If local government is to be truly effective on behalf of local people, it will have just as much interest in the Post Office, British Rail, the local supermarket and so on. If, however, the hon. Gentleman and his party wish to focus upon those services that are provided by local government, we will fail all over again, because the debate will focus on who controls what. We will be talking about efficiency of service delivery, we will draw up boundaries and have councils which reflect service delivery, and people will simply not identify with them. However, if we go down my track, we will welcome the Bill and make the Bill serve the purpose of local government.
    I hope that what I have had to say has alerted the House to the errors that have been made elsewhere and to the muddle and confusion. I very much hope that the forthcoming consideration will seek to define natural communities, not service territories. I hope that it will focus on the needs of people rather than on the services that are delivered to meet them. It must detach the designing of services from drawing council boundaries.
    If we do that, we will secure once and for all the future of local government, improve service delivery at the same time, and enhance local democracy. If we do not do that, we will live to rue the day. The wish for a good future for local government unites all parties and all people inside and outside the Chamber. If that is so, the needs of people and respecting them must come first, and then we will get it right.
    7.27 pm
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I quote:
    "The community charge is here to stay. I don't think that by the time the next election comes the idea that we should overhaul once again the whole system of local government finance will be regarded by the electorate as a terribly cheering idea. Maybe one day we'll have people breaking the law and painting on the sides of buildings 'Up with the community charge"'.
    Those are the very profound words of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) in an article in The Spectator only a little more than a year ago. As usual, he got it wrong. As usual, the arrogance of the Conservative party could be seen in the words of its chairman. The Tories got it wrong with the poll tax, but they were not prepared to admit it. The Government misled the electorate, but they were not prepared to admit it. They
    508
    blindly carried on saying how popular the poll tax was, when, from day one, everyone knew that it was a disaster and that eventually it would have to go.
    Today we are discussing a new tax to replace the poll tax—the poll tax that has hardly been with us any length of time and yet has been a disaster. Statements by the chairman of the Conservative party and by many other leading Tories have shown them to be totally inept in not being able to glean just what a disaster it was. The Government have disgracefully squandered billions of pounds on the poll tax. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been wasted on a tax which everyone except the Conservatives knew would fail.
    Even at the end of 1990, when everyone knew that the poll tax was becoming a liability and a disgrace, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) said at the Conservative party conference:
    "The community charge is a courageous, fair and sensible solution. Far from being a vote loser, with your help it will be a vote winner and launch us on our fourth term. Let's 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, ladies and gentlemen, is an achievement to be proud of."
    If it is such an achievement, why are we discussing the new council tax today, a tax that is intended to get rid of the dreaded poll tax? The reason is that the Conservative party is an arrogant party that will not listen or take' advice.
    When the poll tax was originally introduced in the House, my right hon. and hon. Friends pleaded with the Government not to introduce it, saying that it was a bad and unfair tax. But the Government did not listen and we can all be sure that they will not listen today either. Just like the poll tax, the council tax is deeply flawed. It is not a fair or a practical tax and it certainly will not stand the test of time.
    The administrative complexity of the system is likely to be worse than that required by the poll tax. The whole thing will be a shambles and as unpopular as the poll tax. The new council tax will be based on an inadequately banded valuation of property, with a fixed upper limit that is designed to protect the very rich at the expense of everyone else. Is not that exactly the same as the poll tax? As we said when the poll tax was introduced, the council tax is just another tax that has been designed to protect the very rich. There is no doubt that it is a flawed and a doomed tax.
    The appeal system is vague. The banding and discount schemes will mean that bills will not be related to people's ability to pay. The discount scheme will cause tremendous problems and will be a bone of contention causing disruption, just like the poll tax. Every property in Britain will be banded. Why is the difference in property values between band A and band H in the ratio of 1:8 while the difference in bills for households between those in the bottom band and those in the top band will be only in the ratio of 1:3? The council tax proposals are and will remain contentious. The number of bands and the fact that they are national and do not allow for regional variations will cause great resentment throughout the country.
    The use of estate agents to carry out the valuations will cause tremendous problems. Different estate agents will have different views. The assessment process will be seen to be totally unfair. Valuations will be carried out not on individual properties, but on packages of about 20,000

    509
    properties. Individual properties will not be given an actual value. The operation of such a simple and crude system is bound to cause tremendous problems and to trigger masses of appeals from people who do not accept that their property has been valued correctly.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Before leaving his point about valuations and his criticism of the fact that there is only a national scheme, will the hon. Gentleman agree that the old rating system often led to properties in low-rated areas having a high rate in the pound, while in high-rated areas, some properties had low rates in the pound? I do not see what the difference is. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain it, because it is his party that wants to return to the old rating system.
    Mr. Steinberg: The difference is that someone whose property is too highly valued and placed in the wrong band will pay more than he or she should. If the hon. Gentleman cannot recognise that, it is easy to see why his party is in its present difficulties.
    The biggest complaint that I hear about the poll tax is that people whose house may be exactly the same as that of their neighbours and who may earn exactly the same wage are paying a different amount. That causes tremendous resentment—and rightly so. Another complaint is that a single pensioner may have to pay more than the working couple who live next door. Again, that causes tremendous resentment. We must get away from such a state of affairs. However, under the council tax, the bills received by identical households with the same income may differ simply because of the identity and status of the person who is nominated as the "liable" person, thus causing exactly the same resentment.
    It is now almost certain that, despite what the legislation may say, local authorities will have to compile a register or list if they are to administer the tax efficiently. Although we were told by the Secretary of State that there would be no need for a register, a register or list of adults will be required to administer the system of the 25 per cent. single person and status discounts.
    The importance attached to the head count element of the new tax is obviously the result of pressure from the right wing of the Tory party and is most clearly revealed in the proposals for the complex system of discounts. Despite what the Government have said, the system of discounts and household liability will make administering the tax almost impossible without a register listing every adult, similar to that which was needed for the poll tax. For most households, councils will need to know the number of people living in a house and the relationship between them.
    If ever there was an infringement of people's liberty, this must be the ultimate example of it and, frankly, it is even worse than with the poll tax. Help with bills will be lost if additional individuals move into households. In many cases, the income of every adult in the household will need to be known by the local authority before the bill can be calculated. Is not that crazy? Is not that exactly the same system that the poll tax produced and was it not that system that caused so much hatred towards the poll tax?
    The Government got the amount of the poll tax bills wrong. When they introduced the poll tax, they said that the average bill would be about £178. They soon revised
    510
    that and said that the bills would average £278, but when the bills were sent out for the first time, the average amount turned out to be £357. The signs are that, yet again, the Government have got their sums wrong. They have already made the mistake of overestimating property prices when establishing the bands.
    Recent figures from the building societies show that house prices will be well below those used by the Government for their council tax calculations. Although the council tax retains a head tax element, it has been devised as a property tax. Each household will receive a tax bill that is based on the value of the property, but that value will not necessarily be the property's actual value. Is that not an incredible U-turn from the Government? Is that not an amazing volte-face?
    I am sure that hon. Members will recall that only recently the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said:
    "Any system based on property will repeat the injustice of the domestic rates … taxes on people's homes are unfair. Property values bear little relation to people's ability to pay."
    How can anybody ever again take seriously anything that the hon. Gentleman says—that is, if he was ever taken seriously in the first place?
    The Government aim to have the new tax up and running by April 1993. That means that the Local Government Finance Bill will have to complete its parliamentary passage quickly. Therefore, as was the case with the poll tax, much of the detail does not appear in the Bill but will be introduced later through regulations. Again, as with the poll tax, it will be a total catastrophe and a total nonsense.
    When the poll tax was introduced, we repeatedly warned the Government not to go ahead, but they are yet again introducing a tax without any thought, research or real idea of what will happen. Again, Opposition Members are warning them that they are moving towards disaster.
    Last year, the Prime Minister said:
    "One of the difficulties we got into with the community charge was being bounced into decisions before they were fully thought through and before we knew precisely how they would affect people".
    That attitude is typical of everything that the Government have done. But the Prime Minister is now set to do the same thing all over again with the council tax by trying to rush it through even more quickly than the poll tax. The new tax will prove as disastrous for the British people as was the poll tax.
    Will the council tax be fair? As we all know, unfairness was the reason why the poll tax failed, but many people to whom I have talked already believe that the council tax will be unfair because, once again, it will not be related to people's ability to pay, which should be a characteristic of any good tax.
    Early indications are that the Government's predictions are all wrong and that, as happened with the poll tax, when the first bills go out they will be twice as much as the Government have estimated. I welcome the Government's decision to get rid of the poll tax and to reintroduce a property tax, because that is basically what the Labour party would do. But this Conservative council tax is the wrong option. It is ill thought out and badly prepared, just like the poll tax, and the Tories are making it up as they go along.
    First they were going to have 14 valuation bands, then seven, then nine, then seven again, and now we have eight. Despite the Government's promises and the chaos of the poll tax, the poll tax is still with us and poll tax bills will

    511
    be going out in March and April 1992. If only the Government had been prepared to accept Labour's help to solve the problem, we could have got rid of the poll tax.
    The delay in abolishing the poll tax is due entirely to the Government's unwillingness to co-operate with the Labour party. If they had co-operated, we could have got rid of the poll tax and returned to the rating system straight away. Because the poll tax is still with us, it is becoming increasingly difficult to collect. The debt throughout the country is more than £1·5 billion and continually rising.
    Mr. Wilshire: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows why the poll tax is becoming increasingly difficult to collect. It is because Labour Members set such a dreadful example by breaking the law and refusing to pay.
    Mr. Steinberg: Do not talk so much drivel. That is absolute drivel and you know that—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will correct what he said.
    Mr. Steinberg: I certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have never known you to speak drivel in your life.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is because I hardly ever speak.
    Mr. Steinberg: The only drivel that ever comes out of the House comes from Conservatives, and we have just heard it again from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who spoke for about half an hour.
    If only the Government had listened to us—but they continued to refuse to co-operate with the Labour party. They continue to keep the discredited 20 per cent. contribution rule, which is inflicting dreadful and unnecessary hardship on the poor and is undermining the ability of councils to collect the tax. Would the Government do anything about it? Would they listen? No, they never do, because they are so arrogant. As a result, I am pleased to say, they will lose the next general election.
    The British people are sick to death of the unfair poll tax. It does not matter where one goes or who one talks to—all one hears is how unfair it is. It will be with us until 1993 at the earliest if the Conservatives win the election. Fortunately, they will not. The British people want a tax that is based on the principle of fairness. They want it based on the ability to pay and the council tax, like the poll tax, will fail those tests.
    In 1990, the chairman of the Conservative party said:
    "You must know that any fundamental change from the existing system will in fact create many millions of losers. The only way of avoiding this is by pumping in billions of pounds of taxpayers' money from the Exchequer."
    That is exactly what the Government did last year. They pumped in £4 billion of taxpayers' money to cushion the poll tax. The poll tax had to be subsidised to such an extent that it is costing the Exchequer billions of pounds in an attempt to take away the pressure that it has caused on the Tory party.
    Recently, the former leader of the Tory party apologised for the dreadful mistake that she had made in the broadcasting franchise fiasco. More appropriately, she and the Tories should be apologising to the British people for the catastrophe of lumbering them with the dreadful poll tax and the misery that it has caused so many people.
    512
    Many leading Tories made speeches viciously condemning a property tax. The right hon. Members for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), for Witney (Mr. Hurd), for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and for Bath (Mr. Patten), the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and the right hon. and learned Members for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) all viciously attacked the suggestion of a property tax. Yet now they promote this council tax, which will be just as bad and just as painful as the poll tax.
    Were those right hon. and hon. Members converted by argument or perhaps by sorrow for what they have done, or by pity for the poll tax payer? No, they were converted simply because they realised that they would lose their seats and lose office at the next general election if they did not do something.
    Adopting the council tax is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. The council tax will be no better than the poll tax. It will be just as unfair as the poll tax and will lose the Tories the general election, just as the poll tax would have done.
    7.44 pm
    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I was delighted that the Gracious Speech contained provisions for both the major Bills dealing with local authority functions, management and finance. I hope that I will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, on Second Reading of at least one of those Bills. I am delighted that we can refer broadly in this debate to those Bills.
    All too frequently, Conservative Members are wrongly accused of being anti-local authorities. Those accusations are always made by the same people who have all but destroyed public support for the local authority concept because of their blindness to the requirements of good financial management within local authorities. When it goes wrong, they always seek to blame central Government. It is never their fault at local level.
    It is very much to the credit of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment that they have returned to basics and have not looked at finance in isolation. They are looking at structure and functions at the same time.
    We will certainly not again make the mistake that was made in the 1970s and 1980s. It is true that the Conservative party got it wrong 20 years ago when the belief in the two-tier system for local authorities was fashionable and won the day. True, it was working in some areas at that time. No doubt, following the local government commission which will be set up under the new Bill, that system will continue, where appropriate—but only where clearly appropriate. I am pleased that we recognised our earlier error. In the 1983 to 1987 Parliament, we removed the metropolitan upper tier. I am delighted that we will continue that process under my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State in the new Parliament which will be formed some time late next spring or in the summer.
    It goes without saying that a great urban conurbation such as Nottingham cannot and must not have its affairs meddled in by councillors from Mansfield, Worksop and Retford who, although loyal Nottinghamshire people,

    513
    have no community of interest in our great city and who, not surprisingly, want their towns to have as much of the county cake as they can get.
    Legislation that will take further the right of the public to know just how their council matches up with others must be right. It must also be right to have proper mechanisms in place to ensure that they get value for money. Only the committed socialists on the Opposition Benches can oppose such a move, in the belief that only local authority organisations should provide services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) pointed out, it does not follow that an identified public need must be met by a public sector bureaucracy. If services of the right standard giving better value for public money can be provided, the resources saved will be available to meet other public needs. That surely must make sense.
    The main Bill scraps the poll tax and provides local finance through the establishment of a new council tax. Like many of my colleagues, I plead guilty to the fact that I willingly supported the principle behind the original poll tax Bill. However, I did argue that certain key protections against abuse were not in that Bill. Too many local authorities used the changeover to milk people of money that they did not have through bills that they could not have anticipated and therefore provided for. That naivety will not be repeated in the new Bill.
    Given that, at least in the first year of the new council tax, there will still be two-tier authorities in the shires, I hope that the Bill will be as tight as a drum to ensure that the tiered authorities that are not up for election do not use that freedom from the ballot box—as happened in Nottinghamshire with the poll tax—to wreck the council tax in the way that they wrecked the poll tax in its first year. Even if it can be shown that many authorities will have elections at that time, we must not be naive again. We must screw the lid on spending as tightly as possible, so that a true and proper comparison can be made between the old rates system, uprated to match current spending, the poll tax charge, and the new council tax.
    Unless anyone should mistake my purpose, I say clearly that, provided that local authorities, at the point of change in April 1993, have the power to spend that which they are spending this year, plus inflation, not one meal on wheels, not one old people's home, not one teacher—in fact not one public provision—need be cut. If that were to happen, let it be clear that that would be typical of the cynical manipulation by Labour councils of the most vulnerable in our society, and nothing to do with the new council tax.
    If Labour Members do not think that their party is the most cynical shower alive, I can give them a classic example from my county. There has been a great deal of national publicity about the plans of the Labour-controlled Nottinghamshire authority to close 12 old peoples' homes. One, Rivergreen, in my constituency, is a happy, well-run, well-managed, well-staffed home. It is an integral part of the community of Clifton, which is the second largest estate in England. Our county council always has enough money for the obscure and the daft, but when it comes to providing for its old people's homes, it does not have money. Its answer to the problem is either that it is entitled to more money from central Government,
    514
    regardless of how much its rate support grant for the social services sector has risen, or that it needs the unfettered right to raise further taxes locally.
    That brings me back to the earlier part of our debate, from which we now know that the Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties want absolutely no constraints on the ability of a local authority to raise whatever level of tax it decides. I assure the House that money is not the problem for the old people's homes in my constituency. It is the will of the controlling Labour group and its inability to manage financial affairs. Any county council that cannot find elbow room within a £600 million-plus budget to look after its old people's homes should stand aside and let some of my colleagues take over.
    Mr. Bellotti: The example cited by the hon. Gentleman from his constituency is well known to hon. Members because it is repeated in other constituencies. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in East Sussex, where the Conservatives control the county council, there is exactly the same problem because the Conservatives want to close seven old people's homes? I am sure that he would agree that the real problem is that local authorities across the country cannot spend the necessary money on our elderly people because of the capping regime imposed by central Government.
    Hon. Members: Absolute rubbish.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: As my hon. Friends have said, that is absolute rubbish. What I have said about Nottingham I would also have said about East Sussex had I had the same information. I do not have the slightest doubt that in Nottingham the money is available to do whatever is necessary to keep open those old people's homes, and so remove once and for all the worry of hundreds of residents in those homes.
    Mr. Illsley: Where would Nottinghamshire county council find the elbow room to which the hon. Gentleman referred? Is he saying that it has balances that are not accounted for by other services? If so, the Government should be taking another look at the amount of grant that that council receives. If that is not the case, from which services would the hon. Gentleman want to take money to spend on the old people's homes?
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Labour Members always imagine that some service or other would have to be cut to do what is right. I can tell him that Nottinghamshire county council's balances are more than adequate to deal with those old people's homes, without touching any other departmental budget. The hon. Gentleman should ask anybody in and around Nottingham whether they approve of the famous leaf stem statue, which costs £38,000, the coloured blobs under one of the car parks, which cost £28,000, or the provision of a day centre for the winos who are driving everybody mad, which cost £160,000. The list is endless. The council will always find money for whatever suits it, but when it comes to the elderly—the most vulnerable in our society—they always play ducks and drakes. They want maximum party-political benefit.
    Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend said that the county council's not looking after the elderly properly was a reflection of the will of Labour councillors. Does he agree

    515
    that it is all about the priorities of Labour councillors? It appears that in Nottingham they put sculpture above the interests of the elderly.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend has it in one—[Interruption.] lf a simple answer will do, there is no need to take a paragraph. My hon. Friend had it in a nutshell.
    I have not yet had time to study the minutiae of the Bill which, as we now know, runs to 163 pages, but I want to touch briefly on certain parts of it. The great problem with the poll tax was the collection procedures. I am not slow to sing the praises of the city of Nottingham, and there are good grounds for doing so. However, in devising its method of collecting poll tax, in the words of that famous song, "If there was a wrong way to do it, the right way to screw it," nobody did it like Nottingham. My constituents have had to pay an additional £44·75 per adult because of that incompetence, and that is a disgrace. It is made all the more aggravating when people living inside the city know how little it costs the authorities outside the city o do precisely the same job. I hope that the legislation that will come before us next week will ensure that that will not happen again.
    Equally, who is liable and what is meant by "occupier" must be beyond doubt in the new Bill. Where, as in many inner-city areas, there is a high turnover of occupancy, I hope that there will be powers to levy the owner in order to ensure that the financial base of local authorities is not undermined.
    In order that our desired aim to assist one-person households is not blurred by lack of definition, the phrase in the present legislation "sole or main residence" must be defined beyond doubt.
    I also plead self—interest if that is the right term—in supporting the view taken on students. With some 22,000 students moving around within our city, even if one felt that a nominal sum should be paid—here I am looking after the interests of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) whose lovely daughter is now a constituent of mine; I trust that she will be sensible and know where to put her cross—it is clearly administratively impossible to handle and, given the changes in student support, that small relief will be welcome.
    I, hope, too, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will address the technical problems of billing, particularly carry-over yearly billing, to avoid current confusion with many charge payers, because I regret that separate billing has not increased accountability. If it is already in the Bill, I apologise, but I hope that we will finally resolve the injustice of the tax on empty properties.
    Finally, since all too many non-payers were simply "won't payers", sponging on the rest, I hope that we will provide all the powers necessary to ensure that never again are my constituents expected to pay for the law breakers.
    8.1 pm
    Mr. Thomas Graham: Conservative Members' speeches today show that they have not learnt the lesson of their hatred of local government. They continue to work against the democratic interests of the nation whose people do support the concept of local government.
    The Secretary of State made one of the worst speeches that I have ever heard from a Minister in the House. I was appalled to hear his jovial, jocular style. Bob Hope must
    516
    have written his script. However, many people are living in abject poverty because of the poll tax. There are many who cannot pay.
    Watching the Secretary of State today was like watching Jesse James leading a bunch of desperadoes governing the country like a bunch of robbers. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who is now on the Government Front Bench, reminds me of the Sundance Kid and his brigade.
    I am appalled that the Government have not learnt the lesson from Scotland. Scottish Members raised in the House the problems faced by Scotland and clearly indentified the terrible damage that the poll tax was doing to the people of Scotland, but the Government continued to blunder on in their merry way. Only after a 10 per cent. drop in their fortunes in the opinion polls did they decide that, with the general election coming up, and the prospect of their being routed, they should do something. They came up with the council tax.
    The Secretary of State's comments today were so shabby and his speech was so shallow that he did not make me laugh. We have heard some speeches tonight about the poll tax, but I want to read the editorial in the Glasgow Evening Times, so aptly published on 5 November, Guy Fawkes night. It is no wonder that ordinary men and women throughout the country wish that Guy Fawkes had been successful when they consider the punishment that this House has levelled at ordinary men and women in a state of poverty. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) shakes his head, but he should come to my constituency and I will introduce him to people who cannot pay the poll tax because they simply do not have the money.
    This is not an editorial from a Labour weekly; it is a reputable Scottish newspaper, as I am sure the Under-Secretary of State will agree. I want to read all of it to make sure that it appears in Hansard. It is entitled "Myth of the tax rebels" and it says:
    "Over the last decade the Government has done a better job of blowing local authorities to smithereens than Guy Fawkes.
    That is the real reason Strathclyde finds itself in the midst of the gravest financial crisis in its history—not the 'can pay, won't pay' Poll Tax rebels.
    The truth is the bulk of the £250M shortfall in Poll Tax, a debt mountain that has steadily grown over three years, is owed not by rebels, but by people who haven't a penny to their name.
    The middle class revolt has turned to a whimper. Nearly all the collectable money is now in; only a small number of diehards continue to withhold cash.
    That will not stop non-payers being used as convenient scapegoats. In Tory demonology they will always carry the can."
    We have seen that tonight.
    The article goes on:
    "The reality is the Poll Tax represents just 14 per cent. of Strathclyde's budget. The remaining 86 per cent. comes in Government grants.
    Under the Conservatives those grants have fallen hugely. Over ten years, Scotland's councils have lost £600 million in grant aid—or £170 for every Poll Tax payer in the land.
    Costs
    Strathclyde, hit proportionately harder, has been like a man living on starvation rations throughout the eighties. Forced to become more efficient and cost-conscious, it had to devise imaginative measures to keep services going.
    And when privatisation of services was introduced many staff lost job security, worked for lower pay and saw their pension rights eroded.

    517
    But any fat the Region may once have had is long gone. The Poll Tax was the last straw.
    The Government's refusal to accept needy folk can't pay has left the Region chasing its own tail—trying, at vast cost, to collect money that by and large simply isn't there.
    That is why 750 jobs are being shed and a whopping 32 per cent. rise in the Poll Tax is likely next year.
    Poll Tax rebels are only bit-players in this crisis. The responsibility lies four-square with the Government and its chronic underfunding of councils."
    Alongside that editorial, there is a small paragraph which says:
    "Government grants for Scottish local authorities have slumped from 67 per cent. to 55 per cent. over the past ten years."
    That is one of the most devastating of editorials.
    All Members of Parliament hold surgeries, and many have received complaints about the poll tax from constituents who are viciously angry with the Government. Some decided that they would not pay the poll tax, but the people about whom I worry are those such as the elderly lady suffering from a form of senile dementia who came to me because she was being harassed about the poll tax. The Government wanted 20 per cent. of the amount from that woman. For months, we in Scotland begged the Government to give 100 per cent. rebates to people such as that lady.
    I received a call from another constituent who was frightened because she had been slapped with not one warrant sale but two, yet she had paid her poll tax. I remember telling the Secretary of State that the poll tax was cumbersome, burdening and complicated; that it would give a great deal of trouble to local council finance departments; and that it was inevitable that thousands upon thousands of mistakes would be made. That has proved to be the case.
    I remember looking at a graph showing the complications of the financing of the community charge. It looked as though someone had spilled a can of spaghetti and had to make some sense of it. The elderly and the unemployed are being hounded by the Government, and there is no end in sight. The tax is continuing into 1993. The Government are still after their pound of flesh. They do not have the sense, decency, or caring to give people a 100 per cent. rebate now, yet they cannot get blood out of a stone.
    Ministers are a bunch of desperadoes, and they are carrying on like a bunch of stoneheads. The only way that we will get rid of them is by a general election. The poll tax is an albatross round the Government's neck and the council tax will be another, because the Government will not allow proper debate on it in the House. Instead, they want to steamroller it through with a guillotine, and will not entertain common-sense discussion. Is that what democracy has come to in this country, with the democratically elected Government refusing to listen to the democratically elected Opposition—who will be unable to reveal the flaws in the council tax as we did in the case of the poll tax, and which were soon clear for all to see?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland smiles. He knows that the poll tax was a shambles, but he was a diehard and continued to go to the wall with it. That is not true of many Tory Members of Parliament in Scotland, who are desperate to get rid of the poll tax.
    518
    I would welcome anything that would improve the legislation. I hope that a general election will be declared soon, that it will be fair, and that it will serve to bring back a decent system. A Labour Government will offer such a system. It will offer a fair rates policy that gives 100 per cent. rates relief to people whom the present Government have abandoned. They have shown by their tasteless and tactless menace tonight that they are still not prepared to take on board the problems of people who cannot pay their poll tax because they do not have sufficient funds.
    The Secretary of State could take the necessary steps to give people a 100 per cent. rebate now and even make it retroactive. [Interruption.]Do not the members of the Government Front Bench think that my remarks are important? Does not the Secretary of State realise that thousands and thousands of people who still cannot pay the poll tax are facing court action and warrant sales? Does the Secretary of State think that that is right? Does he believe that one can get blood out of a stone? It has never been done.
    It is time that the Government realised that, took steps to protect people who are suffering as a consequence of their lamentable and disastrous poll tax, and ensured that the council tax reflects more sympathy and caring. I hope that a general election will be held quickly, so that we can show the Government the door.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome this opportunity to congratulate the Government on the Gracious Speech and on their proposal to abolish the community charge and to replace it with the council tax. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), that many people are unable to pay the community charge. I have met many of them at my advice surgery, and I will weep no tears over the demise of a tax that had no progressive element and which sometimes militated against people on low incomes. So the community charge will go.
    Mr. Graham: That is a change of heart.
    Mr. Hind: Yes, some of us changed our minds, because we could see the effects of the poll tax.
    Many right hon. and hon. Members should remember that we started with a tax of only £175 a head. We did not reckon on greedy Labour authorities utilising the change to conceal vast increases in public expenditure that they forced on to thousands of unsuspecting electors in our communities, to try to persuade them to change their allegiance from the Conservative party to Labour. That is what happened, and we now realise that we must take away from such authorities that most unjust tool with which they managed to acquire electoral support that they did not deserve and have unscrupulously used.
    I welcome the change to a single bill for each household. A great difficulty with the community charge, which was a point of grievance among many of my constituents, is that people can move on and avoid paying it, with the inevitable result that the rest of the community is called upon to meet the shortfall.
    Fortunately, we have altered the system. Due to the change in the taxation balance, national Government will pay 85 per cent. of local government expenditure, with the remaining 15 per cent. left to be levied through the council tax. In future, that will mean that the old high rates will no

    519
    longer be levied on the unsuspecting population, and we will see a continuation of support by central Government of local government.
    Fortunately, too, Labour has agreed to continue with that policy should it come to power—so let us hear no more complaints about depriving local government of central Government funds because of cuts in rate support grant, revenue support grant, or whatever it is called today. In future, large amounts of taxpayers' money will go to support local government.
    The banding system is a move towards progressive taxation, which I welcome. Logically, people live in a particular type of house because it is one that they can afford to purchase or rent and to maintain, so there is a rough and ready relationship between the value of their home and their income. That will be one of the mainstays and pillars of the council tax.
    The council tax will avoid the problems of the past. The Bill's tough capping measures will ensure that Labour councils will be unable to pursue the profligate spending that they managed in the past, and that they will be controlled.
    I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) say that Labour would abandon capping. I hope that the public realise the implications of that. If Labour returns to power, we shall have a return to the bad old days: Labour councils will be able to spend, spend, spend. They will be able to milk local taxpayers as they did with the rates, irrespective of the consequences. Their line will he, "Don't worry: we are the money milch cows who will provide the cash for the future."
    That is diabolical. I hope that the public understand that, in the event of a Labour Government, they cart look forward to being milked by Labour councils that will levy high rates of their new tax—as well as being milked by a national Government through increased rates of income tax.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti), who is not in the Chamber now, complained about the amount that people had to pay. The Bill, however, will not only abolish the current registration arrangements, but introduce an extensive rebate scheme, allowing rebates of up to 100 per cent. to protect those on low incomes. Many of us will welcome the end of the 20 per cent. charge, principally because it hit the worst-off but also because it probably cost more to collect than was gained in revenue.
    Students will benefit: those living in digs or halls of residence will no longer have to pay anything. Student nurses, those on youth training schemes and others will also be helped.
    The electorate must realise that, if Labour is successful at the next general election—which is highly unlikely—we shall immediately return to the old rating system. The Leader of the Opposition has complained that that was an unfair tax, but has now managed to stand on his head and support the current proposal. Labour Members quote figures in relation to their proposed fair rating scheme, but they give only averages; there are no details, sums or projections. Their whole scheme is flawed, because it is based on the assumption that a Labour Government will have to raise £6·3 billion. We all know that this year the Government had to raise £6·8 billion—£500 million more than that. Obviously, if the calculation is made on the basis of averages, Labour's proposed tax will appear to be less than the community charge this year, or the projections for the council tax.
    520
    Labour's system is far too complex. It would be impossible to operate. The public will see immediately that Labour has no idea what it is going to do—but perhaps that is Labour's chosen method: perhaps the idea is to introduce a tax that is completely incomprehensible.
    It is preposterous for the Opposition to claim that they can introduce such a tax and then complain about the Government's introducing a new tax in 1993. Opposition Members have said that the council tax is too complex and difficult to be rushed through in time for 1 April 1993. They say that there will be too many difficulties with the software, and that local government officials will not be able to work it out properly. Yet, if an election took place next week, in the unlikely event of a Labour victory, Labour would try to introduce its system on 1 April 1992.
    That is a joke. Labour cannot, on the one hand, criticise us for giving our system careful consideration and waiting until 1 April 1993 and, on the other hand, announce that they will bring in a scheme in 1992 with no system to back it up.
    Our system is clear, fair and progressive. The system that we are being offered as an alternative is unclear; it is nonsense; and it will not work. I have no doubt that, when the time comes and we push our tax through, it will be seen to be fairer than the Labour alternative. It will provide massive rebates for those who are worse off; and it will be welcomed by the majority of the public, who will realise that it is far fairer than the community charge, that it is progressive and that it will work.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Everyone who lives in Lancashire will be very glad that the council tax will retain capping, which Labour's alternative would not. That will provide a fallback for the unfortunate citizens of Lancashire, who have a very extravagant Labour council.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend has made an important point. The first community charge bill that dropped through my letter box, and those of thousands of my constituents, was for £376, £346 of which was to be spent by the Labour-controlled county council: that was stated on the bill. Residents had to wait four years to elect their council after receiving that bill. That, if anything, reveals the main reasons for the failure of the community charge system. It was deliberately smashed by people who used it cynically for their own electoral purposes.
    I wish that system well. Goodbye; good night; we shall see nothing like it again. We must ensure that the new system will not be used as a political tool. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) may smile; he is probably one of those who encouraged the cynical use of the community charge and never had a good word to say for it. I have not often heard him condemn his hon. Friends who did not pay it.
    Ours will be a good tax—and, more important, it will work.
    8.26 pm
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I know that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) will recognise—being, like me, a Lancashire Member—that only one local authority in Lancashire has been consistently Labour-controlled since the local government reorganisation. I refer to Burnley, whose council I led before I came to the House. Both last year and this, Burnley's poll tax was the lowest in the country.
    Mr. Hind: Look at the subsidies.
    Mr. Pike: The point is that, with good continuous Labour control, we have been able to provide good services and good local administration.
    The current Parliament was elected in 1987, and it will soon have run its term. The Government have already scrapped legislation introduced by previous Conservative Governments, but it is extremely unusual, if not unique, for them to provide, in the Queen's Speech, for the abolition of what was claimed to be the flagship of their opening programme.
    One or two Conservative Members have admitted today that they now recognise that they got it wrong in 1987–88. I served on the Committee that dealt with the poll tax legislation. We spent some 200 hours, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, spelling out the fact that the tax was unfair, unworkable and extremely expensive to administer. Every failing that we pointed out has since proved to exist: those failings have emerged every year since its implementation.
    The Government have spent billions of pounds on trying to make their tax work—and, of course, it was introduced in Scotland the year before the general election. If a local authority misused the billions of pounds that the Government have misused for that purpose, it would be taken to the district auditors. Many of its councillors would be surcharged, disqualified and probably made bankrupt.
    We could have built many schools, sheltered housing schemes and sports centres with those millions of pounds. The meals-on-wheels service and many other services would not have had to be cut. However, that money was squandered. It is outrageous.
    The Government claimed in 1987–88 that they had a mandate for their legislation. It is strange, therefore, that in this Queen's Speech the Government say that they intend to introduce a new Local Government Finance Bill to abolish what they did in 1987–88. They claim that they have a mandate for doing that, too, but they cannot have it both ways. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said that the legislation is only a shell and that regulations will be needed to implement it. He is right. When this legislation is pushed through, we shall face exactly the same as happened with the poll tax. The Chamber was packed when there were seven orders before the House, with an hour and a half in which to debate them. There were about 46 pages dealing with deductions from wages and benefits and with prison sentences.
    This Session is time-limited because of the general election, so the Bill will have to be guillotined, thus curtailing debate and proper consideration of the proposals. Four years ago, the Government said that the poll tax would solve the local government finance problem. They were wrong, so why should we believe that they have got it right on this occasion? Eighty per cent. of my constituents lost out. They live in what was formerly a low rateable value area. People who paid rates amounting to only £200 on a house now have to pay £1,200 in poll tax. The same applies in Pendle, Rossendale and Darwen and Hyndburn.
    The Conservatives will lose those seats at the next election. Labour Members of Parliament will be elected to represent those constituencies. Ministers told those people in 1987–88 that the Government had got it right, but now,
    522
    four years later, they say, "Sorry, we got it wrong. You had an awfully raw deal out of it, but now we have got it right." Why should people believe them now? They are just as wrong on this occasion as they were on the previous one.
    The Local Government Bill provides for compulsory competitive tendering and creeping privatisation. Ministers are not prepared to allow local authorities to lay down conditions of employment, sick pay, holiday pay and other pay levels. It is appalling that in 1991 the only way in which the Government want to save money is by cutting people's pay and working conditions. It is tragic that they should be doing that to local authority employees. There is no employee on the buses who enjoys as good conditions of service as applied before the passing of the Transport Act 1985 in the areas affected by that Act.
    I do not believe that local authorities should be capped. I accept that the Government have the right to determine the amount of money that they are prepared to give to local government. There will always be arguments about whether that amount is sufficient, but the amount provided by this Government has always been insufficient. Local authorities have the right to provide the services that they were elected to provide. It is wrong for any local authority not to take into account people's ability to pay. The poll tax failed completely when it came to people's ability to pay.
    The Government have never accepted that there are some people who cannot afford to pay for local government services. That applies in every constituency. It is time that the Government accepted that fact and dealt with it. If they did so—and they could do it easily—we should be willing to co-operate with them. The matter could be dealt with speedily, by regulations under the existing legislation. Rebates could be increased. The 100 per cent. rebate to be included in the new Bill could be applied now. The Government could also authorise local authorities to remit payments when they know that people cannot afford to pay.
    One case in my constituency highlights the type of thing that happens. Two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Bellis, were sent to prison because they did not pay the poll tax. They had a young child, but the court did not take account of who would look after the child while they were in prison. If magistrates no longer apply the natural principles of justice, it is a bad day for our law. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor about the case. He said that it was nothing to do with him; it was a matter for the Department of the Environment. When I wrote to the Department of the Environment, the reply was that this was the Lord Chancellor's responsibility. This is the Government's responsibility. They need to do something about it. The poll tax must go, and the quicker the better.
    8.36 pm
    Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome the general tenor of the Queen's Speech. It confounds the rumours that have been put about that the Government are running out of steam. It is an imaginative Queen's Speech. It contains a programme that will take us well beyond this Session, after our fourth election victory in March, April or May of 1992.
    I intend to concentrate on two issues in the Queen's Speech—the commitment to continue to prepare for the privatisation of the British Railways Board and the

    523
    commitment to introduce a new council tax and to establish a review of local government structure in England. My constituents are concerned about British Rail's performance. More than 10,000 people commute from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street each day.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are debating an amendment to the motion on the Queen's Speech. The debate must be confined to the amendment, which relates to the local council tax.
    Mr. Burns: I sought guidance earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and was advised that one could speak on anything in the Queen's Speech, but if that is incorrect I shall confine my remarks to the council tax. I was assured that one could discuss any aspect of the Queen's Speech.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not the advice that has been given to me. I am advised that the amendment means that the debate today is confined to the terms of the amendment, which relates to the local council tax.
    Mr. Burns: Then I shall curtail my comments on British Rail and deal only with local government finance.
    It is a truism to say that nobody likes paying anything for any service. If we could get out of paying for local government, many people would be far happier. They would prefer not to have to make a financial contribution, regardless of their ability to pay. However, it is a fact of life that local government has to be financed by individuals within the local community and by businesses and central Government. What has proved to be a thorny problem, not just during the past four years but for many years before, is the basis for financing all the services provided by local authorities and the level of services that should be provided.
    Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) told us of the Liberal Democrats' proposals for a local income tax. I would be the first to admit that I was amazed, enlightened and then staggered by some of the intricacies of the local income tax à la the Liberal Democrats. I had not realised that it was even more complicated than I had been led to believe originally.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) told us in the briefest and skimpiest of ways—that is to be expected from the new model Labour party—of the Labour party's pledge to return to a policy of fair rates. I was staggered to learn that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats gave categorical assurances to the House that rate capping or capping of any sort would not be part of their programmes.
    If there were to be a Labour Government or the unlikely event of a Liberal Democrat Government, it would be open house for local authorities to spend and spend, just like Viv Nicholson. There would be an orgy of spending with no restraint, regardless of the damage that it might do to ratepayers, community charge payers or whatever they may be called. I suspect that, when people up and down the country realise the sheer horror of what is being proposed, they will recoil from such an open-ended commitment for massive local government spending.
    The level of service provided by local authorities is crucial. It is imperative that the services provided are cost efficient and of the highest quality. If one looks around the
    524
    country, one becomes seriously concerned about the definition of a high level of service in certain local authorities.
    It is interesting that the Labour party proposes to return to what it calls a fair rates policy. As far as anyone can understand or discover what that cliche means, it seems to be a return to the old, discredited rating system. Like the old saying that success has many fathers, but failure has none, nobody is prepared to claim parenthood of the old rating system. Even the Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying that the rating system is the unfairest of taxes, yet we are led to believe that that is what the Labour party proposes.
    We have before us a proposal for a council tax to finance local government. I do not want to disappoint the hon. Member for Eastbourne, but the chances of a local income tax are nil, because his party does not have a cat in hell's chance of ever being returned to government.
    One of the most worrying aspects is the danger posed by irresponsible and loony left local authorities. Opposition Members may wave their hands, but for those living under the regime of a loony left council, the follies of its ways cannot be highlighted enough. Day after day they have to live with those policies and spending commitments.
    Very few people, especially Conservative Members, would dispute the fact that until the change in party control in Brent it probably had the accolade for one of the looniest of loony councils. It was said of Brent under the Labour council:
    "If you have a council that is as monumentally incompetent as Brent's has been in the last few years, it rightly gets a major vote of censure from the public."
    That forthright common sense does not come from the Conservative Newsline; nor is it a quote from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo). That common-sense approach to Brent came from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) who, for those who may not remember, was the former leader of the Greater London council.
    If that is not enough, a former Member of Parliament and a former councillor in Hackney, Ms. Maureen Colquhoun, said that the only reason for Labour losing seats in Hackney in 1990 was
    "the total failure of the Labour Group to deliver services. The record is shameful."
    If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, read what that council has got up to over the past four years, you will appreciate fully, just as people in Hackney do, just how shameful the record is.
    Equally shameful was an article in The Guardian of 28 February 1991 in which a Councillor Steve French in Lambeth called for victory for Iraq and urged the bombing of Israel. Up and down the country, there are stories of grotesque mismanagement and waste of money by Labour councils.
    Nearer to my home in Chelmsford in Essex—that wonderful county which produces Essex man and Essex woman—the Labour-controlled council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has spent millions of pounds on a huge new civic centre. Unfortunately, it forgot to plan for the needed new council chamber within that civic centre.
    Senior council officials in Birmingham, some earning up to £65,000 a year—that is more than we poor Members

    525
    of Parliament get—are living in council properties and paying rents as low as one fifth of market levels. Bradford voted to spend £10,000 to celebrate some obscure strike that took place in the city 100 years before. Charge-capped Islington considered sending 25 children and five teachers to Senegal to study French. Islington could have saved its council and charge payers a great deal of money if it had just asked the advice of a local geography teacher and been told that it is better to go to France to learn French.
    I understand that in Dudley, Thomas the Tank Engine has crossed swords with the ideologues of the loony Labour left. Thomas the Tank Engine has been banned from schools and libraries because it is sexist. When reading stories about Thomas the Tank Engine to my daughter, I never thought it sexist. Obviously, there is a new interpretation of the word.
    Last year in Harlow, the national anthem was forbidden by the local authority at council entertainments. That is all utter rubbish. Local authorities should not be interfering and wasting charge payers' money in those ridiculous, trite and stupid ways.
    I have always believed—I make no apology for it—that any system of financing local government must contain a way of making the local authorities more accountable to those who live within the local area. The Government have decided to introduce the council tax. They listened to the representations that were made and, in their wisdom, decided to make this change as quickly as possible. I wish the Bill well not only on Second Reading but in Committee. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate the Bill, but, whatever happens, it is far better to have a system that is more accountable to local people and that will, we hope, put an end to some of the ridiculous mismanagement, inefficiency and wasting of money that has gone on for far too long.
    8.50 pm
    Mr. Eric Illsley: We listen time and again to scare stories about loony left Labour councils, many of which are figments of Conservative Members' imaginations. I respond with one simple example of wasting money. NHS trust hospitals in my health authority area are sending people to Toronto, Paris and all over the world to learn how to do catering and cleaning. The Government should address themselves to such wasting of money and not to fictitious ideas about Thomas the Tank Engine.
    Earlier this year, the Government announced the abolition of the poll tax and the introduction of the council tax. That should have been welcome. Hon. Members, including some Conservative Members, have said how divisive and unfair the poll tax was, how difficult it was to collect, with the result that 7 million court summonses are outstanding, and how expensive it was to administer. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent on computers and software, only for them to be replaced by new software for the council tax.
    The poll tax bore no relation to the ability to pay, offered no accountability because of capping and limits set by the Secretary of State, and imposed a 20 per cent. universal contribution, despite the fact that many people
    526
    simply could not afford to pay. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) rightly said that it costs more to collect that contribution than it yields.
    The problems of local authorities were exacerbated by the Prime Minister saying that the poll tax was being abolished because it was uncollectable. That was welcomed by the organisations that had campaigned for non-payment. Their problems were further exacerbated by the fact that many people took the Government at their word and simply stopped paying. Many local authorities are issuing court summonses and spending much time and money trying to persuade them that the poll tax has not been abolished and that it will be with us next year and possibly the year after.
    It is no wonder that local government finance officers regard the poll tax as a financial nightmare. When we explain each local government Bill to them, they frown and put their heads in their hands. The poll tax is uncollectable and expensive. Much of that expense is caused by the enforcement procedures. My local authority spends a lot of money simply issuing court summonses and trying to pursue people for non-payment.
    The abolition of the poll tax is widely welcomed until we consider what will replace it—simply more of the same. Page 2 of the consultation paper refers to the guidelines that the Government considered for the new council tax. They considered the same principles on which they based the poll tax. The consultation paper refers to accountability. How can capping lead to accountability? A local authority is accountable either to the local electorate for the poll tax that it sets or to the Secretary of State because he decides how much it can spend.
    How can any tax that has a universal contribution, regardless of income, be fair? How can we consider the fairness of the council tax when the eight bands equate house values with the wealth of an individual and his ability to pay? It is simply nonsense.
    The document refers to ease of collection. One bill will be issued for the council tax, and supposedly there will be no register. How will a local authority allocate rebates? How will it, without a list or register, determine whether a household is a single or a two-person household? How can the council tax be easy to collect if the people who are responsible for collecting it simply do not know how much they must collect from each household? Of course there will have to be a register: otherwise, the system will be thrown into chaos.
    The document mentions equitable distribution. Once again, the Government considered making everybody pay the council tax but relented and will abolish the 20 per cent. contribution—not before time. As that is so expensive to collect, why not abolish it now?
    Conservative Members should realise that capping is based on the standard spending assessment. The cap applies not to what an authority spends but to what the Government believe an authority is entitled to spend. Many times, Labour Members have pointed out the iniquities of the standard spending assessment, which is based on irrelevant data more than 10 years old. The standard spending assessments, which will remain, will lead to further capping and difficulties for many authorities.
    The council tax is doomed from the start. It contains not only a personal element but a property element. The personal element of the poll tax led to huge decreases in

    527
    census registration and registration for elections. I understand that about I billion people did not register in the recent census.
    Council tax bills will be based on a two-person household. Imagine the confusion that there will be among single people who receive a bill based on a two-person household. Pensioners will believe that they have to pay the full amount unless they query it with their local authority or unless the authority has a list. Council offices will be inundated with people querying their bills.
    An interesting change has been made, because under the poll tax each adult had to pay, which penalised larger families. As the council tax is based on a two-person household, a household of four or five students or people on income support will pay less.
    Many people will not realise that they are entitled to a discount, because, there is no information on how the discount scheme will work. Where will the list be of people who are entitled to a discount? How will a local authority find out who is entitled to a discount? If a person goes to the town hall and says that he qualifies for a discount, the authority will need proof. It will have to compile a list or a register, so the idea that the council tax will not need a register is a complete fiction. It is also wide open to fraud, because many people who are not entitled to a discount may try to claim one from their local authority.
    The discount for a single-person household will be set at 25 per cent. Once again, many people will not realise that there is a property element built into that and they will wonder why they do not receive a 50 per cent. discount on the two-person household bill. Many people will not realise that there is a property element built in and that they qualify only for the 25 per cent. discount.
    The dual element will be a cause of great confusion, which will be compounded by the proposals for other discounts and rebates for people on low incomes. How can those rebates and discounts be administered without some form of register or list? How is a local authority to react to thousands of claims for rebate? Will it wait to deal with them when the bills drop on the doormats and then try to compile a list of people entitled to a rebate after the council tax has been introduced? Will local authorities be required to compile a register of people entitled to rebates before the council tax is implemented? What is the time scale for implementation?
    In a brief to me and my colleagues, my local authority wrote:
    "In addition, because of its very nature as a combined personal/property tax, movements of individuals within a household will inevitably give rise to changes in liability. Consequently, some details of individuals within properties will need to be kept."
    Local authorities themselves are saying that a register will be needed.
    We have heard that the amount to be paid by each household will depend on the valuation of the property and that properties will be allocated to one of eight bands. The problems are obvious. There will be different housing valuations across the country for similar types of property.
    Whole areas of property will be lumped into bands with no attempt at individual valuations. People in the south-east will be allocated to bands E, F, G and H and will pay the top rates. They will be extremely unhappy that people in the north and the midlands with similar properties will be allocated to lower bands. We shall also find that people in one band will attempt to switch to
    528
    another in order to pay a lower rate of council tax. The unfairness associated with the poll tax remains with us, and the anomalies will remain until a fairer system is introduced with a more distinct and accurate valuation.
    The problems of valuation and banding will also be compounded by the Government's proposed method of valuation, which is to give the job to people such as estate agents who have a vested interest in ensuring that the valuations are as high as possible. The Inland Revenue will merely oversee the process under which thousands of properties will be given over to estate agents to lump into the banding system. Many estate agents have no expertise in property surveying and many cannot even sell houses, yet they will carry out the banding which will place properties into distinct bands.
    The consultation paper states:
    "Valuation is not an exact science. Two different values may well come up with two different detailed valuations of the same property—providing fertile ground for appeals and disputes."
    That is only too true. The same paragraph applies to valuation for banding, especially as properties will be banded in groups of 20,000 or more. There will be appeals and disputes in relation to the council tax ever after. It is interesting that appeals are still in progress for the old rating system from years ago.
    As I have said, the abolition of the poll tax is to be welcomed, but even more welcome would be the abolition of the system of grants—the standard spending assessment which is responsible for most of the problems relating to capping and high poll tax bills. Colleagues from neighbouring authorities have drawn attention to the various anomalies in the standard spending assessments and I shall not repeat them. However, one local authority should not receive double the amount of grant received by another only a few miles away for the provision of exactly the same level of service, which is the case at the moment. My authority receives half as much in grant as an authority such as Manchester to provide exactly the same level of teaching service.
    The council tax will fail. It needs a register. It has a personal element, discounts and rebates, all of which will have to be listed by the local authorities. It is obvious that some form of register will be needed. The tax is unfair. The basic banding system is unfair, and will lead to appeals and anomalies. All in all, we shall have the same problems as we would have had if the poll tax had remained.
    9.4 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I will support the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. However, it will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) when I say that my party has its own alternative to the council tax, which is referred to in the amendment tabled by myself and my hon. Friends.
    The House well knows that the Scottish National party has been vitriolically opposed to the poll tax. Our view has always been that any taxation system must be based on the ability to pay. If a tax is to be fair, if it is to have the support of the people and if it is to be collectable, it must be based on the fundamental principle of ability to pay.
    The Government introduced the community charge legislation as a result of total panic about what was happening in Scotland when revaluation came before us again. There were screams and cries from Scottish

    529
    Conservative Members, who said that, unless the Government did something, they would lose their seats. The Government did something. They introduced the poll tax and, as a result, lost 11 Scottish Conservative Members in 1987. The introduction of the community charge was a desperate attempt to save the skin of the Conservative party in Scotland, and it failed miserably because of the sense of social justice in the Scottish philosophy. The Scottish people saw the community charge as the most hated tax that had been implemented within their memory.
    Other hon. Members have given specific examples of their constituents. I could list many individual examples of how the tax has treated the poorest and most vulnerable in society. I could give examples of how people have been pursued beyond the grave to pull back a few miserly pounds of poll tax payment. Only this weekend, I had a telephone call from a distressed daughter who pointed out that her mother, who was widowed 18 months ago, had just received a threatening letter saying that, if she did not pay £11 for the 16 days between 1 April and 17 April 1989, during which her husband had been alive, poinding action would be taken against her. Such a philosophy is wholly unacceptable and shows how stupid the tax was.
    Unfortunately, we again have a Government who are panicking about how to fund local government. They have not thought carefully through how we should deal with the important issue of funding and local authorities. The Government are deeply concerned that they may lose seats south of the border as a result of the community charge. It brought about the demise of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and many people panicked. As a result, we have another ill-thought-out form of taxation to pay for local authorities.
    It is clear that the Government are determined that the Bill will be on the statute book before the general election. I understand that a timetable motion is to be introduced on Second Reading—a procedure which I have not experienced. All that is intended to clear the decks because the Government think that the council tax may be the remedy to their problems.
    The Bill perpetuates all the anomalies, unfairness, regional variations and bureaucracy that made the poll tax unpopular. I suspect that those of us who continue our work as Members of Parliament after the next general election will find our surgeries just as busy with people complaining about the council tax and its anomalies as we have during the past year as a result of the poll tax.
    The Government should prove that they are a listening Government and should reconsider the legislation because the Bill will have profound effects on local government and on people's sense of justice and fairness.
    My party has consistently argued that the real alternative for funding local authorities is a local income tax. Such a tax operates equitably and effectively elsewhere—in Scandanavia, for example. In Sweden local income tax raises 99·7 per cent., of total government tax revenues, in Finland 98·9 per cent., in Denmark 91·6 per cent., in Norway 89·5 per cent., in Switzerland 86·5 per cent., and so on. Many other European countries operate effectively a local income tax based on the ability to pay. People there feel that their local authorities are accountable and make
    530
    decisions in the interests of the community and that the taxation system is based on the ability to pay. I believe that we in Scotland would like to have a similar facility.
    The Government's argument is always based on how much it would cost to implement a local income tax system. The Secretary of State for Scotland will recall that, when my colleagues and I met him and the Secretary of State for the Environment during the consultation period on local government funding, we argued our case on local income tax and pursued the issue of costing. After letters to and from Ministers, and having asked parliamentary questions, we estimate that, if Scotland yields 8·3 per cent. of United Kingdom income tax, the full-year effect of a 1p increase in Scottish income tax levels for 1991–92 would be £161·86 million. If we place that figure against what is being raised through the community charge, we see that income tax would have to rise by 3·5p. Most people would be willing to pay such a price to remove the anomalies involving the ability to pay.
    I disagree with the idea that someone on my salary should be asked to contribute the same as the person next door, who is probably earning only half as much. I should pay according to my income and my neighbours according to theirs. I want that sense of fairness and justice to be written into the local government finance legislation.
    I have heard the Secretary of State for Scotland and some of his ministerial team say that local income tax would not benefit certain groups of people—teachers and hospital porters, for example. We estimate that a teacher earning just over £16,000 a year, with a non-earning spouse, would pay £389 in local income tax, a saving of £175 on the poll tax or £31 on the council tax. A hospital porter earning just over £8,500 a year, with a non-earning spouse, would pay £124 in local income tax, a saving of £440 on the poll tax or £296 on the council tax.
    I could give many other examples which would kill once and for all the idea so often propounded by the opponents of local income tax that such a tax would not benefit people on the lowest incomes. Our research, and the examples provided by other countries, show clearly that local income tax would be based on justice and fairness.
    In all seriousness, I ask the Government not to deride the strong arguments for a local income tax just because they happen to be advanced by what they call minority parties. The Liberal Democrats and ourselves represent a substantial proportion of public opinion throughout the United Kingdom. The Government have a responsibility to look more carefully at the positive arguments advanced. Those arguments are supported by a broad spectrum of opinion, including people working within the taxation system and people involved in local government administration and finance. They believe that it could work. The Government are making a major error by dismissing local income tax out of hand. To replace one bad tax with another solves no problems whatever.
    9.14 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: I am perhaps out of line with some of my hon. Friends in that I quite enjoyed the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who opened the debate for the Government. Personally, I have no objection to a little bit of Punch and Judy politics and to some knockabout stuff: it is all good fun. I have to say, however that, in the end—and this applies particularly to the right hon.

    531
    Gentleman's peroration—I thought that he was rather ridiculous. His argument seemed to be based fearlessly on the refusal to recognise what is already public knowledge about our plans. I confess that I literally gasped with disbelief when I heard him calmly announce his determination to get rid of the poll tax at the first possible opportunity. He told The Scotsman the other day,
    "the only thing that can stop us is the Labour party."
    That certainly qualifies him for a prize for brass neck.
    The other prize for the evening's debate undoubtedly went to the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) although that, I think, was a prize for innocence and naivety. The hon. Gentleman proudly proclaimed that the new council tax was a perfect compromise, although it was not clear what it was a compromise between. In my experience, perfect compromises are unusual animals, and I fear that the hon. Gentleman is in for a disillusioning experience if the tax is ever brought into practice. Apart from that, I do not think that I learned a great deal from Conservative Members' contributions to the debate—except, perhaps, that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who is not noted for his breadth of vision, does not like Labour councillors, which did not seem to me to advance the argument very much.
    I want to examine some of the competing attitudes to, and some of the recent experience in, local government finance. I ought to say straight away that I have some sympathy with some of the Scottish Conservatives. I can make what is perhaps not a usual boast in Scotland: I can claim that some of my best friends are Conservatives. Their agony in recent months and years has been terrible to behold. They have genuinely found it difficult to come to terms with the rout that has taken place—the complete volte-face.
    I should explain to the Secretary of State that what has been involved is not so much a loss of dignity as a destruction of credibility. The right hon. Gentleman knows—there can be no doubt about it—that, until recently, as the foundations of the poll tax crashed around his ears, he was still proclaiming it to be a remarkable success and something which was here to stay. Now, I am afraid—if rumour is correct—he is reduced to confiding to any journalist who will listen that he was a dissident from day one, bound unwillingly into the whole scheme by a love of collective responsibility. I am afraid that he is getting very near to the Nuremburg defence of saying that he was only obeying orders. I would find it all a little more convincing had the right hon. Gentleman not peddled the Government's line so enthusiastically, with militant zeal—I hope that he will not resent the term—for so many months.
    All my hon. Friends will remember the reception that was given to Labour's alternative to the poll tax. Abuse and scorn were heaped upon it with an intensity of attack that I cannot remember experiencing previously in my political career. That was perfectly understandable, because what we were proposing was so essentially and uniquely horrible. The House will remember that we had the effrontery to propose that we should have a property-based system founded largely on capital valuation and with legal liability falling on the householder alone. Clearly, that was unacceptable and intolerable. We were told in terms that it was a veritable tyranny—Scotland was colonised by vultures and no roof beam in Scotland was free from this plague.
    532
    What was unacceptable and intolerable suddenly—just like that—became acceptable and tolerable, as the Conservative party line turned, with a discipline which I found quite remarkable and which was reminiscent of societies that Conservative Members often dismiss contemptuously. A study of the assault made on our plans at the time reveals a number of points that were put forward as incontrovertible arguments against what we were proposing. It is perhaps worth taking a minute or two to invite the Secretary of State to answer those arguments in his reply and to explain how they have been overcome in the new council tax system. That will be particularly interesting to Labour Members, and I look forward to it.
    I have here a copy of "Roof tax v poll tax", published by the Scottish Conservative party. Let us start with one or two fundamentals. The document states:
    "Their new local government tax will be based on the value of your home … The truth is Labour's proposed 'Roof Tax' will be, as the rates were, a tax on your right to live in a house.
    The family home. It'll be the family millstone."
    How does the new council tax overcome that essential fault?
    The document contains a second charge. It states:
    "council tenants won't laugh when they hear they'll be liable to pay the new tax in addition to their rent."
    I must have missed something in the council tax. Some subtlety must have eluded me. I was under the impression that people who rented council houses would have to pay the new council tax in addition to their rents. Clearly I have misunderstood and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland will correct me shortly.
    The document also explains
    "why the youngster with a full time job living at home will once again pay nothing towards local Government services.
    While the youngster who leaves home and rents a flat will be clobbered."
    It seems that another subtlety has escaped me. What I have just related will look rather familiar to those who examine the Bill that we will debate next week.
    I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to explain the next point to me, because it is so simple. What is even more chilling for the people who have bought their council houses at a discounted price is that they will now be taxed at today's full value. That point was elaborated upon by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) who now runs—or rather does not run—our railway system. In a press release dated April 1990, he said:
    "A council house in Bearsden is likely to have a much higher market value than a council house in Castlemilk. But the income of the council house tenant might be exactly the same. How does Mr. Dewar justify the one having to pay a much higher roof tax than the other?"
    He continued:
    "The council tenant who buys his house need also beware of Labour's roof tax. Their liability will not be based on what they have actually paid for their house but what it is deemed to be worth without discount. They may have bought it for £9,000 with full discount, if it is actually worth £30,000 it will be the latter figure that will be used to work out their roof tax … Labour will punish them with a vengeance."
    That was a fundamental objection to our plans. How has the Secretary of State met that point in the council tax? [Interruption.]We never accepted that that was an objection. I have quoted from the Conservative Cabinet Minister in charge of local government finance. I want the Secretary of State to explain why he has abandoned the attack. Did he do that on the basis of arrant hypocrisy or because he is a man of no principle who is now putting his principles in his pocket?

    533
    The Government have capitulated on the flat rate principle, the property base and on accountability. All we can hear is the sound of Conservative politicians eating their own words. However, that has not encouraged humility, as the Secretary of State for the Environment proved when he opened this debate. The Government have capitulated on principle, but they have made a terrible mess of translating the principle into practice.
    In the weeks ahead, we will examine the details of the new council tax. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland will appreciate that I have corresponded with him about the fact that the Local Government Finance Bill is a United Kingdom Bill. I did that on the basis that it is very difficult to scrutinise the Bill's Scottish aspects, complicated and far-reaching as they are, as they impact on a very distinct and separate local government tradition and system within the framework of United Kingdom legislation. I hope that he will use his influence in the usual channels to ensure that there is a decent Scottish input to our debates.
    I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland on 30 October in which he confines himself to saying:
    "I believe that the Scottish interests will be dealt with appropriately."
    If we are reduced to a handful of Scottish Back Benchers and perhaps only a couple of Opposition Scottish Back Benchers on the Standing Committee, that will be deeply resented. It will be seen by many people who do not have a partisan political approach to the problems as a blow at the proper parliamentary scrutiny of Scottish legislation. The right hon. Gentleman must bear that point very much in mind.
    I now refer to our objections. Understandably, I must state that, in broad terms—as the House will recognise, we have a Second Reading debate and a Committee stage to come—the first objection is very important. The proposed banding system was dealt with at some length by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). It is pinched and restricted. It is artificially constrained in a way that ensures that the burden is not fairly distributed and those at the top end of the property range, and very likely to be at the top end of the income range, are being given shelter which is not justified.
    The right hon. Member for Henley made a powerful point when he said that all we were doing was trying to introduce an envy tax. He made a strange point, because he said, as though he justified that attack, that, after all, further bands would not raise any more cash. However, as he is always telling us, he does not want local government to raise more cash. It is not just a matter of how much is raised: there is another essential principle, and that is how the burden is distributed. That is the point at issue. I am surprised that someone as acute and as experienced as the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that arguments for fairness and justice also enter into the matter.
    Mr. Heseltine: If one does not raise more money from the top bands, one does not actually help the people in the lower bands.
    Mr. Dewar: Yes, one does, if one broadens the range. At the moment it is 3:1. The richest in the land can pay only three times as much as the person in the most lowly valued, difficult-to-let council house. If one broadens that
    534
    range and spreads it more evenly, one gets away from the present situation in which those at the bottom end of the range are paying more than they need to pay because of the way the system has been constructed.
    Again I refer to the "Roof tax v poll tax" document. On this particular the Government have got it right, and I am proud that they got it right. The Tories got it absolutely on the nail. That document states:
    "Labour's message clearly is 'Those on high incomes in high valued properties will make a larger contribution to local services'."
    I plead guilty to that. That is a principle which the vast majority of people in this country would endorse. It was the principal objection of many people on very wide and varied incomes to the way in which the poll tax operated.
    The arrival of the eighth band, which suggests that the right hon. Gentleman's conscience was at least pricking him, is not enough, and more should be done. Perhaps we will refer later to the blatant dishonesty—I am sorry, I must watch my language; let us say something bordering on the dishonest—of the suggestion that we can have a banding system which avoids for ever the problem of revaluation. I read in the ministerial journals—the Secretary of State for the Environment will certainly know about it—that the Minister of State said that, once a person is in a band, his property would be in it probably for perpetuity. That is the level of the argument. If we go to any local government official and talk to him about local government finance and how the council tax might work, he will say that it is nonsense and a case of trying to muddle through and paper over the cracks simply to make the package a little more presentable for electoral purposes.
    The next main point is about the complexity of the system. We are, in the practicalities, preserving many of the characteristics of the poll tax that have plagued and complicated our lives over the past two or three years. We have had a plethora of reduction schemes and concessional allowances—five or six of them—and they will go on. We have the 25 per cent. discount. I recognise why it is attractive. All of us are aware of the problems of someone who was living alone and struggling to maintain a large house, but I am genuinely surprised at Conservative Members' enthusiasm for a benefit that is clearly not targeted.
    In Scotland, there are 580,000 homes consisting of a single adult over 16. I do not know how they are made up. Many of them will presumably get the 100 per cent. rebate anyway without having to call upon the discount system. Although there is an assumption that most of those people are little old ladies who live in the circumstances that I described earlier, I suspect that we do not really know who the beneficiaries will be, but if the Government do not know, they should tell us. I have said it before and will say again that I am one such beneficiary, and probably not the sort of beneficiary that was intended when it was decided that a discount would be required. If fairness is to be the test, the discount is neither an efficient nor effective way of targeting help where it is most needed.
    In Committee we shall draw attention to the many anomalies that are already beginning to pile up. Let us take one random example. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will address the logic of the following. Let us imagine two neighbouring houses. The householder in the first earns £30,000. Only one other person lives in the house, his son who is on income support. As a result of his

    535
    son's status, that householder automatically gets the 25 per cent. discount. The neighbouring householder, however, earns only £15,000—he lives in exactly the same sort of house, but has only half the income of his neighbour—and, again, only one other person lives in the house, his non-working wife who brings in nothing. That householder would not receive any discount; he would pay the full charge. That is just one of many anomalies in what will be a long list in Committee. The discount system has the potential to run us into a substantial amount of trouble and I believe that very few people will be prepared to defend it in a year or two.
    Many people have said, "How wonderful, there will be no register." The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) cheerfully told the nation on radio the other day, "Of course, there will not be a register, but there will have to be a list." The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has asked me how the discount system, as distinct from the rebate system, will work. It has said, "We do not have the power to have a statutory canvass, but without a statutory canvass, we do not know the real position. Are we supposed to send out bills for 100 per cent. of the liability to everyone and leave householders to claim the discount if they are entitled to 25 per cent. off the full cost because they are single householders? If the bill is to be calculated on a daily rate and someone's auntie comes to stay for a couple of months in the middle of the year, what about all the complications in adjusting for that and how do we account for the period for which someone has lost the discount? If we calculate bills on that basis, the bills of all the affected people will have to be reissued." I am not making pedantic points when I refer to all those complexities and difficulties which are now beginning to bite in a way that I find worrying.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I have read Labour's document, which is entitled "Fair Rates", in which the Labour party did not tackle the question of how it would deal with houses in multiple occupation or refer to salary levels. How would the hon. Gentleman's party cope with that?
    Mr. Dewar: Our view is simple. We should not have a discount and rebate system. We should have simply a rebate system in which a flexible, generous and realistically tapered rebate takes account of the incomes of the people in any house. All the available funds should be targeted in that way to ensure that we achieve the best social return on the available resources—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members think that I am making a partisan point, I invite the Secretary of State for the Environment to move beyond the Municipal Journal. Why not do something daring and take the Local Government Chronicle? If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Chronicle this month, he would have seen the leader headed,
    "To introduce the poll tax is a mistake, to bring in the council tax is a disaster".
    I will favour the right hon. Gentleman by quoting one thought that was expressed in that article:
    "If the single person discount remains a feature of the tax they will have to create a register—a point Michael Heseltine will eventually have to acknowledge. The discount—the Achilles heel of the system—would be better abandoned now rather than later."
    Conservative Members would be well advised to heed those words because all the contact that I have had with local government—I am not talking about Labour
    536
    councillors, but about impartial experts—has shown that those experts believe that the council tax will eventually run into such trouble that it will become unworkable.
    I wish to make a simple plea about the 20 per cent. rule. We listened to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind)—we often must do so—and he defended the council tax with all the conviction with which he defended the poll tax just a few months ago. To be fair, he echoed his party's line when he said that of course the 20 per cent. rule has turned out to be a social disaster and an indefensible imposition. As the Audit Commission said, it will cost considerably more to collect than the net yield to the Treasury. We cannot in justice defend it and it does not make any financial sense—to use a good accountant's term, it is imprudent.
    Why does not that rule go in 1992 instead of limping on until April 1993? I find that people cannot comprehend why it will not go in the forthcoming legislation. They do not understand the basis of the argument and they ask me to explain the Government's position. I am not, perhaps, the best person to do that. Perhaps I sometimes do that job inadequately, in the view of any Conservative commentator. But on this case, I cannot give it a try—that is the point. Having been told that the Government have conceded that the whole thing is nonsense, I cannot begin to understand why we are not getting rid of it now, taking the strain off last year's poll tax, which is becoming intolerable. I hope that the Secretary of State can help me on that point.
    It is necessary to cut through the confusion and to attack the mess of local government finance which is the legacy of the past few years of Conservative rule. We must find a way of distributing the burden more fairly. In Scotland, we have a valuation base which is comparatively up to date—perhaps that is an advantage which we have over the rest of the country—but we should build upon that base. We should kill the poll tax as quickly as we can. We must then continue with a rolling programme of reform that takes us away from the narrow concept of notional rents. We must build in the kind of rebate system that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) tempted me to describe—a rebate system which concentrates on people's ability to pay and which is not concerned with an artificial concept of status.
    If we took the Labour way, it would be fairer, and I can quickly give some reasons. The broader property base which we would introduce would mean a fairer distribution of the burden. As I understand it—of course, I am open to correction—the discount system which Conservative Members have praised to the sky will be entirely financed within the system, so others who are not getting the 25 per cent. discount will pay more than they would otherwise do. The savings resulting from the administrative efficiency of the new system will largely be dissipated by the effects of the problems to which I referred.
    My experience is that a change would bring a sense of relief. The people in my part of the world, and I believe in the United Kingdom as a whole, are weary of the bitterness and frustration that the poll tax has brought. They fear that they are now looking at a successor tax which is designed simply to allow the Government to muddle through to the next election. They want a fair system which is practicable and workable—an acceptable base for genuine local democracy and the delivery of

    537
    services that are the mark of a civilised society. That is what the Labour party intends to bring in after the next election.
    9.38 pm
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): Charm was never the strong suit of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—indeed, I think that he is wearing his only suit. What a dismal, doleful, baleful lament of a speech we had from him. Labour knows, and the long faces around the hon. Gentleman confirm, that the council tax is a winner and that we have found in three months the solution that has eluded Labour for three years. We have worked our way directly to a fair, simple and durable solution while Labour has wandered around the highways and byways throwing up and discarding enough nutty ideas to revive the Monty Python show.
    We are indebted to the Opposition for tabling the amendment to the Loyal Address which has enabled this subject to be debated and which enables us to prove that we have the best solution for local government funding. It is not often that the Opposition play to the Government's strengths, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) said, the council tax is a simple and fair tax, and she was right to welcome its rebate scheme and its transitional relief.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) identified the efficiency of administration that the council tax will bring. My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) welcomed the discounts for students and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) welcomed the banding and the single bills for households. My hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), among others, welcomed the capping provisions to protect residents of profligate councils.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) raised, in a passing aside, the question of local income tax. I was most impressed by the effective way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford destroyed the hon. Gentleman's case during a short intervention. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that we had failed to consult on our proposals for the council tax. We invited hon. Members from all Opposition parties to consult and debate with us the best form of taxation to replace the community charge. Indeed, Liberal Democrat Members took part in those discussions, as did SNP Members. Only the Opposition, who proclaim in their paper "Fair Rates" their willingness to discuss their proposals, failed to take part when the invitation to consult was issued.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden complained that the provisions for Scotland and for England were included in the same Bill. Just a few years ago he complained about the exact opposite—that the provisions for the community charge in Scotland were in a separate Bill from those for England and Wales. I note his comments about the representation of Scottish Labour Members on the Standing Committee, but that is a matter not for me, but for the Committee of Selection, which I am sure will hear his words.
    Mr. Nellist rose——
    Mr. Lang: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is an endangered species on the Opposition Benches as he is one of the few who still speak their mind.
    Mr. Nellist: As the provisions for Scotland and for England and Wales are contained in the same Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the schedules relating to imprisonment as an enforcement penalty still apply to England and Wales, whereas the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 abolished that penalty for Scotland? In England and Wales, people may still be imprisoned if they do not pay their council tax.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has identified differences between Scotland and England which will persist in the new Bill. That underlines the fact that the one Bill will have the capacity to cater for both Scotland and England. One of the advantages of the Scottish arrangement is that it does not create martyrs, and the hon. Gentleman should know all about that.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden raised the issue of discounts and exemptions. It is at the core of our proposals that single-person households should pay less than households comprising two or more adults. It was the failure of domestic rates to take any account of the number of people living in a property which, above all, led to the system being rejected by the public as an acceptable means of raising local government revenue.
    In our consultation paper, and now in the Bill, we have recognised further that there will be certain circumstances in which it would be inappropriate for members of a household to add to that household's bill. Those are the cases which, for convenience, we have termed "status discounts". The Bill therefore provides that students, student nurses, apprentices, youth trainees and other categories, who are currently only partially exempt from the community charge, will not, if they are resident in a dwelling, add to the council tax liability of that dwelling.
    Mr. Graham: Will the Secretary of State say now why he will not give a 100 per cent. rebate to those people who genuinely cannot pay the poll tax? Why not rescue them from the hell hole created for them by the Government?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that those on income support were given increased income support to enable them to pay their 20 per cent. liability for the community charge. Labour Members, locally and nationally, have led those people astray, so that they are now facing financial difficulties and are unable to pay.
    Mr. Dewar: Would it be a convenient moment for the right hon. Gentleman to answer one of the questions that I asked? Will he explain why, given that the theory has been abandoned, and given that the poll tax is ultimately to go, the 20 per cent. rule cannot be abolished in the council tax Bill with effect from April 1992?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman can get rid of the 20 per cent. rule quickly by helping us to abolish the community charge and then the package will disappear altogether.
    The Opposition call their proposal "Fair Rates", a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. One might as well speak of even-handed socialism. But just as they have done throughout the past three years, we find the Opposition spokesmen contradicting each other. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) now says that there is no question but that Labour will replace the

    539
    council tax with fair rates. But the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) says that Labour will amend the council tax. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), the man responsible, as on so many other details, is really not very sure. Even by Labour standards the pantomime season has come early this year.
    But unfair rates is what is on the table, along with the tattered remnants of more than 60 other proposals that went before. What a retrograde disaster it represents. After all these years, has the Labour party not learnt that people pay their taxes in sorrow, but they paid their rates in anger? How does the Labour party's policy stand up to examination by comparison with the council tax? Fundamental to the stability of a system of taxation is the level at which people are asked to pay, and the switch from local to central taxation achieved by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget was widely welcomed because it recognised that the tax burden had become too high for any system to sustain, and that is why he took steps to reduce it.
    That has been welcomed everywhere except on the Opposition Benches. Not for Opposition Members the 14 per cent. contribution from local residents that we have achieved—the figure in Scotland is even lower—but, on the contrary, a commitment to raise it to 20 per cent. The general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress even proposed an increase of up to 50 per cent.
    But what does that mean for the local residents? Surely not cuts in income tax by a Labour Government. One has only to mouth that thought to recognise its absurdity. What it means is higher bills for local taxpayers. That is what the Labour party means when it says it wants councils to raise more of the money that they spend.
    In the past 12 years, despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), the funding of Scottish local authorities by Government has risen in real terms by 10 per cent. but spending has risen by no less than 26 per cent. That is the reality of Labour in action in local government. Labour's policy means giving spendthrift councils the green light to send tax bills soaring even further with devastating results for millions of people.
    The Labour party claims that its new fair rates policy is easy to administer. "Fair Rates" says that Labour wants to cut unnecessary bureaucracy from local government finance, an admirable objective, but it seems that the Labour party cannot help itself. It could not even make up its mind. Faced with four alternative approaches to valuation—whether it should be based on capital values, rental values, maintenance costs or rebuilding costs—its choice was not to go for one of them, or even a mixture of two of them, but to go for all four of them.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: On the subject of making up his mind or the minds of parties in Scotland, can the Secretary of State say whether the Conservative candidate in Kincardine and Deeside supports that aspect of Conservative party policy?
    Mr. Lang: My friend the candidate, soon to be my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside, supports me and my hon. Friends on that policy as on so many other policies.
    But what the Opposition call a modernised valuation system has more components than a car manufactured in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dagenham, and
    540
    on top of that we are promised a revaluation every year. That policy is to simplicity what the Leader of the Opposition is to brevity. It would not have the confidence of the people, so it would never work.
    When we come to banding we find that the Labour party is incapable of making up its mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked today whether it supported banding but received no answer. We referred to its "Fair Rates" document where it argues for it but carefully puts in the word "perhaps". The hon. Member for Garscadden says that banding protects the rich and the hon. Member for Dagenham says that the Government are clobbering the rich, and still we do not know.
    The Labour party claims that its policies would be fairer, but the council tax brings fairness to single people with discounts. They are not the rich bachelors or the yuppies that the Labour party fears; two thirds of single people entitled to discounts will be over 60, single pensioners, widows and widowers, and many more are single parents. Where is the justice for them in a rates policy?
    If businesses think that they would escape, protected by a fair and stable business rate, they had better think again. Labour says that it will reverse every step that the Government have taken to protect businesses, and would leave them to the mercy of Labour's own local councils. Once again, city centre premises would be boarded up, as business after business moved out of centres, driven away by runaway rates bills.
    Mr. Bellotti: The Secretary of State said that those people who were to receive discounts would be separately marked on the lists. Will he explain to the House the difference between a register and a list?
    Mr. Lang: There is all the difference in the world between a register and a list. A register is a statutory designated body that is a basis for designating liability, and a list is a source of administrative efficiency for the use of the local authority. If the hon. Gentleman serves on the Committee that is to consider the Bill, he will be able to reassure himself as to the way that works.
    Another refinement and contrast between the council tax and Labour's rates policy is the control, or lack of it, that Labour would exercise over excessive spending levels. According to Labour's policy document, it would abolish capping. Today, the hon. Member for Dagenham confirmed that, and the hon. Member for Eastbourne joined in on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. They were too modest, because it was a Labour Government who invented capping—back in the 1970s, when Labour said that the party was over. In effect, the party had not even started. It was Labour Ministers who told local authorities that there was to be
    "severe restraint in expenditure in the national interest."
    We all know that without capping there would be an explosion in local authority spending and spiralling local tax bills.
    What do we find in Labour's new "Fair Rates" policy? Where is the smack of firm government? Labour would throw away all controls, and, according to the hon. Member for Dagenham, would do all it could to encourage councils "to behave sensibly." The only people who would be encouraged by that would be councillors in areas such as Lambeth, Liverpool, and Lothian. For them,

    541
    the party would be on again. It would be spend, spend, spend. For the rest of us, that can clearly be seen as a policy of catastrophe.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne suggested that regional variations in house prices should be taken into account in regional banding. That overlooks the protection that is built in to the dampened banding system. I suggest to those who talk of regional banding that they look at the protection that the banding system will offer to people living in London and the south-east. Do we really want a system in which a couple——
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State explain exactly what is a "dampened banding system"?
    Mr. Lang: Precisely the system that the hon. Gentleman, if I recall his words, said was restricting and constraining. It narrows the differential, so that those in the top band are not forced to pay more than three times those in the bottom band. I regard that form of protection as highly desirable and an important part of our proposals.
    Limiting the range of bills will give all the protection that London and the south-east needs. Bills there will be reasonable if local authorities spend sensibly. That is critical. It is not the Government who play havoc with people's local tax bills but the Lambeths, Liverpools, and Lothians of this world. We have not and, I repeat, we will not allow local authorities to spend irresponsibly and profligately—and we mean what we say.
    No local authority will be allowed to undermine the principles of sound and prudent public sector management to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all the other members of the Government are committed. I repeat that we will maintain firm vigilance over local authority spending. Where necessary, we will cap, and cap vigorously.
    It is nonsense to suppose that local authorities should be let off the financial hook for flagrant mismanagement of their responsibilities. They can and will be called to account. It is in the interests of the ordinary citizen that that should be so. Why should the people of Lambeth be subjected to savage bills because their local authority fails to collect rents, the community charge, and even outstanding rates arrears going back over many years? Why should the people of Liverpool have to pay for the self-inflicted deficits of their local council, and why should the people of Lothian suffer the same dismal experience?
    Let us examine the collection rates for 1990–91. The five worst councils are Hackney, with 55 per cent.—Labour; Lambeth, with 67 per cent.—Labour; Liverpool, with 68 per cent.—Labour; Islington, with 69 per cent.—Labour; and Newham, with 71 per cent.—Labour. In Scotland, the worst two regions are Strathclyde, with 71 per cent.—Labour; and Lothian, with 75 per cent.—Labour.
    Government is about responsibility, and local government is about local responsibility. We in government have a duty to ensure that local responsibility is not abused, and we intend to carry out that duty.
    One of the more unedifying spectacles that emerged from the community charge was the flaunting display of the "can pay, won't pay" brigade. "Can pay, won't pay" is shorthand: written out in full, their credo was, "We have the money to make our proper contribution to the cost of essential local services, but, because we wish to indulge in
    542
    political point-scoring, we will withhold that contribution—knowing full well that by doing so we will force local authorities either to increase charges for the great majority of law-abiding citizens, or to cut services." Put in such terms, that is a cheap and tawdry act, and the whole campaign is rightly reviled by most people. Even the Scottish National party has been forced to acknowledge that it hitched its colours to a vote loser.
    Such action becomes particularly distasteful when it is carried out by elected representatives. In our view, it is entirely unacceptable for them to be allowed to continue to exercise any influence over the amount of local taxation that they require their electorate to pay. Such a degree of hypocrisy cannot be tolerated; it is morally indefensible, and in defiance of the rule of law. We are saying to those councillors, "Won't pay, can't say"; in other words, "If you are not prepared to obey the law and pay your rightful contribution to the cost of the local services which, as locally elected representatives, you have a say in providing, it is unjustifiable for you to have any influence, through your votes, on the amount of local tax that is levied in your area."
    Today—diffidently, quietly and from sedentary positions—Opposition Members agreed with that. Yes, whispered the hon. Member for Dagenham, they would support us. We welcome that deathbed repentance, if it lasts through the Committee stage. But what a pity that, when the heat was on—when the law of the land was being challenged by Labour councillors up and down the country, and by Members of Parliament—the Opposition Front Bench was found wanting, and failed to stand up to the rule of law.
    When the Opposition try to throw back at us arguments about increasing accountability, I say this to them. Yes, we believe in local accountability: we have tried to strengthen it, first through funding mechanisms and now through contemplating single-tier authorities. But where is the accountability in a policy that abrogates responsibility, or in a Government who do the same? Where is the accountability in a Government who take all controls off local authorities, and let spending rip; who switch a larger burden of tax-raising to profligate authorities and abandon the interests of oppressed residents? Where is the accountability in a policy that fails to take account of the number of people living in a house, and leaves businesses without a vote and at the mercy of local authorities?
    When asked to hold themselves accountable to their residents, local authorities chose instead to clobber them with a 30 per cent. increase in this year's burden and inadequate efforts to collect until it was far too late. There is no sense of accountability in a council such as Edinburgh, which sought last year to tax residents at £584 per head.
    The fact is that Labour wants to keep the poll tax so that it can attack us with it. Labour wants to hide behind it, to disguise the incompetence and extravagance of Labour authorities and their lack of an alternative. If I am wrong, Labour can prove it by helping the Local Government Finance Bill on to the statute book. That is the acid test. How can the nation judge Labour's sincerity if Labour is determined to resist? The truth is that Labour knows that it has no creditable system with which to replace our proposals.
    Our council tax forms part of a major undertaking on which we have embarked to reform the structure, funding and function of local government throughout Britain. It is

    543
    fair; it spreads the burden evenly, providing proper discounts and proper control of local authorities. I urge the House to throw out the amendment.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 326.

    Division No. 1]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Allen, Graham

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Alton, David

    Gordon, Mildred

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Gould, Bryan

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Graham, Thomas

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Ashton, Joe

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Hain, Peter

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Hardy, Peter

    Beckett, Margaret

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Beith, A. J.

    Haynes, Frank

    Bellotti, David

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Henderson, Doug

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

    Hinchliffe, David

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Blair, Tony

    Home Robertson, John

    Blunkett, David

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Boateng, Paul

    Howells, Geraint

    Boyes, Roland

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Bradley, Keith

    Hoyle, Doug

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Illsley, Eric

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Ingram, Adam

    Caborn, Richard

    Janner, Greville

    Callaghan, Jim

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Cartwright, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Lambie, David

    Clay, Bob

    Lamond, James

    Cohen, Harry

    Leighton, Ron

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Lewis, Terry

    Cousins, Jim

    Litherland, Robert

    Crowther, Stan

    Livsey, Richard

    Cryer, Bob

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Darling, Alistair

    Loyden, Eddie

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    McAllion, John

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McAvoy, Thomas

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

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Dewar, Donald

    McKelvey, William

    Dixon, Don

    McLeish, Henry

    Dobson, Frank

    Maclennan, Robert

    Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McWilliam, John

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Madden, Max

    Eadie, Alexander

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Marek, Dr John

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Martlew, Eric

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

    Meacher, Michael

    Fisher, Mark

    Meale, Alan

    Flannery, Martin

    Michael, Alun

    Flynn, Paul

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Foster, Derek

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Foulkes, George

    Morley, Elliot

    Fraser, John

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Galloway, George

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Mullin, Chris

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Murphy, Paul

    George, Bruce

    Nellist, Dave

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    544

    O'Brien, William

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

    O'Neill, Martin

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

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Snape, Peter

    Parry, Robert

    Soley, Clive

    Patchett, Terry

    Spearing, Nigel

    Pike, Peter L.

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Prescott, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Straw, Jack

    Radice, Giles

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Randall, Stuart

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Redmond, Martin

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Vaz, Keith

    Reid, Dr John

    Wallace, James

    Richardson, Jo

    Walley, Joan

    Robertson, George

    Warded, Gareth (Gower)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Rogers, Allan

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rooker, Jeff

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wilson, Brian

    Ruddock, Joan

    Winnick, David

    Salmond, Alex

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Worthington, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wray, Jimmy

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Short, Clare

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mr. Ken Eastham.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Alexander, Richard

    Carrington, Matthew

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Carttiss, Michael

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Cash, William

    Amess, David

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Amos, Alan

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Arbuthnot, James

    Chapman, Sydney

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Chope, Christopher

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Churchill, Mr

    Ashby, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Atkins, Robert

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Baldry, Tony

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cormack, Patrick

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Couchman, James

    Beggs, Roy

    Cran, James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Critchley, Julian

    Bendall, Vivian

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Curry, David

    Benyon, W.

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

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Day, Stephen

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Body, Sir Richard

    Dicks, Terry

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Boswell, Tim

    Dover, Den

    Bottomley, Peter

    Dunn, Bob

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Durant, Sir Anthony

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

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Bowis, John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Evennett, David

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Farr, Sir John

    Brazier, Julian

    Favell, Tony

    Bright, Graham

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

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

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Forman, Nigel

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Burns, Simon

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Burt, Alistair

    Forth, Eric

    Butler, Chris

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Butterfill, John

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    545

    Franks, Cecil

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Freeman, Roger

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    French, Douglas

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Fry, Peter

    Kilfedder, James

    Gale, Roger

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Gill, Christopher

    Knapman, Roger

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Knowles, Michael

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Knox, David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Gorst, John

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Gregory, Conal

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Lord, Michael

    Grist, Ian

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Ground, Patrick

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Hague, William

    McCrindle, Sir Robert

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Maclean, David

    Hanley, Jeremy

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hannam, John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

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

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Madel, David

    Harris, David

    Malins, Humfrey

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mans, Keith

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Maples, John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Marland, Paul

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Marlow, Tony

    Hayward, Robert

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Mates, Michael

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hill, James

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hind, Kenneth

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Mills, Iain

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Moate, Roger

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hunt, Rt Hon David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Irvine, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Mudd, David

    Jackson, Robert

    Needham, Richard

    Janman, Tim

    Nelson, Anthony

    Jessel, Toby

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    546

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stevens, Lewis

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Stokes, Sir John

    Page, Richard

    Sumberg, David

    Paice, James

    Summerson, Hugo

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Thorne, Neil

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Portillo, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Townend, John (Brildlington)

    Price, Sir David

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Raffan, Keith

    Tracey, Richard

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Tredinnick, David

    Rathbone, Tim

    Trimble, David

    Redwood, John

    Trippier, David

    Riddick, Graham

    Trotter, Neville

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Viggers, Peter

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Rost, Peter

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Rowe, Andrew

    Walden, George

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Waller, Gary

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Ward, John

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Watts, John

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Wells, Bowen

    Shelton, Sir William

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Whitney, Ray

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shersby, Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wilshire, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wood, Timothy

    Speller, Tony

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Yeo, Tim

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Squire, Robin

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Steen, Anthony

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Stern, Michael

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Mr. Andrew Docherty
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  10.19 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of the late Mr. Andrew Docherty. I have two purposes in raising his case. The first is to draw attention to what I and others believe to be clear injustices in the way in which he was treated before his death and the second is to expose the fact that the injustices faced by Mr. Docherty affect many others in similar circumstances, and are a direct consequence of Government policy.
  I do not intend to point an accusing finger at individual officials in either the Department of Employment or the Department of Social Security at local level whose actions may have a bearing on Mr. Docherty's case. I am satisfied that in their dealings with Mr. Docherty, which I will describe, they were following to the letter the procedures required of them by present Government policy. As the Minister knows, my criticism and concern are directed at Government policies which had a major bearing on the difficult circumstances faced by this man in the period immediately before his death.
  I first met Mr. Docherty, a 32-year-old man who originates from the Hemsworth area, while canvassing in a local government by-election in my constituency during March this year. He raised with me certain personal problems that he was facing and I asked him to come to my regular constituency surgery to discuss matters in more detail.
  Mr. Docherty came to see me in April, desperately concerned because he was homeless and had insufficient money with which to feed himself. He told me that he had recently been sacked from his job as a long-distance lorry driver for refusing to drive a defective and dangerous vehicle. He told the police that the vehicle concerned had a virtually bald front nearside tyre and a gash in one of the rear tyres, and that its tachograph was not working. Two days later, he was dismissed and as a consequence of his dismissal, his unemployment benefit was stopped and he received reduced rate income support of, I understand, £23.79 a week.
  As he previously spent most of his time living in his cab or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation while he was working, his dismissal meant that he had nowhere to live. His mother and stepfather, who was in poor health, had a two-bedroom house and another relative also resided there. I subsequently established from Mr. Docherty's mother that the other factor preventing him from living at home was the fact that his presence would have had an impact on the family's eligibility for housing benefit and would have resulted in additional poll tax liability which the family simply could not meet. To my knowledge, such considerations have had a major influence on the circumstances of many other homeless people in West Yorkshire and elsewhere.
  Mr. Docherty told me that he was sleeping rough either in his car or in a small tent. He expressed concern that he was not getting sufficient sleep to carry out work as a driver, to which he hoped to return shortly.
  Following his interview, I wrote an urgent letter about his circumstances to the local housing department, although I recognised that it could be some time before he
  548
  received any offers of accommodation. My office is inundated with referrals concerning housing needs and the official figure for homelessness shows an almost 40 per cent. increase over the past two years within Wakefield district. The latest annual report from the Wakefield metropolitan district council housing department states that in terms of homelessness,
  "the major problem we face is that 30 per cent. of all referrals are from single people and there is simply not enough suitable housing for this client group".
  The local authority in Wakefield has a good record on housing. Its voids are less than 1 per cent. and the average property turnround time is within the lowest Audit Commission quartile. Our housing problems stem directly from the fact that the Government have actively prevented replacement of the 9,500 council houses lost through the right to buy. With the exception of the war years, last year was the first since the Labour Government of the 1920s in which no new starts were made on council dwellings in Wakefield.
  The consequences of that are only too apparent in cases such as that of Andrew Docherty. After seeing Mr. Docherty I wrote to the manager of the local unemployment benefit office for her comments on the circumstances leading to the suspension of his benefit. She replied promptly on 26 April stating:
  "When Mr. Docherty claimed benefit he wrote, 'got sack' on his claim form. Our instructions state that we must suspend benefit pending further inquiries to his last employer. We did this. On receipt of the reply from the employer it was stated that Mr. Docherty had been dismissed for misconduct. In these cases we are instructed to refer to the Adjudication Officer for a decision on whether the claim to benefit should be allowed or disallowed.
  The claim is currently being considered by the Adjudication Officer who is awaiting a reply from the employer regarding Mr. Docherty's response to their claim that he was dismissed for misconduct. If no reply is received from the employer by I May then the Adjudication Officer will make a decision. If Mr. Docherty's claim for benefit is allowed he will receive the benefit to which he is entitled. If it is disallowed then he will, presumably, continue to receive reduced Income Support for the period of disallowance."
  My office was subsequently informed by telephone on 10 May and by a letter dated 13 May from the deputy manager of the unemployment benefit office that Mr. Docherty's case had been allowed by the adjudication officer, and that he was therefore entitled to arrears of benefit. I wrote back to advise them that, unfortunately, Mr. Docherty had committed suicide by inhaling exhaust fumes in his car on the Monkton industrial estate in Wakefield, in my constituency on Saturday 4 May.
  I gave the office details of Mr. Docherty's next of kin—his mother in Hemsworth—and said that presumably any outstanding benefit should be paid to her. Given the circumstances of the case, I was surprised and angered to receive a further letter dated 29 May from the deputy benefits manager stating:
  "Unfortunately it is not the policy of the Department to inform next of kin of any outstanding benefits, the onus is on the individuals concerned to instigate the action."
  The Minister is aware that when I received that letter I immediately tabled a question on the matter, and had subsequent correspondence with her fellow Under-Secretary of State, who has been most helpful and concerned. I know that he had hoped to take part in this debate but had to be elsewhere; I pay tribute to the fact that he has shown a personal interest in the case. That is appreciated by me and also, I am sure, by Mr. Docherty's family.

  549
  The Minister may wish to refer to our correspondence when she replies to the debate. As she knows, I was far more concerned about the circumstances leading to the suspension of benefit and the effect that that had on Mr. Docherty immediately before his death.
  I could substantiate the information that Mr. Docherty gave me through contact with the West Yorkshire metropolitan police. The divisional commander for the Wakefield area informed me in a letter dated 6 September that he could confirm that Mr. Docherty sought the advice of a PC Lingard during March 1991. The letter continued:
  "According to the officer, Mr. Docherty had been directed to use unroadworthy vehicles belonging to his employers, RT Transport. He was advised that if he did use the vehicle he and his employers may be liable to prosecution. The officer also reports that Mr. Docherty appeared to be aware that if he was dismissed from his employment due to refusing to drive the vehicle, he may have problems regarding his DSS benefits. The officer agreed to confirm the conversation with the Department of Social Security if he was contacted."
  The letter continues:
  "A short time later Mr. Docherty advised PC Lingard that he had been dismissed from his employment and that his claim for benefit had been refused. The officer was also contacted—although two weeks later, by the Department of Social Security and he confirmed details of the conversation."
  Bearing in mind the fact that the Departments of Health and of Social Security were advised of Mr. Docherty's complaint to the police before his dismissal, at the time of his initial claim to benefit, it is surely a matter of great concern that his benefit was suspended in the first place, leaving him facing the most difficult financial circumstances on top of his homelessness. The Minister may also wish to elaborate on why it took so long for her Department's officials to contact the police regarding Mr. Docherty's case.
  There are additional factors of which I was not aware when I was dealing with Mr. Docherty's case. Apparently, during April and early May, Mr. Docherty had contact with the Wakefield centre for the unemployed, which is based in the same building as my constituency office. The centre, which is mainly funded by the local authority, gives a tremendous amount of support to local people who are facing the trauma of unemployment. The centre's welfare benefits adviser, Mr. Nick Hodgkinson, has advised me that, when Mr. Docherty initially made contact, he had been refused a crisis social fund loan to supplement his weekly income of £23·79. He was actively seeking work as a driver and, in addition to having insufficient money to feed himself, or come anywhere near funding any accommodation, he was having the greatest difficulty in meeting the petrol costs of his car—an essential item in his search for work, in addition to being his home at that stage.
  Following advice from the centre for the unemployed, Mr. Docherty successfully obtained a crisis loan of £13·60 from the Department of Social Security. I was astonished to be told by Mr. Hodgkinson that Mr. Docherty was required to repay the loan at the rate of £5·95 per week, leaving him a mere £17·84 on which to live. The centre made a formal written request on his behalf that the repayment should be reduced to £1·98 per week because at that stage its staff were becoming concerned about Mr. Docherty's physical and mental state. After they arranged for him to see a GP, he was prescribed medication and given a sick note which was sent to the Department of
  550
  Social Security on 20 April, in the hope that his money would be increased to the full rate of sickness benefit. Nine days later, when Mr. Docherty called again at the centre, his sickness benefit had still not materialised.
  During that period, Mr. Docherty depended on cans of food provided by the centre, which he was warming on a small camping stove. On 29 April, the DSS confirmed that a giro for 11 days' sickness benefit would be ready for collection on 2 May, but that a social fund deduction of £5·95 was being made. No decision had been made regarding the request for a reduced repayment rate.
  I understand from Mr. Hodgkinson that Mr. Docherty called in again on 1 May, and the centre contacted the DSS adjudication officers in Doncaster regarding the voluntary unemployment investigation. They were informed that there would be the normal delay while the DSS waited for employers to respond to letters, and that it could be up to three or four weeks before a decision was made on his case.
  Mr. Docherty's suicide note, which I have with me, was written three days later. It included the words,
  "I am sorry to everyone concerned.
  PS. I asked for help but I got none."
  Andrew Docherty was better known to Mr. Hodgkinson than to me, and I feel that it would be appropriate to quote Mr. Hodgkinson's comments in his letter to me on 2 October, because they provide a most appropriate summary of the situation:
  "It seems that this was a man who worked hard during his adult life, and who was honest enough to lose his job rather than break the law and endanger the lives of other road users, who paid tax and national insurance during his many years' employment, but was unlucky enough to come up against the rules regarding homelessness, which deemed him not vulnerable enough to be given priority status; against the lack of single person's accommodation in Wakefield, which left him sleeping in his car or tent; against the voluntary unemployment investigation procedures which, in effect, hold you guilty until you prove yourself innocent; and against a Social Fund system which insists that people who are accepted as being in crisis are forced to live below the poverty line as they repay the crisis loan."
  Mr. Hodgkinson went on to say:
  "He is not the first and, sadly, will probably not be the last person for whom the trauma of unemployment, homelessness and poverty—none of which could in any way be said to have been caused by any wrong doing on his part—was simply too much."
  I have met Mr. Docherty's mother and I pay tribute to the courage that she has shown over the past few months following this bereavement. I hope that lessons can be learnt from Mr. Docherty's case and I look to the Minister to provide his family and many others with some hope arising from what has happened.
  A whole range of injustices may have been factors in Mr. Docherty's decision to commit suicide. Clearly, I cannot prove that, but knowing some of the factors, I am sure that they had a bearing on his decision to take his own life.
  I urge the Minister to look specifically at three particular issues to arise from Mr. Docherty's case. The first is the plight of the homeless and, in particular, the single homeless. I appreciate that that is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but in her Department she has contact with vast numbers of homeless people and single homeless people through the benefit system. As a result of this debate, I hope that she will make representations to the appropriate Department about the problems facing single homeless people in Wakefield and elsewhere.

  551
  Secondly, with regard to Mr. Docherty's case, I draw the Minister's attention to the operation of the crisis loan system which may have added to his problems. It is clear that the burden imposed on Mr. Docherty was unreasonable and the same thing is happening to many other people who face similar problems.
  Finally, the main issue that I hope the Minister will address is the automatic assumption in the Government's benefit system that when an employee is dismissed from a job, he or she is assumed to be the guilty party. Mr. Docherty clearly was not the guilty party. I am grateful for the presence tonight of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) who is making his debut on the Opposition Front Bench. My colleagues and I wish him well in his future as a Front-Bench spokesman. I hope that he and the Minister will remember Mr. Docherty's case and will press the Government to do something about such cases.
  10.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate the honourable Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. The issue that he raised is the tragic case of a man without a home who took his own life after having lost his job. I extend the condolences both of myself and of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), to the family at this difficult time. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for stating that he did not feel that the staff at our local offices were in any way to blame for this tragic sequence of events. He has rightly pointed out that they were obeying the rules as they stand and it is to those rules that I wish to address the bulk of my remarks.
  I was also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who has taken a deep personal interest in this case, and he sends his apologies to both the hon. Member for Wakefield and to the House for his unavoidable absence this evening. He is abroad on ministerial business.
  The hon. Gentleman has two criticisms of my Department. First, he criticises what may be described as a presumption of guilt in determining unemployment benefit where there is a question of voluntary unemployment. Secondly, he criticises failure to inform relatives where a deceased person is entitled to arrears of benefit. He has also raised the subject of social fund loans and their recovery.
  I shall deal with the events in the local offices of the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency between 11 March 1991, when Mr. Docherty made his first claim to unemployment benefit, and 3 May 1991, when the adjudication officer decided that Mr. Docherty was not disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit.
  Perhaps at this point I should say, in response to the hon. Gentleman's description of the circumstances which surrounded Mr. Docherty becoming unemployed in March, that it is indeed, regrettable that that man appears to have been offered a decision between safety and employment, although the facts of the matter I have not established. However, if the hon. Gentleman's description
  552
  of the circumstances is accurate, perhaps the employer in question would also wish to reflect on the lessons of this case.
  The decision by the independent statutory authority that Mr. Docherty was not disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit was made after Mr. Docherty had claimed sickness benefit on 25 April. It was also made on the day preceding that on which he so tragically took his own life.
  When Mr. Docherty, a divorced man of 33, made his claim to unemployment benefit he gave his occupation as a heavy goods vehicle driver. In a statement on why his job had ended on 9 March, he said that he had been sacked. That answer clearly raised the question whether Mr. Docherty had lost his employment through his misconduct. The local office wrote to his last employer, R T Transport of Wombwell, Barnsley, seeking information on the circumstances of the dismissal. The employer's reply was received on 19 March.
  The question was then referred, quite properly and in accordance with normal procedures, by the local office of the Employment Service to the adjudication officer for a decision. The Social Security Act 1975 requires any such question arising in connection with a claim for benefit to be submitted forthwith to an adjudication officer. In this case, the reference was made on 21 March, two days after the reply had been received at the local office. I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted that local officials acted with all necessary dispatch.
  Again in accordance with normal practice, the adjudication officer invited Mr. Docherty to comment on the statement from his late employers. Having no fixed address, he did not make his response to the statement until he next attended the local office on 11 April. His comments conflicted with the information given by the employers and the adjudication officer directed that R. T. Transport should be given the opportunity to see Mr. Docherty's further statement. The adjudication officer did not receive an early reply from the employers and decided that he would make a decision if he still did not receive their reply by 1 May.
  On 3 May, the adjudication officer gave his decision to the effect that Mr. Docherty was not disqualified on the grounds referred. When that decision was received by the Employment Service, it was passed immediately to the connected local office of the Benefits Agency where the calculation was made of the arrears of income support due. Those amounted to £44·13 and arrangements were made to ensure that the payment was ready for Mr. Docherty when he next attended the local office.
  Mr. Docherty received income support payments covering his entitlement from the date of his initial claim to unemployment benefit until he claimed sickness benefit on 25 April. He received £28·29 on 21 March and £44 on 4 April. He then received £62·80 in respect of the period of 3 April to 21 April and a further £6·80 on 23 April. On 29 April, he received £45·47. Because he had no fixed address, he collected his benefit personally. That continued until he claimed sickness benefit. The Employment Service office was unaware that Mr. Docherty had committed suicide until the hon. Gentleman's letter of 23 May was received by the manager.
  I now refer to the presumption of guilt.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Minister seen a copy of a letter that was sent to me on 7 October by the deputy manager

  553
  of the Employment Service office in Wakefield, stating the income support payments made to Mr. Docherty? The figures that I have been given conflict with those that the hon. Lady has given.
  Miss Widdecombe: There is a further conflict in respect of the social fund. I have indeed seen a copy of the letter. My information is documented information from the local office. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that point after the debate, I suggest that we correspond or meet on the issue. I shall be very happy to resolve any differences.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is a principle underlying the payment of benefits to the unemployed that the lack of employment should not be attributable in any way to the actions or choices of the claimant. Disqualification under the national insurance scheme is intended as a recognition of the basic principle that a person can be insured only against events for which he or she is not personally responsible. Any disqualification for the receipt of unemployment benefit is met with a corresponding reduction in the rate of income support. The principle of paying a reduced benefit rate until a decision on disqualification has been reached by the independent statutory authorities has been followed by both Labour and Conservative Governments.
  Mr. Docherty stated that he had been sacked. If claimants making such declarations were paid their full income support entitlement pending the adjudication officer's decision, we would probably be faced with substantial unrecoverable debts. The hon. Member will, I am sure, be aware of the many difficulties that face us in recovering overpayments in the normal course of events. To enable us to cover these debts, with safeguards built in, would require a major change in primary legislation. I am not convinced that there is a sufficient case for us to depart from the principle that has been adhered to by successive Governments.
  Although I am not able to offer the hon. Gentleman any prospect of change in terms of voluntary unemployment deductions, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the 40 per cent. of the personal rate of benefit which is removed while inquiries proceed is modified to 20 per cent. if any member of the family is pregnant or seriously ill and if the family has less than £200 capital. No reduction is applied to benefit payable in respect of dependants. There is, therefore, a policy of trying to protect the most vulnerable.
  However, the hon. Gentleman's second point has brought action from my Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 10 June thanking him for bringing to his attention the omission in the procedural instructions issued to local officers. It is more regrettable—and is profoundly regretted—that when notified of Mr. Docherty's death, the local office staff did not have instructions before them which ensured a sympathetic approach to the question of the payment of arrears to those who had just suffered the loss of a relative. My hon. Friend expressed his sympathies to Mr. Docherty's family and passed on assurances from the Employment Service that an invitation to claim arrears
  554
  of benefit will be issued to a legal personal representative or next of kin where either, or a third party, notifies the Employment Service that the claimant has died.
  I am pleased to tell the House that the Employment Service has now issued new instructions to that effect to everyone in its offices and has made managers responsible for inviting claims for any outstanding benefit. The new instruction emphasises that, when inviting such a claim, discretion must be used to ensure that no further distress is caused to relatives. The instructions arise directly as a result of this tragic case and I hope that they will act as some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman that the treatment which Mr. Docherty's relatives received will not recur. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde in expressing sincere regret for the additional distress which must have been caused by the original absence of such directions.
  I turn to the applications made by Mr. Docherty to the social fund. He applied for a crisis loan on 27 March as his fortnightly payment of income support was not due until 4 April. He was paid £28·09 and agreed to repay the loan at the weekly rate of £5·51. I should say at this point that it was open to Mr. Docherty, as it is to any applicant for a crisis loan, to negotiate a lower rate of repayment, particularly if it is likely to cause difficulties at the rate set. In this case, recovery did not commence until 29 April—a month later—by which time Mr. Docherty had left the unemployment register and was receiving income support at the full rate while sick.
  Further crisis loans were made on 11 April and 24 April, when the social fund officer decided that Mr. Docherty's personal circumstances were such that these were appropriate. The weekly recovery rate of £5·95 was deferred until the earlier loan had been paid off. Clearly then, Mr. Docherty benefited from the fact that the social fund is a flexible scheme and he was able to use it to mitigate the effects of his reduced benefits.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, a letter was received from the Wakefield centre for the unemployed, requesting a change in the rate of recovery. Had Mr. Docherty lived, this would have been discussed with him and a revised rate of recovery would have been considered in the light of his circumstances.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that Mr. Docherty was homeless and searching for accommodation at the time of his death. I know that the hon. Gentleman was assisting him with an application for local authority housing. Homelessness is a complex problem about which the Government as a whole are seriously concerned and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Department of the Environment has been taking a number of initiatives. I shall, of course, draw to that Department's attention the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described and shall ensure that it fully understands his comments and concerns on this matter.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he has taken following the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to the effect that criminal offences may have been committed by persons interested in the outcome of that Committee's report into the takeover of House of Fraser; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  On 13 September I informed the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that some further inquiries would be necessary before a firm view could be reached about possible criminality of those mentioned by the hon. Member. On the same day the Director of Public Prosecutions asked the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to undertake those inquiries. The police report is awaited.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Crown prosecution service has received a report from the Metropolitan police concerning possible criminal offences by persons interested in the outcome of the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry into the takeover of House of Fraser; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  A report has not yet been received by the Crown Prosecution Service; the Metropolitan police are conducting their inquiries as quickly as the circumstances allow and will submit a report as soon as possible.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any changes have been made to the class X, vote 3 cash limit and running costs limit for the Northern Ireland court service.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class X, vote 3 has been increased by £560,000 from £17,996,000 to £18,556,000 and the running costs limit by £120,000 from £13,498,000 to £13,618,000. The increase is within the forecast out turn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today. The increases arises because of additional costs incurred in respect of bomb damage to a court building, a judicial removal and computer costs for a fixed penalty/penalty points scheme. Additional appropriations-in-aid of £725,000 will offset the increase in the provision.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any changes will be made to the class X, vote 12 cash limit and running costs limit for the Public Record Office.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the 114
  cash limit for class X, vote 12 will be increased by £254,000 from £21,997,000 to £22,251,000. This includes £169,000 for part take up of the £880,000 capital end year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991; and £85,000 towards the pay and associated expenses of the additional staff recommended in the recent Efficiency Scrutiny report. The running costs limit for the Public Record Office will as a result be increased by £85,000 from £19,207,000 to £19,292,000.

  These increases are within the forecast out turn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any changes will be made to the Lord Chancellor's Department's running costs limit for 1991–92.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the running costs limit for the Lord Chancellor's Department, class X, vote 1 will be increased by £7,413,000 from £347,899,000 to £355,312,000.

  The Supplementary Estimate gives effect to an increase of £1,419,000 in running costs under end year flexibility arrangements.

  It is also required to increase the running costs provision for certain tribunals by £391,000 and to regularise arrangements for management charges in respect of the common investment funds scheme by an increase to provision of £300,000.

  The Supplementary Estimate is required to increase provision in running costs by £5,125,000 to meet the cost of PSA bills carried over from 1990–91 that have been paid in 1991–92 or that remain outstanding.

  Finally the Supplementary Estimate gives effect to a running costs transfer of £18,000 from Her Majesty's Stationery Office for work by the Statutory Publications Office and a running costs transfer of £160,000 from the Home Office for training material to be provided through the Judicial Studies Board.

  The increase is within the forecast out turn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he proposes any changes to the Serious Fraud Office's cash and running costs limit for 1991–92.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class X vote 7 will be increased by £1,070,000 from £7,792,000 to £8,862,000. Within this total the Department's running costs limit will be increased by £793,000 from £7,339,000 to £8,132,000.

  This increase will enable the Serious Fraud Office to meet the additional costs arising from the investigation into the affairs of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The increase is within the forecast out turn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

DEFENCE

  Ocean Hound
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is in his possession which would indicate whether any naval ships from countries other than the United Kingdom were in the proximity of the Ocean Hound when it sank off the Kent coast on 10–11 August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records of the movements of non-United Kingdom naval ships in and around United Kingdom waters are not maintained unless they are operating in conjunction with Royal Navy vessels. There were no such joint operations in the vicinity of the Ocean Hound on 10–11 August.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he has arranged for all records held by his Department with regard to the location of naval vessels in the area where the Ocean Hound sank on 10–11 August, to be made available to the marine accident investigation branch of the Department of Transport;

  (2) if he will make available all records indicating which naval vessels were in the area off the Kent coast in which the Ocean Hound sank on 10–11 August; and what evidence there is that none of the naval ships in the area collided with the Ocean Hound.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There were no Royal Navy ships or submarines at sea within 300 nautical miles of the area at the estimated time of the loss of the Ocean Hound. The marine accident investigation branch has been advised accordingly.

  Departmental Land Holdings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the hectarage, number of holdings and numbers of tenants of agricultural land owned by his Department in each county or Scottish region in(a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will announce the identity of the next chief executive of the Meteorological Office.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend has decided, following an open competition, to appoint Professor Julian Hunt as the chief executive of the Meteorological Office Executive Agency. He is currently the professor of fluid mechanics at the university of Cambridge. He will take up the appointment on 2 January 1992, in succession to Sir John Houghton.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Junctions
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the locations which British Rail has identified at which enhanced protection arrangements, to 116
  which he referred in his answer of 22 October, Official Report, column 477, are being introduced; and if he will set out for each location what specific measures are being adopted.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail have identified the following 10 locations as requiring changes to the protection: Ashford (junction with Appledore line), Bellgrove, Doncaster (junction with Sheffield line), Dorchester, West, Hanwell, Hydem, Newton, Paddock Wood, Shipley and Wimbledon (junction with Merton line).

  At present, BR has amended the signalman's instructions in eight cases, so that if it is not possible to permit a train to leave a station platform, trains will be held at the previous signal (ie will not be allowed to enter the station). In the other two cases, that instruction is not applicable, as the train starts from a dead-end platform. The instructions given to platform staff on the starting of trains from those platforms have been reinforced by special instructions and monitoring.

  Other options under consideration include modifying the signal inter-locking to achieve that precaution automatically, and modifying the track layouts to reduce the effect on services of these precautions. BR is evaluating the options in each case, and will discuss proposals with the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate before taking further action.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which other countries of the European Community fit seat belts to all seats in coaches and minibuses.

  Mr. Chope
  None. EC legislation does not require seat belts or anchorages to be fitted other than on front seats or exposed seats.

  The Government have been seeking to have the EC directives on seat belts and anchorages amended so that fitment to all seats in minibuses and coaches can be required.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the fitting of seat belts to all seats in coaches and minibuses on the incidence of death and injury in coaches in the event of an accident.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of injuries to seated bus and coach passengers in Great Britain in 1990 was 4,670, of which 289 were serious and nine fatal. The average annual total of injuries in the years 1986–1990 was 4,202.

  It is believed that the fitting of seat belts could significantly reduce the minority of injuries which are due to passenger ejection or vehicle rollover. The benefit of seat belts in the case of frontal impact accidents is less clear, since the nature of the seat or surface in front of the occupant has to be taken into account. Research into this problem is continuing.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the provision of seat belts in coaches and minibuses.

  Mr. Chope
  We have received a great many letters from individuals, schools and other organisations on this question, the vast majority of whom are in favour of the provision of seat belts in these vehicles.
  117
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have taken place between his Department and coach manufacturers and operators about the fitting of seat belts.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department meets representatives of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Bus and Coach Council on a regular basis. Whenever the question of seat belts is raised, we emphasise the importance of making seat belts in coaches more readily available to the travelling public. Seat belts can already be fitted in most large coaches.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the likely additional cost of fitting seat belts to all seats in coaches and minibuses.

  Mr. Chope
  The estimated cost of fitting lap belts to every seat in a new coach is about £1,000, approximately £20 per seat.

  Comparable figures for minibuses are not available but would probably be higher because of the additional floor strengthening work necessary to secure the seat belt anchorages.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will quantify the savings expected this year in the road construction budget; what percentage of these savings has been reallocated to (i) road building and (ii) rail investment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government always seek to secure best value for money from its road construction budget. Estimated provision for new construction and renewal of national roads systems in England is £1,842 million gross (£1,755 million net) in the current financial year. We expect to start more than 150 miles of new roads this year.

  A12, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects emergency telephones to be installed on the A12 Chelmsford by-pass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  During 1992.

  BR (Bus Services)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers British Rail has to run bus services to link in with and complement its rail services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Section 118 of the Transport Act 1985 gives the British Railways Board powers to secure the provision by other persons of services for the carriage of passengers by road where a railway service has been temporarily interrupted, or has been discontinued. The board has no power to run bus services themselves.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make in updating COEIA 9 to COBA 10 to be used in evaluating possible road schemes on a cost benefit analysis basis.

  Mr. Chope
  The basic parameters, assumptions and methodologies incorporated in COBA are continually 118
  reviewed and researched. Since COBA 9 was released, there have been several parameter changes which have been considered necessary, and users have accordingly been notified of changes they need to make when running COBA 9. COBA 10 will incorporate these changes in to the default parameter set, thus simplifying the task of running the program. These changes include revised national road traffic forecasts (1989), values of time, accident rates, discount rate, GDP and petrol price forecasts.

  Occasionally research may indicate the need for change to parameters or methodologies which cannot be incorporated by the user, and which therefore require a revised version of the program to be released. COBA 10 will incorporate some changes of this kind.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what basis his Department uses in cost benefit analysis terms on the valuation of time savings in relation to different methods of commuting to work when considering possible road schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  In cost-benefit analyses of road schemes, time savings for commuting to work are given the same value, whatever the method of commuting. Commuting time is valued at the standard appraisal value for non-work time, which is based on research into what people are willing to pay to save time.

  A27
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce possible routes for the proposed A27 Polegate-Lewes dual carriageway; how many options he intends to publish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope to consult the public on a number of possible options for improving the A27 Lewes-Polegate route around the end of the year.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much British Rail has invested, and is planning to invest, in Scotland's railway infrastructure in preparation for the opening of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail plans to invest, with the private sector, in a channel tunnel freight terminal in Strathclyde. It considers the existing infrastructure is otherwise adequate for the channel tunnel services it plans to run to and from Scotland. Its substantial investment in passenger and freight rolling stock for these services will benefit Scotland as well as other parts of Great Britain.

  Railways (Bus Services)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those countries in Europe whose publicly-owned railway undertakings operate bus services to complement their railway services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available within the Department.

  Public Service Obligation Grant
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the public service obligation grant ceiling for 1991–92.
  119
  Mr. Freeman
  The cash ceiling on public service obligation grant for 1991–92 will be £900 million.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the cash limit and running costs limit for his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit in class VII will be changed as follows:

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit

  Changes

  Revised cash limit

  £'000s

  VII, 1

  1,968,824

  1—15,160

  1,953,664

  2

  232,444

  21,994

  234,438

  1 There is a reduction of £15,000,000 in the cash limit on this Vote to cover part of a shortfall on class VII, vote 3 and additionally £160,000 running costs has been transferred to class VII, vote 2 in respect of certain relocation costs.

  2 Take up of entitlement to end year flexibility announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991, Official Report, columns 186–89. There are additions in respect of repayment services of £80,000 from Department of Trade and Industry (class IV, vote 2) and £15,000 running costs from Civil Service Commission (class XIX, vote 1) together with an addition of £1,000,000 for consultancy work connected with the sale of the Trust Ports. There is a reduction of £325,000 in Appropriations on Aid as a consequence of the transfer of Offshore Safety responsibilities to Department of Employment. There are reductions on this Vote in respect of the transfer of running costs to Department of Employment for Offshore Safety (£300,000) and to the Lord Chancellor's Department (class XIX, vote 1) for pensions (£21,000).

  The running costs limit of the Department of Transport has been reduced by £306,000 from £379,290,000 to £378,984,000 as a consequence of the above.

  The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Ocean Hound
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will release the video film taken last week by agents acting on behalf of the Marine Accident Investigation Bureau, and in particular the shots of the damage primarily to the starboard and portside of the Ocean Hound which is currently lying on the sea bed off the Kent coast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Marine accident investigation branch inspectors are examining the video film. The nature of the damage to the vessel is such that very thorough analysis is required.

  To release the film to be viewed generally would be inappropriate both because it is an important item of evidence for the inquiry in progress and because general release might be offensive to the feelings of the bereaved. It has already been shown to near family of those lost.

  The hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged letters, and we are to meet soon to discuss the Ocean Hound.

  Departmental Land Holdings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the hectarage, number of holdings and numbers of tenants of holdings of agricultural land 120
  owned by (a) his Department and (b) British Rail in each county or region in the United Kingdom in (a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not held in the format mentioned by the hon. Member and records of the 1980 holdings would not exist. The latest information on the Department's holdings is shown in our Register of Unused and Underused Land for 1990–91 in the Library. Details of individual tenancies are not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The Department does not hold information on agricultural land owned by British Rail and the hon. Member is advised to contact the British Rail Property Board for this information.

  Breath Testing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of drivers breath-tested for alcohol in 1989–90; how many tests proved positive; and what was the comparable position in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Statistics of breath tests for England and Wales are published in Home Office statistical bulletins. The most recent annual statistics, for the calendar year 1990, were published in issue 16/91 on 23 July 1991. A copy of this bulletin is in the Library.

  The following table shows for England and Wales the number of screening breath tests reported and the number of these with positive results for the financial years 1984–85 to 1989–90.

  Number of screening breath tests and those with positive results—England and Wales

  Screening breath tests

  Total tests

  Number positive

  Thousands

  Thousands

  1984–85

  203·0

  174·0

  1985–86

  263·3

  180·0

  1986–872

  321·1

  186·0

  1987–88

  420·0

  103·3

  1988–89

  455·0

  99·9

  1989–90

  557·6

  98·3

  1 Estimate using monthly figures for total tests and percentage negative.

  2 Improvements in the comprehensiveness of reporting were made from 1 January 1987 so that figures for earlier years are not comparable.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Taxi and Hire Car Licences
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that local authorities issuing taxi and hire care licences are aware of any criminal record of the applicants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes provision for this. It is due to come into effect on 1 April 1992.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect replies to his letters of 10 July, 24 July and 24 September regarding the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 29 October.

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect a reply to his letter of 2 September on behalf of Mr. W. M. Dewdney, of Cairngorm Cottage, Treluswell, Penryn, Cornwall.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 1 November 1991.

  Court Hearings
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions for murder in the last 10 years have been terminated before or during court proceedings as a result of failure of material witnesses to attend;

  (2) how many proceedings for malicious wounding and grievous bodily harm have been terminated during the last 10 years as a result of failure of material witnesses to attend.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information collected centrally does not identify the number of court cases which are terminated because of a failure of material witnesses to attend.

  Prisoners (Psychiatric Care)
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in the United Kingdom are receiving psychiatric care; how many of these were previously in long-term psychiatric hospitals; how many of those who receive psychiatric care or were previously in long term psychiatric hospitals have been imprisoned for crimes of violence; and what percentage of the prison population received psychiatric care in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent proposal by the governor, medical officers and staff at Lewes prison that suicidal prisoners should be kept with others and supervised on a 24-hour basis by prison staff.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is the general policy of the prison service that, where prisoners are identified as being at risk of suicide, they should wherever possible be kept in shared accommodation to reduce feelings of isolation, facilitate support and ensure more effective monitoring and supervision. The options include location in a multi-cell or in a dormitory or hospital ward. Some prisoners, however, cannot always be held with others because of their difficult 122
  or violent behaviour. It is a matter for governors and their staff to decide where individual prisoners should be located, taking into account the needs and behaviour of the prisoner, the degree of suicide risk (which will vary from time to time), and the facilities and staffing which are available. It is desirable for local prisons and remand centres to have the option of holding acutely suicidal prisoners in a ward with 24-hour supervision by staff. This is not yet feasible at a number of establishments, including Lewes, but it is the prison service's intention to work towards the introduction of such wards as the necessary resources become available.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan Commissioner on the progress of inquiries by the Metropolitan police into possible criminal offences by persons interested in the outcome of the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry into the takeover of House of Fraser.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Any question of possible criminal offences arising out of the Department of Trade and Industry's report into the takeover of House of Fraser would be a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Illegal Camping
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to give additional powers to the police to curb illegal camping by itinerants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Departmental Land Holdings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the hectarage, number of holdings and numbers of tenants of holdings of agricultural land owned by his Department in each county or Scottish region in(a) 1980 and (b)

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Home Office has the following agricultural land holdings in England and Wales:

  Hectarage of agricultural land owned and managed by the prison service

  County

  Number of Holdings

  1980

  1990

  Cambridge

  1

  51

  28

  Devon

  3

  751

  559

  Dorset

  3

  146

  146

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  4

  4

  Essex

  1

  6

  6

  Gloucestershire

  1

  10

  10

  Greater Manchester

  2

  46

  46

  Gwent

  1

  86

  86

  Hampshire

  1

  79

  79

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  1

  43

  43

  Humberside

  1

  102

  102

  Kent

  3

  101

  85

  Leicestershire

  1

  34

  34

  Lancashire

  2

  189

  189

  Lincolnshire

  2

  518

  518

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  353

  353

  123

  County

  Number of Holdings

  1980

  1990

  Oxfordshire

  1

  123

  nil

  Staffordshire

  3

  204

  204

  Suffolk

  2

  491

  491

  Warwickshire

  1

  nil

  113

  Wiltshire

  1

  5

  5

  Yorkshire (North)

  1

  2

  2

  Yorkshire (South)

  2

  226

  226

  Yorkshire (West)

  2

  60

  60

  Hectarage of agricultural land owned by the prison service but let to tenants

  County

  Number of Tenants

  1980

  1990

  Warwickshire

  1

  1—

  95·0

  Surrey

  1

  1—

  19·0

  Oxfordshire

  1

  5·5

  5·5

  1 (Tenancies not in existence in 1980)

  Cash Limits
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make any changes to the 1991–92 cash limits within his responsibilities.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The cash limit for class IX, vote 3 will be reduced by £365,000 from £891,317,000 to £890,952,000 to reflect transfers of provision to the Department of Education and Science for additional resource units for probation students at universities (£205,000) and to the Lord Chancellor's Department for training material for magistrates on the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (£160,000).

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Budget
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the Government's spending on aid in 1990, expressed both in actual sum spent and as a percentage of gross national product; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Official development assistance in 1990 was £1,490 million, which was 0·27 per cent. of gross national product. We plan the aid programme on financial years, so that figures based on calendar years may not reflect the planned level of expenditure. Our planning figure for 1991–92 as a proportion of estimated GNP is 0·31 per cent.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the 1991–92 cash limit for expenditure by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit on the Overseas Aid Vote (class II vote 5) will be increased by £65,225,000 from £1,573,117,000 to £1,638,342,000. The increase provides for humanitarian relief responses in 124
  respect of Iraqi refugees, the African famine and the Bangladesh cyclone, and balance of payments support for India. It also takes account of two small transfers of resources in respect of eastern Europe involving the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health. The running costs cash limit for the ODA has also been increased by £50,000 from £44,843,000 to £44,893,000. The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the new obligations and undertakings contained in the recently agreed memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and Chinese Governments.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The details of the memorandum of understanding were placed in the Library of the House on the same day as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House on this subject.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the autonomy of Hong Kong before and after 1997.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Hong Kong has in practice long enjoyed substantial autonomy in most areas, particularly in economic, commercial and financial matters. Under the joint declaration, from 1 July 1997 the Hong Kong special administrative region of the People's Republic of China will enjoy a high degree of autonomy except for foreign and defence affairs. It will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in Cambodia arising from the Paris peace agreement of 23 October.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the honourable Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 22 October. Since then, on 31 October, the UN Security Council has adopted resolution 718 authorising the UN Secretary General to designate a special representative for Cambodia and carry out preparatory work for the establishment of UN transitional authority in Cambodia.

  Mr. Mariusz Kuziak
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Mariusz Kuziak, a Polish citizen, was denied an entry visa to spend a fortnight with his relatives in Bury St. Edmunds.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  European Community
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration the intergovernmental conferences have given to increasing
  125
  the membership of the Community; and what adjustment, if any, has been made to draft treaties on environment and political union to accommodate future new members.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The agenda of the intergovernmental conference includes consideration of extended Community action on environment, but enlargement of the Community is not formally under discussion. It is expected to be debated after the conclusion of the conference.

  Nuclear Weapons (Ukraine)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations Her Majesty's Government are engaged in with the Republic of Ukraine to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. In addition to President Kravchuk's earlier assurances to the United Nations General Assembly, the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet recently adopted a declaration affirming its commitment to observing the provisions of START and achieving eventual non-nuclear status, including accession to the non-proliferation treaty. We have, however, had contacts with Ukrainian representatives and are urging them to adhere to these commitments.

  Albania
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning government policy towards Albania, its economy and the establishment of democratic institutions there.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We warmly welcome the progress towards full democratisation and the establishment of a free market economy in Albania. In pursuit of this, the Government support the help being given by international institutions and maintains contact with members of the Government and opposition in Tirana.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to establish a British embassy in Albania; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This matter is currently under review. I will inform the hon. and learned Member when a decision is taken.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to make any changes in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the Supplementary Estimate the cash limit for class II, vote 2 (Other External Relations) will be increased by £8,500,000 from £156,931,000 to £165,431,000 to reflect increased costs due to our contributions to the United Nations Iraq/Kuwait observer mission, United Nations observer mission in Western Sahara, United Nations human rights verification unit in El Salvador and the United Nations special commission in Iraq.

  This increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total as announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Footwear Imports
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the representations he has received from the footwear industry concerning footwear imports from China; whether he has replied; and what measures he plans to take to address their concerns.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have received a number of letters, including an application from the British Footwear Manufacturers' Federation for my Department to ask the European Commission for the suspension, under article 115 of the treaty of Rome, of free circulation of imported footwear originating in the People's Republic of China. After careful consideration of the industry's case I decided that the facts were not sufficient to warrant such a step. The federation has been informed and I have agreed to meet their representatives on 13 December.

  RETEXT Scheme
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has been consulted by the European Commission on proposals for a RETEXT scheme to encourage economic development of areas of textile and clothing concentration; and whether the United Kingdom will be eligible for EC assistance under such a scheme.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have not yet been consulted. If such a scheme proceeds, however, I would expect textile areas of the United Kingdom to be eligible.

  Uruguay Round
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress in the GATT Uruguay round, with particular reference to the textile and clothing trade.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government are continuing to work with our European Community partners for an early successful conclusion to the Uruguay round. This would involve, among other things, an agreement to reduce barriers to world trade in textiles and to integrate this sector into GATT on the basis of strengthened rules and disciplines.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if there are any proposals to change the 1991–92 cash limit for the office of the Minister for the Civil Service.

  Mr. Renton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XIX, vote 1) will be increased by £4,173,000 from £37,548,000 to £41,721,000.

  The increase is required to cover the increased cost of the London economic summit; the cost of launching the citizens charter and the take up of capital expenditure provision under end year flexibility arrangements. In addition certain capital expenditure provision has been reallocated to current expenditure to cover reimbursing former Prime Ministers for the cost of maintaining an additional office.
  127
  Some of the above changes in provision have a consequent effect on the Department's running costs limit which will be increased by £3,776,000 from £45,276,000 to £49,052,000.

  The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Index-linked Gilts
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing, for each year since their inception, the proportion that index-linked gilts represented of the total amount of gilt-edged stock in the hands of the public, that is, all holdings other than official.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The proportion of market holdings of gilts in indexed form is as follows:

  End-March

  1981

  1·3

  1982

  3·1

  1983

  6·5

  1984

  7·0

  1985

  8·4

  1986

  9·1

  1987

  11·3

  1988

  11·3

  1989

  13·7

  1990

  16·0

  1991

  17·7

  Note: Calculated using nominal values plus accrued uplift for indexed gilts divided by the total.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are currently repaying a mortgage.

  Mr. Maples
  According to figures published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, 9,628,000 mortgages were outstanding at the end of June 1991. A figure for the number of people repaying a mortgage is not available because a proportion of mortgages are joint or second mortgages.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what substantial differences Her Majesty's Government have identified between the model set out by the Dutch EC Presidency for an independent European central bank and the Bundesbank.

  Mr. Maude
  The model to which the hon. Gentleman refers is set out in a document produced by the EC Presidency as a basis for further negotiation at the Inter-Governmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union. The United Kingdom and other member states are not committed to any particular part of its contents.

  The Government have not sought to draw comparisons between the institution proposed in that document and the German Bundesbank.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many bankruptcy petitions have been brought by Customs and Excise this year.

  Mr. Gillian Shephard
  In the calendar year to 1 November 1991 Customs and Excise have presented 5,486 bankruptcy petitions in England and Wales, 255 in Scotland and a further 178 in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many bankruptcy petitions have been brought by the Inland Revenue this year.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of bankruptcy (individuals) and winding-up (Companies) petitions filed by the Inland Revenue in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the period 1 January 1991 to 30 September 1991 is:

  Number

  Bankruptcy petitions

  2,013

  Winding-up petitions

  592

  The precise equivalent figures for Scotland cannot be ascertained without disproportionate cost but do not exceed 74 individuals and 20 companies.

  EC Economic Growth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the average rate of economic growth of the six founder members of the EC from 1964 to 1973 and since 1979.

  Mr. Maples
  Table RI in "National Accounts ESA Aggregates 1970–1989 Theme 2 Series C" published by Eurostat gives annual growth rates for gross domestic product at market prices for 1970 to 1989. Data for earlier years can be calculated from Table 25 in "National Accounts Main Aggregates Volume 1 1960–1989" published by OECD or can be obtained from the Statistical Office of the European Communities.

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Taxpayers Charter
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the differences between the 1986 taxpayers charter and the 1991 taxpayers charter represent changes in Government policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The new charter seeks to convey the aims of the 1986 charter more clearly, by expressing them in a fresh and more focused way.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what alteration to the statutes governing the Bank of England's relationship with the Government would be required to comply with the Dutch Government's proposed draft treaty on economic and monetary union and the independence of member states' central banks.

  Mr. Maude
  The model to which the hon. Gentleman refers is set out in a document produced by the EC Presidency as a basis for further negotiation at the
  129
  Inter-Governmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union. The UK and other member states are not committed to any particular part of its contents. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are still under discussion and no conclusion has yet been reached.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration was given by participants in the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union to including among the convergence measurement criteria the levels of unemployment and investment.

  Mr. Maude
  The Inter-Governmental Conference on economic and monetary union has considered a range of criteria. The Dutch Presidency text reflects the view that convergence of inflation and interest rates, successful membership of the narrow band of the ERM, and the avoidance of excessive budget deficits are the appropriate tests.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the lastest available index figures for real output in manufacturing industry together with figures for the time period or periods since 1973 for the United Kingdom, France, Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest available information of manufacturing output at 1985 prices, seasonally adjusted is as follows:

  United Kingdom

  France

  Italy

  Germany

  1973

  110·5

  93·7

  85·5

  87·9

  1991

  Q2

  112·6

  110·9

  114·2

  124·3

  July

  113·4

  not available

  August

  112·2

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing manufacturing output less food, drink, tobacco, paper, printing and publishing in 1973, 1979, 1989 and the second quarter of 1991.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested on manufacturing output less food, drink, tobacco, paper, printing and publishing cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing for each year since 1970 imports and exports of semi-finished and finished manufactures, less erratics, at 1990 prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information from which trade in semi-manufactures and finished manufactures less erratics at 1990 prices may be derived is available on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the balance of payments on current account in terms of £ billion of an increase of 1 million in the number of unemployed.
  130
  Mr. Mellor
  There is no straightforward relationship between unemployment and the current account.

  Money Supply
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing for each of the years 1961 to 1990 the percentage increase in the supply of money plus quasi-money as defined by the International Monetary Fund in its International Financial Statistics Yearbook.

  Mr. Maples
  The information is given in the IMF's International Financial Statistics Yearbook for 1991 (pages 94 and 95) and for 1989 (also pages 94 and 95), copies of which are available in the Library.

  House Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the increase in the real price of houses since 1979 has had on the level of economic activity.

  Mr. Maples
  Increases in real house prices raise real personal sector wealth and hence probably consumer spending. But both real house prices and economic activity will to some extent be influenced by the same underlying factors.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reasons a majority of member states in the intergovernmental conference has given for preferring a consultative and not a legislative role for the European Parliament, as set out in the letter to him of 25 October from the Dutch Minister of Finance.

  Mr. Maude
  The views of the member states expressed in the Inter-Governmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union are a matter for their respective Governments. The Treaty provisions on EMU as presently under discussion in the IGC will encompass relatively little legislation. Instead, they will develop the coordination of national economic policies between the member states, and will establish a European central bank to be responsible for monetary policy.

  Guest Houses
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department has any plans to give Inland Revenue officials the power to carry out spot checks on premises not registered for uniform business rate which can accommodate six or more paying guests.

  Mr. Maude
  Inland Revenue valuation officers and their staff have powers to enter premises in pursuance of their statutory duties, provided at least 24 hours notice in writing is given, and the authorised person produces his other authority on request. There are no plans to extend these powers.

  VAT
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the aggregate amount of bank guarantees currently provided by registered traders to Her Majesty's
  131
  Customs and Excise in respect of VAT on imports and the proportion thereof that relates to imports from other EC member states.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Under the duty deferment scheme Her Majesty's Customs and Excise hold guarantees given by banks and insurance companies in respect of combined import VAT, customs and excise duties and levies. The total value of these guarantees fluctuates daily but the element attributable to import VAT is currently estimated to be about £2,600 million, of which some £1,600 million can be attributed to imports from other EC Member States.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system on economic growth.

  Mr. Maude
  Membership of the exchange rate mechanism helps to secure lower inflation, thereby providing the necessary climate for healthy sustainable growth.

  Citizens Charter
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his citizens charter includes measures taken by Government Departments prior to the publication of the document; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The citizens charter builds on the earlier successes of the financial management initiative and, more recently, the Next Steps programme of management reform which has led to the creation of 56 agencies. It draws on the efforts of individual Departments and agencies to improve the services they offer to their customers. The charter aims to raise the quality of public services and make them more responsive to their users through increased choice, the extension of competition and accountability, and the provision of more information on the standards of service that they can expect to receive. The citizens charter contains a wide range of new proposals for this.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any changes will be made to the Department for National Savings' cash limit and running cost limit for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 9 (expenditure of the Department for National Savings on administration, publicity costs and certain other expenses) will be increased by £2,082,000 from £181,732,000 to £183,814,000. The running costs limit for the Department for National Savings will be increased by £2,082,000 from £175,118,000 to £177,200,000. The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  £582,000 of the increase is in respect of the take-up of end-year-flexibility on running costs as announced by the
  132
  Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991 at columns 186–190. The remaining £1,500,000 of the increase is in respect of additional expenditure on marketing activities to support the Government's funding objectives.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is proposing any change to the Central Statistical Office's cash or running costs limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 13 will be increased by £2,126,000 from £31,741,000 to £33,867,000 and the running costs limit by £1,336,000 from £31,101,000 to £32,437,000. These increases reflect measures to improve the quality of economic statistics including the redevelopment of computer systems following a review of the Department's information systems strategy, the take up of both capital and running costs end year flexibility entitlements, and transfers from Property Holdings (£78,000), class VIII, vote 7, the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (£65,000), class XIX, vote 1, the Department of Trade and Industry (£11,000), class IV, vote 2 and Her Majesty's Treasury (£9,000), class XVIII, vote 1. The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planned total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any changes are proposed to the cash limit and running cost limit for 1991–92 for the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Maude
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 6 will be increased by £6,509,000 from £1,543,608,000 to £1,550,117,000 and the Department's running cost limit by £82,574,000 from £1,521,011,000 to £1,603,585,000. The change in both the cash limit and the running costs limit arises because of the work being undertaken by the valuation office in setting up the valuation lists for the council tax.

  This increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed in the cash limit and running cost cash limit for 1991–92 for Customs and Excise.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 5 will be increased by £8,656,000 from £729,600,000 to £738,256,000 and the running cost limit for Customs and Excise by £3,096,000 from £629,800,000 to £632,896,000. The increase in the running costs limit arises from the take up of full end-year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991 at columns 185–90 and the costs associated with a programme for the training of overseas customs officers, the costs of which are being met by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (class II, vote 1), the Home Office (class IX, vote 3) and the Overseas Development Administration (class II, vote 5). The increase in the cash limit otherwise includes take up of the full end-year flexibility entitlement for capital expenditure; the need to pay interest on refunds of VAT being made as
  133
  a result of legal decisions prior to Royal Assent to the 1991 Finance Act (from which date payments can be made from revenue); and increased expenditure on legal fees and payments to the civil superannuation vote. The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is proposing any change to the Central Office of Information cash limit for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 14, will be increased by £7,400,000 from £20,709,000 to £28,109,000.

  The increase is made necessary as a result of the difference between the actual value of assets and liabilities transferred to the Central Office of Information (trading fund) and those anticipated at the time the Trading Fund Order was passed by the House. The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Press and Publicity Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any member of the Treasury's press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: No.

  Public Opinion Survey
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by Her Majesty's Treasury since 12 July 1991.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The following public opinion surveys have been carried out on behalf of HM Treasury in connection with the forthcoming sale of shares in BT:

  August 1991, surveys covering public attitudes to BT, privatisation and awareness of the forthcoming BT sale;

  October 1991, Survey covering public expectations about level of incentives in BT sale;

  October and November 1991, further surveys covering awareness of and interest in participation in BT sale.

ENERGY

  Departmental Land Holdings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the hectarage, number of holdings and numbers of tenants of holdings of agricultural land owned by(a) his Department and (b) British Coal in each county or region in the United Kingdom in (a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has no holdings of agricultural land; holdings by British Coal are a matter for the corporation.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits for 1991–92.
  134
  Mr. Wakeham
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary winter supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class V, vote 9 will be increased by £4,000,000 to £5,000,000. This extra provision is sought to meet further expenditure on advisers' fees in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry.

  The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect replies to his letters of 18 January, 29 March and 24 September regarding funding for the Falmouth school of art and design.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My hon. Friend has received interim replies. I will write again to him as soon as possible and no later than the end of November.

  Development Education
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether development education falls within the remit of Her Majesty's inspectorate for schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's inspectorate inspects all aspects of pupils' learning within and across the national curriculum. The national curriculum offers pupils considerable opportunity to develop ideas, knowledge arid understanding about development education particularly within the study of geography, but also in their study of cross-curricular themes and issues.

  Mandatory Grants
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the local education authorities which were more than seven days late in sending cheques for mandatory grants to students in higher education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not available centrally. Most local education authorities are coping with the record numbers of students seeking grants for higher education. I am, however, most concerned by reports that some students may be in difficulty because their grant cheques have not arrived from certain authorities. My officials are following up such reports and seeking assurances that the authorities concerned are taking action, including making provisional payments where necessary, to ensure that students do not suffer hardship.

  World Affairs (Teaching)
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how his Department utilises the resources and information from the Foreign Office to teach British schoolchildren about world affairs.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for schools to determine how best to deliver the statutory requirements of the national curriculum so as to meet the needs of all pupils. It is they who are therefore charged with selecting the most effective teaching methods and the resources and information necessary to support them.
  135
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what scope there is within the national curriculum for world development issues to be studied in British schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  The national curriculum allows ample scope for world development issues to be studied. National curriculum geography is the main vehicle for this, although other subjects may play a part. The attainment targets and programmes of study in geography afford a balanced perspective of development—its causes, constraints and effects—in a wide range of countries at different levels of economic development.

  Health Education
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to protect school children from exploitation by commercial groups sending teaching materials into schools by setting up a national accreditation scheme for health education materials.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. My right hon. and learned Friend believes that judgments about the use of such materials are best left to individual schools.

  Hearnville School
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will ask for all of the views expressed by parents of children attending Hearnville school, Balham, London SW12 before approving any decision made by Wandsworth council to close this school; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Wandsworth council has not published proposals relating to the closure of Hearnville school. If it does so, parents of children attending the school will have the opportunity to make their views known during the two-month objection period following publication. My right hon. Friend will take those views into account in determining any proposals which come before him.

  School Buildings (Regulations)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to review the Education (School Buildings) Regulations 1981; which bodies are being consulted; and when new draft regulations will be proposed.

  Mr. Eggar
  Work is currently in progress on a range of topics as part of the review of the School Premises Regulations. The following organisations were sent a consultation letter by DES. Others were consulted by the Welsh Office.

  Local Authority Associations

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of County Councils

  Local Education Authorities

  Chief Education Officers—England

  School Governors

  National Association of Governors and Managers

  GM Schools

  Grant Maintained Schools Trust

  City Technology Colleges

  CTC Trust
  136
  Religious Bodies

  Catholic Education Council

  General Synod of the Church of England

  London Board of Jewish Religious Education

  Methodist Church Division of Education and Youth

  Teachers Associations

  National Union of Teachers

  Secondary Heads Association

  Professional Association of Teachers

  National Association of School Masters/Union of Women Teachers

  National Association of Head Teachers

  Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association

  Special Education Needs

  Local Authority Social Services Department

  Centre for Studies of Integration in Education

  National Council for Special Education

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  The Spastics Society

  Special Educational Needs National Advisory Council

  National Association of Independent and Non-Maintained Special Schools

  Local Authority Professional Associations

  perSociety of Education Officers

  Society of Chief Architects in Local Authorities (SCALA)

  Association of Heads of County Property Departments

  Society of Chief Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Society of Chief Building Surveyors

  Ethnic Minority Organisations

  Afro-Caribbean Teachers Association

  Asian Teachers Association

  British Association of Muslims

  Board of Deputies of British Jews Education Office

  Federation of Bangladeshi Associations

  Caribbean Teachers Association

  Greek Cypriot Teachers Association

  National Association of Hindu Associations

  National Muslim Education Council for UK

  Sikh Education Council

  Standing Conference of Asian Organisations UK

  The Islamic Academy

  The Council of Mosques: UK and EIRE

  The Islamic School Trust

  Muslim Educational Trust

  Muslim Educational Services

  Muslim Education Co-ordinating Council UK

  Other

  The Chartered Institute of Building

  National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations

  Association of Community Councils in Rural England (ACRE)

  Organisations maintaining non-maintained special schools

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Barnardo's

  National Children's Home

  The Shaftesbury Society

  Invalid Children's Aid Nationwide

  Order of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary (Essex)

  Order of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary (Merseyside)

  The English Province of the Daughters of the Cross

  The Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul

  Order of the Dominicans

  Royal London Society for the Blind

  Christian Service Union

  Boys' and Girls' Welfare Society

  The Royal Eastern Counties Schools Ltd

  Mind

  Henshaw's Society for the Blind

  The Birmingham Royal Institute for the Blind

  The Smith Foundation

  The Royal Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton

  137
  Other Bodies

  Local authority social services departments.

  The results of the review are expected to be available towards the end of next year, at which stage decisions will be taken about the necessary action.

  GCSE
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he conducted and what evidence he assembled for his appraisal of the function of course work as a part of the GCSE; and if he will place the material in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the honourable Member to my reply of 21 October to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett),Official Report, column 362.

  My right honourable and learned Friend is currently considering advice on GCSE coursework from the School Examinations and Assessment Council.

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the differences in the form and substance of the parents charter commitments on the publication of examination and test results in England, Wales and Scotland;

  (2) whether performance tables on school examination results will be published in the same way throughout Great Britain if the parents charter is enacted.

  Mr. Eggar
  The parents charters for England, Scotland and Wales all contained a commitment that performance information about schools would be published in order to help parents choose a school for their child and monitor the school's performance. The necessary new powers are included in the Education (Schools) Bill which was introduced today. Detailed arrangements for implementing the commitment will be set out in regulations in due course; these may vary according to the particular circumstances in each country, but will all be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

  Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about his Department's expenditure plans for the financial years 1992–93 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his statement today, the provision for the Department of Education and Science's own spending programme in 1992–93 will be £7,947 million, which is £627 million or 8·6 per cent. higher than the estimated outturn for 1991–92. This figure includes central Government expenditure on higher education, science, schools, and sport; it also includes specific grants to local authorities and credit approvals for capital expenditure by LEAs.

  Capital Expenditure in Schools and Colleges

  Local authority capital programmes at schools and colleges—annual capital guidelines and supplementary credit approvals—rise from £538 million in 1991–92 to £590 million in 1992–93. The total for local authority
  138
  schools rises from £472 million to £524 million—an increase of 11 per cent. Provision for building grants for voluntary aided schools increases from £130·8 million to £150·7 million, a rise of over 15 per cent. £28·5 million has been allocated for capital expenditure in grant-maintained schools, up from £10·5 million in 1991–92, reflecting the rapid increase in the number of schools entering this sector. The total for school building work rises to £703 million in 1992–93: up by some 10 per cent. in real terms over the equivalent figure for this year. The increase should also be seen against continuing downward pressure on building tender prices, which should enable sums allocated to new work this year and next to go even further. This level of provision underscores the Government's commitment to give priority to improving school buildings and to implementing the national curriculum, in particular science and technology.

  For the third year running, available recurrent public funding for universities, polytechnics and colleges is planned to increase by some 10 per cent. outturn in the previous year—to £3·9 billion in 1992–93. Total recurrentand capital spending on all higher education—UFC, PCFC and other higher education—funded through fees and grant will be £4·4 billion in 1992·93.

  These plans will enable the continued expansion of the number of students in higher education described in the White Paper "Higher Education: A New Framework" (Cm. 1541). More than one in four of all young people in Britain are expected to enter higher education in autumn next year and one in three by the end of the century. As the White Paper explained, the plans envisage additional public funding to support this expansion while also expecting institutions to take advantage of the efficiency gains available to them as they take on more students.

  Based on actual enrolments to each sector up to October 1990, the plans allow for the following distribution between sectors of the projected number of students for 1992–93 given in the White Paper:

  Projected Home and EC student numbers (FTE) (Financial years)

  thousands

  Percentage increase

  1991–92

  1992–93

  PCFC

  368

  401

  9·0

  UFC

  343

  363

  5·8

  Under the Government's proposals to bring together universities, polytechnics and colleges into one higher education sector, the funds for 1993–94 will be made available to the new higher education funding councils. On a comparable basis to 1992–93, the planned available recurrent funding for 1993–94 and 1994–95 is £4·2 billion and £4·4 billion, some 17 per cent. and 22 per cent. respectively more than in 1991–92. Subject to the passage of the necessary legislation, there will be adjustments from 1993–94 to the planned funding for these years to take account of the changes in territorial responsibilities of the new funding councils.

  These plans confirm that the Government are providing for the cost of the extra students enrolled as well as for an increase in resources for the funding councils. Universities, polytechnics and colleges remain free to take on, and finance through the tuition fee, as many qualified students as they are able to accommodate.

  The level of fees which will be reimbursed through public funds in the academic year 1992–93 will be up to these limits:

  139

  Classroom based courses: £1,855.

  Laboratory/workshop based courses: £2,770.

  Clinical medicine, dentistry and veterinary science courses: £4,985.

  Postgraduate fee: £2,200.

  The plans allow for an increase in fee income and capital and recurrent grant to the universities of £144 million in 1992–93, compared with estimated outturn for 1991–92. They will also benefit from extra income from tuition fees for every additional student enrolled beyond these plans.

  The total planned recurrent grant for the Universities Funding Council in 1992–93 will be £1,585 million. The plans allow for a further transfer of resources to provision for science as part of the new boundary for dual support. Taking account of the dual support transfer, total planned available recurrent funding in 1992–93 is nearly 8½ per cent. higher than the expected level in 1991–92.

  It will be for the universities to determine what can be afforded for academic pay within their overall resources, having regard to other cost increases, the scope for efficiency improvements and the need for additional staff. The Government will hold back £24 million of grant in 1992–93 for release only in the event of a satisfactory pay settlement for non-clinical academic staff which makes provision to relate pay more closely to performance.

  Capital funding for the universities will be £9 million more than plans for 1991–92. This should allow a start to be made on an upgraded academic computer network, SuperJANET.

  The plans allow for an increase in fee income and capital and recurrent grant to the polytechnics and colleges of £175 million in 1992–93, compared with estimated outturn for 1991–92. They will also benefit from tuition fee income for every additional student enrolled beyond these plans. The total planned recurrent grant for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in 1992–93 will be £898 million. Planned available recurrent funding in 1992–93 is some 12 per cent. higher than the expected level in 1991–92.

  It will be for the polytechnic and college employers to determine what can be afforded for academic pay having regard to other cost increases, the scope for efficiency improvements and the need for additional staff. The Government will hold back £11 million of grant in 1992–93 for release only in the event of a satisfactory pay settlement for the lecturers to whom national negotiations currently apply which makes provision to relate pay more closely to performance.

  Capital funding for the PCFC sector is increased to £137·5 million, a level over 50 per cent. higher than in 1989–90 when the polytechnic and college sector was established.

  We will increase by 4½ per cent. the level of support to each student next year from grant and loan combined, thus maintaining its value in real terms. Mandatory awards and loans will be available for all eligible students who apply for them.

  Public expenditure provision for the DES science programme, including expenditure financed by EC receipts, has been increased significantly to £1,054 million in 1992–93, £1,184 million in 1993–94 and £1,274 million in 1994–95. These figures include transfers from higher education funding of £48 million, £125 million and £154 million respectively, which will enable the research
  140
  councils, from August 1992, to meet the full costs of the projects which they support in higher education institutions.

  Within these totals, the sums available for distribution by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils will be £1,050 million, £1,181 million and £1,270 million. The totals for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 are £29 million, £50 million and £85 million higher than previous plans for those years. Total science provision for each year will be 7, 12 and 19 per cent. higher in cash than the estimated outturn in 1991–92, excluding the sums transferred and after allowing for the one-off saving of £8 million in 1991–92 on postgraduate fees. This gives an excellent basis for the research councils to plan and manage basic and strategic research.

  I am inviting the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to advise me on the distribution of these resources which will best advance the Government's aims for civil science in the interests of the nation as a whole.

  The plans provide for the successful establishment and development of the 15 city technology colleges announced, and for a start from 1993–94 on spreading CTC principles and practices into other secondary schools.

  The 1992–93 settlement for recurrent provision for grant-maintained schools takes account of the rapid increase in projected school numbers; there are already over 100 grant-maintained schools operating, and numbers are projected to double by April 1992.

  We shall make available, subject to the passage of the Further and Higher Education Bill, £25 million in 1992–93 for the costs of establishing the Further Education Funding Council and preparing further education and sixth form colleges for independence from local authority control.

  Economic and Social Research Council
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he received the annual report of the Economic and Social Research Council for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The annual report of the Economic and Social Research Council has been submitted to me under the requirements of the Science and Technology Act 1965 and a copy is being laid before the House today.

  I was most interested to read about the council's achievements during its 25th anniversary year. I would note in particular its publication of new "Postgraduate Training Guidelines" issued after widespread consultation to help establish higher standards of training for research students in the social sciences; and the launch of the ESRC's largest-ever research initiative to examine the causes and consequences of global environmental change.

  I congratulate the council on these and its other achievements during its silver jubilee year.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any changes to announce to cash limits on votes within his responsibility for 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits for class XI, vote 1, schools, research and miscellaneous
  141
  services, class XI, vote 2, higher and further education, and class XI, vote 4, administration will be changed. The cash limit changes are as follows:

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit

  Change

  Revised/cash limit

  £

  £

  £

  Class XI, vote 1

  712,863,000

  +5,607,000

  718,470,000

  Class XI, vote 2

  2,916,285,000

  +518,000

  2,916,803,000

  Class XI, vote 4

  98,692,000

  +7,925,000

  106,617,000

  The increase on class XI, vote 1 includes the full take-up of capital end-year flexibility entitlement of £6,085,000 announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991, columns 186–89. It takes account of the transfer to the Overseas Development Administration of £300,000 towards covering the shortfall between the contribution from the European Commission and the level of fees levied by higher education institutions for students coming to the United Kingdom from central and eastern Europe under the trans-European mobility scheme for university studies (TEM PUS) for which the British Council is undertaking administration of United Kingdom participation; and a transfer of £178,000 to class XI, vote 2.

  The increase on class XI, vote 2 includes provision for a transfer of responsibility to the Universities Funding Council for course costs in training for social work. This is offset by decreases in provision for the Department of Health (class XIII, vote 3), the Home Office (class IX, vote 3) and the Welsh Office (class XVI, vote 5). The vote 2 increase also makes provision for the preparatory costs of establishing new funding arrangements for further education in England, offset by a reduction in provision on vote 1 and in provision on vote 2 for bursaries for the training of teachers in shortage subjects.

  The increase on class XI, vote 4 includes the full take-up of capital (£2,000,000) and running costs (£404,000) end-year flexibility entitlement. It provides for slippage of expenditure associated with the Department's new headquarters building. It also provides for a further transfer (£200,000) from the Department of the Environment towards the costs of the sport and recreation directorate following the transfer of responsibility for sport to my Department. The increase is net of a transfer of £78,000 to the Department of Employment to reflect that Department's responsibility for the secretariat of the School Teachers' Review Body. The net effect of the changes to running costs is to increase the limit by £526,000 from £96,445,000 to £96,971,000.

  These changes are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the numbers of persons or bodies appointed by him or by departments subject to his direction and control; and the date of creation of each such body.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 31 August 1991, there were 147 such public bodies with a total of 2,358 appointments.142
  Further details of these bodies may be found in "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Departmental Land Holdings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the hectarage, number of holdings and numbers of tenants of holdings of agricultural land owned by his Department in each county in Northern Ireland in(a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Hanley
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland owns agricultural land which it farms for educational and research purposes. Its forest service also owns areas of agricultural land which are surplus to its current planting plans or which it is holding pending the availability of adjoining land; this land is generally let out to neighbouring farmers under short-term lets. The figures for 1990 are shown below (1980 figures in brackets):

  Areas of agricultural land owned and the number of holdings owned and let by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, 1990 (1980)

  County

  Hectares owned

  Holdings owned

  Holdings let

  Antrim

  1,691

  (1,490)

  20

  (10)

  18

  (8)

  Armagh/Down

  658

  (1,179)

  27

  (31)

  23

  (27)

  Fermanagh

  1,768

  (1,753)

  36

  (50)

  34

  (48)

  Londonderry

  1,148

  (868)

  16

  (27)

  16

  (27)

  Tyrone

  1,367

  (2,480)

  45

  (14)

  44

  (13)

  Northern Ireland

  6,632

  (7,770)

  144

  (132)

  135

  (123)

EMPLOYMENT

  Manufacturing (Earnings)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will publish a table showing the increase in, respectively, the average real earnings of full-time adult male and female manual workers in manufacturing industry, whose pay was not affected by sickness, in the 12 years to April compared to full-time male and female manual employees (i) in the public sector and (ii) not in the public sector;

  (2) whether he will publish a table showing the increase in the average real earnings of full-time adult male manual workers in manufacturing industry, whose pay was not affected by sickness, in the 12 years to April 1991 relative to full-time male adult manual workers in (i) the public sector other than the nationalised industries, (ii) the nationalised industries and (iii) the private sector;

  (3) whether he will publish a table showing the increase in the average real earnings of full-time adult female manual workers in manufacturing industry, whose pay

  143
  was not affected by sickness, in the 12 years to April 1991 relative to full-time adult female manual workers in (i) the public sector other than the nationalised industries, (ii) the nationalised industries and (iii) the private sector;

  (4) if he will publish a table showing the increase in, respectively, the average real earnings of full-time adult male and female manual workers in manufacturing industry, whose pay was not affected by sickness, in the 12 years to April compared to full-time adult male and female non-manual employees in (i) the public sector and (ii) not in the public sector;

  (5) whether he will publish a table showing the increase in the average real earnings of full-time adult female manual workers in manufacturing industry, whose pay was not affected by sickness, in the 12 years to April and the same data for full-time adult female non-manual workers in (a) manufacturing, (b) the public sector other than the nationalised industries, (c) the nationalised industries and (d) the private sector;

  (6) if he will publish a table showing the increase in the average real earnings of full-time adult male and female manual workers in manufacturing industry whose pay was not affected by sickness, in the 12 years to April compared to full-time adult male and female non-manual employees in (i) the public sector and (ii) not in the public sector;

  (7) whether he will publish a table showing the increase in the average real earnings of full-time adult male manual workers in manufacturing industry, whose pay was not affected by sickness, in the 12 years to April 1991 relative to full-time adult male non-manual workers in (a) manufacturing, (b) the public sector other than the nationalised industries, (c) the nationalised industries and(d) the private sector.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the average gross earnings of manual and non-manual male and female employees by sector and of manual employees in manufacturing can be found in tables 1, 4 and 6 of part A of the new earnings survey reports from 1979 onwards, apart from those in the "Public Sector other than the nationalised industries" for 1979 which are given in the table below.

  Information on the retail prices index (all items) to convert 1979 figures to 1991 prices is published in table 6.4 of the latest Employment Gazette for April 1991, and in table 26 of the annual supplement to Economic Trends for April of earlier years.

  Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time adult employees whose pay was not affected by absence. Public sector other than public corporations

  April 1979

  £

  Manual women

  52·9

  Manual men

  79·5

  Non-manual women

  74·5

  Non-manual men

  111·0

  Employees (Underpayments)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers in the east midlands have been prosecuted for underpaying their employees since 1979; and if he will list the name, offence and penalty in each case.
  144
  Mr. Forth
  Maurice's Discount of Nottingham is the only employer in the east midlands to have been prosecuted since 1979. The employer was prosecuted in 1989 under section 16 of the Wages Act 1986 for failing to pay at least the statutory minimum remuneration. The court imposed a fine of £100 and costs of £100 were awarded against the employer. Arrears of wages amounting to £429·71 were paid by the employer to the worker concerned.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the number of jobs lost in manufacturing since 1970, 1973, 1979 and 1988, respectively; and what is his estimate of the number of jobs in each case lost as a result of (i) lack of training and (ii) lack of capital investment.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of employees in employment in manufacturing in the United Kingdom at June 1991 has fallen by:

  Since

  Number

  1970

  3,456,000

  1973

  2,959,000

  1979

  2,375,000

  1988

  332,000

  It is not possible to estimate the causes underlying the falls, but manufacturing has accounted for a declining share of total employment in most other industrial countries over the last twenty years, and has seen substantial increases in output per employee over the period.

  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the level of employment in the United Kingdom apparel, knitting and textile industries (classes 26, 43, 453 and 455; including Northern Ireland) at September 1988, September 1989, September 1990 and September 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  Estimates of employees in employment in the apparel, knitting and textile industries in the United Kingdom are only available at census of employment dates. The following table shows Great Britain estimates for the dates requested together with United Kingdom estimates for the latest two censuses.

  Employees in employment Apparel, knitting and textile industries (SIC 26, 43, 453 and 455)

  Thousands

  Great Britain1

  United Kingdom

  September 1987

  511·2

  508·6

  September 1988

  509·1

  —

  September 1989

  477·7

  476·5

  September 1990

  456·0

  —

  June 1991

  429·1

  —

  1 The Great Britain figures include:

  (i) group 255, manufacture of paints, varnishes and printing ink, and;

  (ii) activity heading 4560, manufacture of fur goods.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria are used to justify different unit prices for youth training places, or weeks; and what is the range of prices paid.

  Mr. Jackson
  Targets for numbers of training weeks and outputs to be delivered on youth training (YT), the payment for each and the overall budget are agreed by negotiation between the employment department and individual training and enterprise councils (TECs). TEC volume targets and unit prices are influenced by past performance and by a range of local factors.

  TECs are responsible for all contractual and financial arrangements with individual organisations which provide training.

  Car Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the increase since April 1979 in(a) output per head and (b) the average weekly earnings in real terms of adult male manual workers in the car industry.

  Mr. Jackson
  The increase in output per head in the motor vehicles and parts industry between the second quarter of 1979 and the second quarter of 1991 is estimated to be 57 per cent.

  Information on the average gross weekly earnings of manual male employees in the motor vehicle industry can be found in table 4 of part A of the new earnings survey reports for 1979 and 1991.

  Information on the retail prices index (all items) to convert 1979 figures to 1991 prices is published in table 6·4 of the latest Employment Gazette for April 1991, and in table 26 of the annual supplement to Economic Trends for April of earlier years.

  Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits or running costs limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class VI, vote (programmes and central services) will be increased by £81,066,000 from £2,357,241,000 to £2,438,307,000. The increase principally reflects additional provision for the package of employment measures which I announced to the House on 19 June 1991. The changes for this vote relating to the package are: £43,520,000 provision for the new employment action (EA) programme; an increase of £29,900,000 for employment training (ET); increased provision of £1,000,000 for publicity to promote the June measures; increased receipts from the Welsh Office (class XVI, vote 4) to recover increased expenditure on EA and ET in Wales; and increased running costs associated with the delivery of EA, of which £1,315,000 is for training and enterprise councils and departmental area offices in England and Wales and local enterprise companies in Scotland, and £342,000 is for Employment Department
  146
  headquarters. The increase in the cash limit as a result of these measures is partially offset by reduced requirements by the Department of Social Security (class XIV, vote 1). Other changes to the cash limit reflect: a transfer of £3,100,000 from the Scottish Office (class XV, vote 3) for residual expenditure by my department mainly on Youth Training (YT) in Scotland; increased provision of £1,599,000 (running costs) and £2,000,000 (capital) for full take up of end year flexibility entitlement, to carry forward unspent provision from 1990–91 to 1991–92 as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991 at columns 186–190; an increase of £2,585,000 running costs for payment to Property Holdings for opportunity cost rents; an increase of £ 1,168,000 running costs for payment to the Treasury Solicitor's Department (TSD) for legal services and £17,000 new receipts for recovery of costs and awards from legal cases following the move to a repayment system with the Treasury Solicitor's Department; a transfer of £78,000 running costs from the Department of Education and Science (class XI, vote 4) for secretariat services to the school teachers review body; increased receipts of £300,000 from the sale of capital assets from the former National Dock Labour Board; a transfer of £45,000 to the Scottish Office (class XV, vote 13) to fund a grant to the Scottish Council on Alcohol; and a reduction of £20,000 for tourist projects to reflect an excess in expenditure on tourism in 1990–91.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 2 (employment service), will be increased by £35,031,000 from £453,849,000 to £488,880,000. The increase is the net result of an increase of £15,715,000 running costs for measures to assist the unemployed; an increase of £5,408,000 running costs for administration of payments to ET, YT and EA participants; an increase of £2,800,000 for job review and restart courses programmes; an increase of £10,060,000 running costs in respect of opportunity costs rents; an increase of £3,106,000 for full take up of running costs end year flexibility entitlement to carry forward unspent provision from 1990–91 to 1991–92 as announced by the Chief Secretary on 17 July 1991; an increase of £5,000,000 in running costs for increased funding for fraud investigation, offset by equivalent receipts from the Department of Social Security (class XIV, vote 4); increased receipts of £1,651,000 relating to VAT refunds on contracted out services and increased VAT receipts of £407,000 in respect of programmes for priority groups.

  The running costs limit for the Department of Employment will be increased by £44,725,000 from £1,057,699,000 to £1,102,424,000.

  The increases are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

WALES

  Pupils (English)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure parents who wish their children to be educated through the medium of English in maintained primary schools in Dyfed will receive such an education for their children.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This is the responsibility of the local education authority.

  Cancer Specialists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will indicate where there are health authorities in Wales with a shortage of consultant cancer specialists;

  (2) what steps he will take to deal with a shortage of consultant cancer specialists.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Welsh medical and dental manpower committee advises the Department on the relative priority of consultant appointments and reflect in their recommendations any shortages identified by district health authorities.

  The latest information shows no shortages in this speciality.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he will take to speed up treatment for cancer sufferers.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  We are continuing to make available central funds to improve the accessibility and quality of the regional radiotherapy and oncology service. We are also encouraging an exchange of information and ideas between those interested in the development of an effective cancer service in Wales.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were in employment in the Holyhead travel-to-work area in(a) June 1987 and (b) June 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In September 1987 there were 13,800 employees in employment in the Holyhead travel to work area. In September 1989 (the latest date for which information is available) the number of employees in employment had increased to 15,000. Employment data for the area are available only from biennial censuses of employment.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits for his Department in the current year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 4 will be increased by £5,159,000 from £151,408,000 to £156,567,000; the cash limit for class XVI, vote 5 will be reduced by £6,590,000 from £399,875,000 to £393,285,000; the cash limit for class XVI, vote 8 will be increased by £12,783,000 from £1,130,677,000 to £1,143,460,000; the cash limit for class XVI, vote 10 will be increased by £10,521,000 from £1,764,799,000 to £1,775,320,000. In addition, the cash limit for WO/UA will be increased by £8,061,000 from £74,091,000 to £82,152,000 and the cash limit for WO/LACAP will be reduced by £4,879,000 from £379,541,000 to £374,662,000.

  The increase in vote 4 is in respect of the Welsh share of the increased provision for measures to help unemployed people, announced by the Secretary of State for Employment on 19 June 1991. The Welsh share is mainly for employment training and the new employment action programme.
  148
  The reduction to vote 5 allows for the transfer to class XVI, vote 10 of payments to the Valuation Office Agency for rating list work (£5,158,000). There are also further reductions of (i) £735,000 in the provision for rating list work and (ii) £697,000 in respect of the running costs of the valuation and community charge tribunal offices (including associated receipts) which are being accommodated from offsetting savings within vote 10.

  The additional resources for vote 8 are for (i) the increase in VAT announced on 19 March 1991 (£7,500,000), (ii) full take-up of end year flexibility entitlement for capital carryover as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991 (cols. 186 to 190) (£5,086,000) and (iii) the transfer from class XIII, vote 1 (Department of Health) of the Incentive Bonus Scheme Policy Group (£197,000).

  The increase to vote 10 takes account of (i) the transfer of provision for rating services from class XVI, vote 5 (£5,158,000) and (ii) additional provision for payments to the Valuation Office Agency in respect of council tax banding work (£5,363,000).

  The increase to the urban aid capital cash limit (WO/UA) takes account of (i) the take-up of end year flexibility entitlement on capital expenditure (£3,182,000) as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991 at columns 186 to 190 and (ii) the transfer of provision for the rural initiative from WO/LACAP (£4,879,000).

  The reduction in the local authority capital cash limit (WO/LACAP) relates to the transfer of provision to WO/UA in respect of the rural initiative.

  The net increase represented by these changes is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the national non-domestic rate poundage for Wales for 1992–93 and the distributable amount of non-domestic rates which will flow from this.

  Mr. David Hunt
  We propose that the national non-domestic rate poundage for Wales should rise in line with the increase in the retail price index for the 12 months to September 1991 giving a poundage for 1992–93 of £0·425. This represents an increase of just over 4 per cent. compared with just under 11 per cent. between 1990–91 and 1991–92. We believe this is fair and reasonable, and will be widely welcomed. It reflects the Government's success in reducing inflation, and will demonstrate to business the benefits of the uniform business rate. We propose that the distributable amount of non-domestic rates income will be £536 million.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. T M French
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect a reply to his letter of 14 August on behalf of Mr. T M French, of Portobello boarding cattery, Portobello, Troon, Camborne, Cornwall.

  Mr. Jack
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on Tuesday 5 November.

  Benefits (Claimants' Savings)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state(a) the present tariff income schedule of attributed interest on savings held by benefit claimants, (b) the interest rate and annual percentage rate on savings implied by the schedule, (c) when the schedule was last revised and (d) whether he proposes to revise it again in the light of recent falls in interest rates.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The tariff income rules in the income-related benefits do not imply any particular return on savings. They ensure that help is targeted on those who need it most, while gradually reducing the amount of benefit paid to those with higher amounts of capital.

  The level of income assumed from capital is calculated by ignoring the first £3,000 and taking into account £1 a week for every £250, or part of £250, between £3,000 and the upper capital limit for the particular benefit. The tariff income rule has not been revised since it was introduced in 1988. The maximum amount of capital that a claimant can have and still be entitled to benefit was increased in income support and family credit from £6,000 to £8,000, and doubled in housing benefit and community charge benefit from £8,000 to £16,000 in April 1990.

  The capital rules continue to be kept under review.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has yet completed the review of National Insurance contributions for 1992–93.

  Mr. Newton
  I have completed the annual review under section 120 of the Social Security Act 1975. My proposals will take effect from 6 April 1992.

  Employers and employees

  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statement earlier today, I do not propose to change the standard rates of contributions for either employees or employers, which remain at 9 per cent. and 10·4 per cent. respectively.

  In line with the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, the lower earnings limit for class 1 contributions is to be raised to £54 a week, which is the nearest whole pound to the basic retirement pension rate for a single person from April 1992. The upper earnings limit is to be raised to £405 a week, which is slightly less than seven and a half times the new basic pension rate as provided by the Social Security Pensions Act. These new earnings limits will replace the current ones of £52 and £390 respectively.

  Under the structure for employees which came into force in October 1989 people whose earnings reach the lower earnings limit will continue to pay an initial contribution of 2 per cent. of that limit and standard rate contributions of 9 per cent. on that portion of their earnings which exceeds the lower but not the upper earnings limit. For employers the reduced contribution rates of 4·6 per cent., 6·6 per cent. and 8·6 per cent. for the lower paid will continue unchanged. However, the ceilings for these rates will be raised so that from April 1992 they apply to weekly earnings which fall below the ceilings of £90, £135, and £190 respectively, compared with £85, £130 and £185 at present.
  150
  Not contracted-out employees and their employers

  Neither the employee nor his employer will have to pay any contribution if earnings are less than £54 a week. Those whose earnings do not exceed £390 (the former upper earnings limit) will pay 14 pence a week less in contributions than at present. This is because a further £2 of their weekly earnings will be subject to a deduction of 2 per cent. rather than 9 per cent. For employees with earnings above £390 a week the maximum possible increase will be £1·21 a week. Employers' contributions will generally be unchanged although there will be some gains where employees' earnings which were above the former ceilings fall below the new ceilings. There will be no increase for employers of the higher paid since there is no upper earnings limit for employers' contributions.

  Contracted-out employees and their employers

  Contracted-out employees will gain in the same way. The contributions due from employees earning less than £390 a week will drop by 10 pence a week. For employees earning over £390 the maximum possible increase will he 95 pence a week. Their employers will generally pay 7 or 8 pence a week more than at present because they will have to pay not contracted-out contributions on the first £54 of earnings rather than the present lower limit of £52 a week, although there will be gains in respect of lower paid employees whose earnings fall between the old and new ceilings for reduced rate contributions.

  Self-employed people

  The flat rate class 2 contribution will be raised by 20p to £5·35 a week.

  There will be no increase in the rate of class 4 contributions currently 6·3 per cent. The annual limits of profits between which class 4 contributions are paid will be raised £6,120 and £21,060 from £5,900 and £20,280 respectively. Self-employed people who pay only class 2 contributions will pay an extra £10·40 a year in 1992–93.

  For people with profits between £6,120 and £20,280 (the former upper profits limit) class 4 contributions will be reduced by £13·86 per year assuming an unaltered level of profits. For those self-employed people with profits at or above the new upper profits limit the annual charge for class 4 contributions will be £35·28 higher.

  Class 3 (Voluntary) contributions

  The rate of class 3 contributions will be raised by 20p to £5·25 a week.

  National Health Service Allocation

  The allocation to the national health service, currently 1·05 per cent. from employees and 0·9 per cent. from employers, remains unchanged.

  The draft order, together with a report by the Government Actuary, will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  National Insurance Contributions on Shares

  I am also today laying before Parliament regulations concerning the payment of national insurance contributions on certain financial instruments including shares and unit trusts, which are at present treated as payments in kind and are not therefore subject to such contributions, and which in some cases have clearly been used by employers as a means of avoiding them.
  151
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his Budget statement when announcing the changes in respect of company cars and free fuel, subsequently enacted in the Social Security (Contributions) Act 1991, in the Government's view there is no reason why payments in kind should necessarily be treated any differently from payments in cash for national insurance contribution purposes. The regulations laid today, which will come into effect at midnight tonight, accordingly provide that both primary and secondary contributions will be payable on the value of financial instruments and certain short-term insurance policies which form part of an employee's remuneration. There will however be an exemption for shares and options to acquire shares in the company for which an employee works, so that employee share ownership schemes will not be affected.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there are any proposed changes in the cash-limited programme expenditure of his Department for 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval on the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XIV vote 3 (housing benefit administration and community charge benefit administration, and other grants) will be increased by £32,918,000 from £292,625,000 to £325,543,000. The revision takes account of a transfer from class XIV vote 4 (Administration and Miscellaneous Services) for housing benefit administration and community charge benefit administration costs (£1,070,000), an increase in the grant towards Motability's administrative costs (£38,000), an increase in the grant-in-aid to Motability to help with high cost car adaptations for war pensioners (£60,000) and an increase in the subsidies to local authorities for housing benefit administration (£1,750,000). There is also an increase in payments into the social fund to finance budgeting loans, crisis loans and community care grants (£30,000,000). The increases are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there are any proposed changes in the cash limits or running costs limit of his Department for 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the cash limit for class XIV, vote 4 (Administration and Miscellaneous Services) will be increased by £19,789,000 from £1,881,428,000 to £1,901,217,000. The revision takes account of increased requirements to meet the additional administrative expenditure arising from higher unemployment (£34,736,000), additional expenditure within the child support unit (£4,000,000), an increase in Agency Payments to Department of Employment (class VI, vote 2) (£5,000,000), £2,434,000 in respect of the end of the year flexibility arrangements for capital expenditure, a transfer to Housing Benefit Administration (class XIV, vote 3) of £1,070,000, a transfer to Department of Health (class XIII, vote 3) of £69,000 and a transfer from Inland Revenue (class XVIII, vote 6) of £76,000. The additional requirements are partially offset by an increase in receipts 152
  of £25,318,000 and the balance is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  In addition to the running cost increases of £35,213,000 included above there is a transfer to Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) of £445,000 for the running costs of the Belfast Social Security Centre. There will be a corresponding increase on Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) vote 3 Administration and Miscellaneous Services. Also a reduction of £677,000 to take account of a variation from a previously anticipated outturn of expenditure.

  As a result of these changes the running cost limit of the Department of Social Security will be increased by £34,091,000 from £2,115,817,000 to £2,149,908,000.

  Benefits Uprating
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each of the measures announced in his uprating statement of 21 October, giving the gross cost or saving for each, and the net cost or saving net of other benefit expenditure, in 1992–93.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced earlier today, the increase in total expenditure on social security between 1991–92 and 1992–93 is planned to be some £5·5 billion.

  Increases in rates for contributory and non-contributory benefits generally will be with reference to the September 1990 to September 1991 increase in the retail price index (RPI) and for income-related benefits with reference to the revised Rossi index which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, announced on 21 October. The cost of these increases over unchanged rates of benefit amounts to over £3 billion in 1992–93.

  On 21 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was also able to announce measures to extend or increase provision in 1992–93 in a number of important areas. The benefit costs of these are listed below (except in the case of the social fund, the difference between the net and gross costs is negligible and does not affect the figures given).

  £ million

  Increase in income support premium for pensioners who are disabled or over 80

  +57

  Changes in attendance allowance/disabled living allowance giving additional benefit to people in voluntary hospices

  +2

  Direct funding of hospices (through the Department of Health)

  +1

  Social fund discretionary budgets (increase in gross budgets)

  +67

  Minor measures to improve war pensions, severe disability allowance, disability living allowance, invalid care allowance provision and to provide protection for changes in the severe disability premium

  +10

  Increased provision for independent living fund

  >1+23

  Increases in income support limits for residential care

  +190

  Note:

  1 Subject to confirmation in the light of later information on caseload.

  In reviewing the level of statutory sick pay my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided to increase the lower rate by RPI but not to increase the higher rate which goes to many people covered by occupational schemes.

  153
  The overall cost of this is £19 million less than if both rates were increased. He also announced a restructuring of the system for calculating the contributions which could be reasonably expected from non-householders living with those householders on income-related benefits. This would reduce the contribution expected from those on lower incomes and would increase the contribution expected from those with significant incomes from full-time work. The net effect would be to reduce benefit expenditure by £50 million.

  The uprating statement also covered extra help in 1992–93 for disabled people through disability living allowance at a cost of £120 million and for the families of those in work, through the hours change in family credit and the introduction of a maintenance disregard, a t a net cost of £70 million.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the net cost to the Exchequer of the measures announced in the uprating statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) earlier today.

ENVIRONMENT

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received to date advocating the abolition of the minimum payment requirement of 20 per cent. for poll tax payers.

  Mr. Key
  I have received a number of representations.

  Broadleaved Trees
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiative his Department is currently taking for the protection and provision of broadleaved trees.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of tree preservation policies and legislation. We have also made available resources for the Countryside Commission to provide grants for amenity planting, and have supported initiatives to create community forests near towns and cities and to establish a proposed new national forest.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any assessment of the amendments in local services that will be needed if his total standard spending target is to be achieved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The £41·8 billion which we have proposed for total standard spending in 1992–93 is sufficient to cover the full range of local authority services.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to confirm his proposed 1992–93 financial settlement for local authorities; and if he will make a statement.
  154
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to confirm his proposed 1992–93 financial settlement for local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Shortly.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to strengthen the ability of his Department to restrict the spending of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Local Government Finance and Valuation Act enacted earlier this year removes the exemption capping for those authorities setting budgets below £15 million. In future we shall be able to protect all chargepayers from high bills caused by their authorities' excessive spending, and we shall not hesitate to do so should it prove necessary.

  Building Work
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his most recent assessment of activity in the building and construction industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Output rose every year from 1981 to 1990 It fell back during 1990, but still reached a new record level. Output is expected to continue falling in the remainder of this year. However, the first indications of a recovery are now appearing.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with representatives of the construction industry over the effect the recession has been having on building works.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is closely in touch with representatives of the construction industry and frequently discusses this and other matters of interest with them.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Royal Institute of British Architects over planning for building work over the next six months.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no such consultations.

  Beaches
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which was the English beach in the summer of 1991, designated as a bathing beach under the terms of the 1976 European Commission's bathing waters directive which had the sample containing(a) the highest number of E. Coli per 100 ml of water and (b) the highest number of total Coliforms per 100 ml of water.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information will be available in the detailed summary of the 1991 bathing water quality monitoring results which will be placed in the Library when available from the National Rivers Authority.

  Thames Corridor
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision for consultancy for the placing of his Thames corridor initiative.
  155
  Mr. Heseltine
  I shall announce the names of the consultants who will undertake the Lower Thames study shortly.

  Local Government (Internal Management)
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has so far received to the consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has received about 150 responses so far.

  Empty Council Properties
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest figure for the number of council properties left empty by the 10 worst councils.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Local authorities reporting the highest percentage of their stock empty in housing investment programme returns for April 1991 were: Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Burnley, Brent, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Knowsley, Newcastle upon Tyne and Wolverhampton. In total, these 10 authorities had some 24,000 properties lying empty.

  Waste Regulation
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effect of the transfer of local authorities' waste regulation role to the new environment agency, on the functions of that service.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's proposals for transferring waste regulation to the new Environment Agency are set out in the consultation paper issued on 3 October—copies of which have been placed in the Library. The new agency will be able to ensure that standards of waste disposal are applied consistently across the country, and develop the necessary expertise to deal with the increasingly sophisticated waste disposal techniques. It will also ensure better co-ordination with the agency's other regulatory responsibilities.

  Commonhold
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce legislation concerning commonhold; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  As soon as parliamentary time allows.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact on housing in inner city areas of the Government's city challenge initiative.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The 11 city challenge pacemakers have yet to prepare detailed action plans for their areas. Housing initiatives can, however, be expected to be included in these plans, their number and type depending on the needs and characteristics of the individual city challenge areas.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the form that the proposed environment agency should take.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's proposals for an Environment Agency were set out in a consultation paper published on 3 October. We have invited views on these proposals by 31 January 1992. So far we have received representations about the role of the National Rivers Authority, the arrangements for waste regulation, and the drinking water inspectorate.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the progress of the privatised water companies programme to improve water quality.

  Mr. Baldry
  Progress on the water companies' improvement programmes was checked in the course of the drinking water inspectorate's first round of annual inspections. The chief inspector concluded in his report that the programmes were found generally to be running to timetable. This is consistent with the findings of the Director General of Water Services.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider making additional finances available to local authorities to deal with the problems of inadequate street lighting.

  Mr. Key
  Local authorities' responsibilities for street lighting are taken into account in each year's local authority finance settlement. It is for authorities themselves to decide how much to spend.

  Tyne and Wear UDC
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will report on the progress made by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation.

  Mr. Portillo
  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation has made excellent progress in transforming and regenerating the riverside areas of Tyneside and Wearside. It has attracted over £250 million of private investment and created more than 3,000 jobs since it was set up in 1987.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his long-term proposals for the future of water rates.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Water Act 1989 already prohibits water companies from fixing their charges wholly or partly by reference to rateable value after the year 2000. It is for individual companies to choose their preferred alternative method of charging, in the light of guidance which the Director General of Water Services will be issuing following his consultation exercise.

  EC Environment Directives
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes to meet the European Commissioner for the Environment to discuss compliance with EC environmental directives.

  Mr. Baldry
  I plan to attend the Environment Council when it next meets in December, when a variety of topics will doubtless be on the agenda.

  Community Charge (Bailiffs)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of local authorities for giving advice to community charge payers who do not pay their charge in full on how to handle bailiffs when they visit their home;

  (2) what information he has on the number of local authorities issuing guidance to community charge payers on dealing with bailiffs who call to recover unpaid community charge.

  Mr. Key
  There is no requirement on local authorities to inform community chargepayers about their rights when bailiffs visit their home and we have no information on the number of authorities who issue guidance on this. The majority of local authorities do have, however, a code of practice which governs the way their bailiffs undertake distress action.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in tabular form, by National Rivers Authority region, the amount of water abstracted in 1990 for(a) water supply, (b) spray irrigation, (c) other agricultural purposes, (d) electricity generating companies and (e) other industrial purposes, respectively.

  Mr. Baldry
  These statistics are published annually in chapter 7 (Water Supply and Use) of the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics. The next volume (No. 14) will be published in February/March 1992.

  Public Bodies (Audits)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether external audit for public bodies and local authorities can be carried out by panels of auditors working collectively;

  (2) what guidance he has given to local authorities and other public bodies on the appointment of external auditors; and what efforts he has made to ensure that small accountancy practices are able to take up the position of external auditors to public bodies.

  Mr. Key
  The appointment of external auditors to local authorities, related bodies and the national health service is the responsibility of the Audit Commission. Section 13 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 states that an auditor may be an officer of the commission, an individual who is not such an officer or a firm of such individuals. It is for the commission to determine its own policies on audit appointments.

  The appointment of external auditors to public bodies is made in accordance with the relevant statute and is a
  158
  matter for the relevant Secretary of State or the National Audit Office. Appointments made by the Secretary of State may consist of a qualified individual or a firm whose members are qualified individuals. Any applicant, whet her an individual or a firm, with relevant qualifications or experience may be considered for such appointments.

  Flats
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government intend to introduce for England and Wales a scheme providing for the freehold ownership and communal management of flats including the collective right to buy from the freeholder at market value; when legislation to implement the proposals will be introduced; and whether the title of the Bill will allow an amendment to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, so as to allow long leaseholders of higher rateable value houses to enfranchise.

  Sir George Young
  The Government intend to introduce legislation to provide for the communal management of flats, including a collective right to buy the freehold interest at market value, as soon as parliamentary time can be found. The Government are currently considering sympathetically the case for including in the Bill provision to allow long leaseholders of higher rateable houses to enfranchise, but I can in any case confirm that the long title of the Bill will be so drawn as to allow amendments to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage local authorities to repair and replace social housing stock.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities are already responsible for the maintenance and repair of their own housing stock. The building of new social housing is now mainly the responsibility of the Housing Corporation, with local authorities assuming an enabling role.

  European Commission
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will raise with Commissioner Ripa di Meana the issue of the extent to which the Commission intends to exercise powers relating to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The European Commission's powers and functions and its relationship with the Governments of member states are set out in the treaties establishing the European Communities. I encourage constructive communication between my Department and the Commission's directorate general XI.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the national non-domestic rate poundage for 1992–93 and the distributable amount of non-domestic rates which will flow from this.

  Mr. Heseltine
  We propose that the national non-domestic rate poundage for England should rise by 4·1 per cent., the September increase in the retail price index, giving a poundage for 1992–93 of 40·2p. We believe
  159
  this is fair and reasonable. It reflects the Government's success in reducing inflation, and will demonstrate to business the benefits of the uniform business rate. We propose that the distributable amount of non-domestic rates income will be £12,306 million.

  Eco-labelling
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government's response to the eighth report from the Environment Committee (HC 474–1) will be published.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have today published our response to the Environment Select Committee's report on eco-labelling (Cm 1720). We welcome this comprehensive and helpful report from the Select Committee, which is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate on eco-labelling, and are grateful for its endorsement of much of the work we have done towards the development of an official scheme of environmental labelling.

  We are particularly pleased that the Committee has chosen to back our quest for agreement on an acceptable European Community-wide scheme of eco-labelling. We have aired the Committee's concerns in the continuing negotiations over the scheme and are optimistic that these will be addressed in the final text of the Regulation.

  The Government's response backs many of the specific recommendations made by the Committee. In particular, my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry have given a commitment to amending the Trade Descriptions Act at the earliest opportunity to put beyond doubt that the Act embraces environmental claims.

  The response outlines action that we have already taken to address some of the Committee's concerns. By commissioning further logo designs and market testing them against the Commission's proposed logo, we have persuaded the Commission to undertake further work to ensure that a more appropriate logo is adopted. The UK is also working with the Commission to develop detailed guidance to assist in the development of product criteria on a cradle to grave basis.

  I would also echo the Committee's praise for the immensely valuable contribution the National Advisory Group on Eco-Labelling have made to the development of our ideas on eco-labelling over the past year.

  PSA Services
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to make any changes to the running cost limit on PSA Services' Vote in 1991–92.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval, and as part of wider changes to my Department's cash limits for 1991–92, the cost limit for class VIII, vote 13 will be reduced by £13,691,000 from £83,307,000 to £69,346,000 mainly due to lower than previously forecast expenditure on severance. In addition, the following changes will be made to my Department's cash limits:i) the DOE/UA non-voted cash limit will be increased by £28,781,000 from £855,033,000 to £883,814,000. This includes increased grant-in-aid of £23,000,000 to the London Docklands Development Corporation for the Eastern extension of the docklands light railway. A further £11,581,000 is required for various projects by other urban development corporations and to meet a backlog of urban programme grant claims. The costs will be met, in part, from full take up of entitlement of £8,781,000 under the end year
  160
  flexibility scheme for capital projects. There are also some offsetting savings amounting to £5,800,000 on the city grant programme;
  ii) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 5 (Central environmental services, etc.) will be reduced by £9,450,000 from £327,290,000 to £317,840,000. Of this decrease £7,000,000 reflects reduced grant-in-aid requirement by the National Rivers Authority, and £2,450,000 reflects adjustments to the grant-in-aid payable in 1991–92 to the Nature Conservancy Council and English Nature. The latter offsets in part an increase in the cash limit on class VIII, Vote 6 (Royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, etc.) as described below;
  iii) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 6 (Royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings? etc.) will be increased by £3,450,000 from £173,034,000 to £176,484,000. An increase of £2,450,000 is required to meet payments arising from contracting out the gardening services in the royal parks, in accordance with the plans I announced to the House on 18 July. This increase is offset by a reduction in the cash limit on class VIII, vote 5 as outlined above. The additional associated running cost provision of £2,450,000 will be offset by an equivalent reduction in running cost provision on class VIII, vote 8 (Department of the Environment: Administration) so that the Department's running cost limit of £190,061,000 remains unchanged. There will be a further increase of £1,000,000 for improving public facilities in the royal parks that will be met from part take up of entitlement of £1,048,000 under the end year flexibility scheme for capital projects;
  iv) the cash limit for class VIII, Vote 9 (Revenue support grant, payment of non-domestic rates, Valuation Office rating service, etc., England) will be increased by £78,232,000 from £22,681,112,000 to £22,759,344,000. The increase is required for the implementation of Council Tax; and
  v) the DOE/LACAP non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £3,867,000. The reduction is due to lower than expected claims by local authorities of specific current grants.

  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announced in a written answer on 17 July 1991 at columns 186–190 the entitlements for 1991–92 cash limits allowed under the end-year flexibility schemes.

  These changes are reflected in the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the treatment under the council tax of district councils in England whose budgets are less than their entitlement to redistributed non-domestic rates and revenue support grant.

  Mr. Portillo
  Under our council tax proposals some district councils, because of prudent housekeeping, are likely to receive more redistributed non-domestic rates and revenue support grant than they wish to spend. We do not propose to claw back non-domestic rates or revenue support grant in such circumstances. Instead we are seeking Parliament's approval, in the Local Government Finance Bill, to permit district councils in this position to use surplus non-domestic rates and revenue support grant for the benefit of local taxpayers, by offsetting the county precepts in their areas.

  Development Plans
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to commence the development plans provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  On 4 September, the Department published proposals for the implementation of the
  161
  development plans provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and invited views on a draft of planning policy guidance note 12. The consultation period closed on 1 November. The Department is carefully considering all the responses made but it would clearly assist those local planning authorities at critical stages of plan preparation to have as much notice as possible of the intended date of commencement of the new development plans system.

  Accordingly, I am announcing today that, subject to Parliamentary considerations, we propose to commence the new system early in February 1992. We shall try to lay the regulations setting out the details as early as possible before that date, and I expect to announce a firm commencement date within the next month or so. The Department is today writing to all local planning authorities in England to confirm that information. The Welsh Office are writing similarly to authorities in Wales.

  Loan Charge Grants
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to commute specific loan charge grants to local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  We will commute specific loan charge grants for housing and urban programme expenditure in England on 1 October 1992. The Department will pay a lump sum equivalent to the present value of future grants for each local authority to the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB), or to the local authority itself if any authorities have insufficient PWLB debt though such payments are expected to be small. Annual loan charge grants will then cease. As the commuted sums will repay local authority debt, cancelling out the loss of annual grant, the effect on local authority resources will be neutral. The commutation payment is expected to be around £4·5 billion in England, but the effect on general government expenditure will be negligible because virtually all the transfer payments involved are within general government. Similarly, the effect on the central government borrowing requirement, the public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR) and monetary aggregates will be negligible, since virtually all the commuted sums will return to the PWLB. Within the PSBR, central government borrowing on own account will be increased and the local authority borrowing requirement will be reduced by the amount of debt repayment. There is no effect on the planning total. The various transfer payments involved have been taken into account in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines he has issued to the National Rivers Authority on the disposal of bodies of aborted unborn babies into the sewerage system.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Human tissue is disposed of as clinical waste. Guidance on the treatment and disposal of such waste is given in Waste Management Paper No. 25 (published 1983) which also refers to the recommendations given in the Health and Safety Commission guidance note: The Safe Disposal of Clinical Waste (1982).
  162
  Paragraph 5.1.4 of Waste Management Paper No. 25, which is based mainly on the conclusions of the HSC guidance document, states that incineration should be the preferred disposal route for human tissues.

  Advice is given on discharges to the sewers in Chapter 6. Discharges of certain other clinical wastes can be made to the sewer but only with the consent of the sewerage authority.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give(a) the number of confirmed cases and (b) the number of expected cases of BSE between (i) April 1990 and March 1991 and (ii) April 1991 to date.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give(a) the actual amounts and (b) the estimated amounts of money paid out in compensation for BSE in (i) 1990–91 and (ii) to date in 1991–92.

  Mr. Gummer
  The numbers of confirmed cases of BSE by date of clinical onset is as follows:

  (i) between April 1990 and March 1991

  15,869 cases

  (ii) in April 1991

  1,708 cases

  More recent information is not available for the reason given in my reply to the hon. Member on 23 May 1991 col. 559.

  The amount of money paid in compensation for BSE is as follows:

  (i) 1990–91—£10·8 million, compared with a forecast in early April 1990 of £12·1 million.

  (ii) 1991–92 to the end of September 1991—£8·0 million from an expected total annual spend of £14·6 million.

  It is impossible to predict accurately the number of expected cases over particular periods and forecasts are regularly revised as more data comes in. Nevertheless the number of cases is in line with the epidemiological forecast that they will continue to increase until a peak is reached some time in 1992. Thereafter a decline in the number of cases is expected leading to the eradication of the disease around the end of the decade.

  Ministry Land Holdings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the hectarage, number of holdings and numbers of tenants of holdings of agricultural land owned by his Ministry in each county in England in(a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested for 1980 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The information requested for 1990 is as follows.

  Agricultural land owned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (excluding land managed by the Forestry Commission) 31 March 1990

  County

  Hectarage

  Number of holdings

  Number of tenanted holdings

  Bedfordshire

  26

  12

  12

  Cambridgeshire

  404

  4

  2

  Cornwall

  50

  1

  0

  Essex

  38

  1

  1

  Hampshire

  653

  4

  2

  163

  County

  Hectarage

  Number of holdings

  Number of tenanted holdings

  Hereford/Worcester

  176

  1

  0

  Hertfordshire

  10

  1

  0

  Kent

  75

  1

  0

  Lincolnshire

  42

  1

  0

  North Yorkshire

  500

  2

  0

  Norfolk

  119

  1

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  199

  1

  0

  Somerset

  200

  1

  0

  Suffolk

  5

  1

  1

  Surrey

  133

  2

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  21

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  280

  2

  0

  Total

  2,931

  37

  18

  No central record is kept of the number of holdings or of the distribution by county, but information is available on the number of tenancies and grazing lets for each of the commission's conservancies. This is set out in the table.

  Agricultural land owned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and managed by the Forestry Commission—31 March 1990

  Conservancy

  Hectarage

  Number of tenancies

  Number of grazing lets

  North

  7,900

  57

  126

  East

  1,300

  48

  49

  West

  800

  59

  50

  Total

  10,000

  164

  225

  Farmhouse Cheeses
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the EC member states that have applied the recent reduction in milk quotas to farmhouse cheesemakers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  All member states are obliged to apply the quota reductions agreed by the Council of Ministers in May, which apply equally to all categories of producer.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any changes are proposed in the cash limits for the Intervention Board executive unit.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class III, vote 2 (administration) will be increased by £2,046,000 from £55,042,000 to £57,088,000. Within this limit running costs including VAT recovery will be increased by £117,000 from £28,814,000 to £28,931,000 and capital will be increased by £306,000 from £2,400,000 to £2,706,000 both in respect of end of year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991 at columns 185–89; agency services will be increased by £1,650,000 from £24,572,000 to £26,222,000, and appropriations in aid, excluding VAT recovery on running costs, will be increased by £27,000. These increases in administration costs reflect Meat and Livestock Commission redundancy costs following the ending of the sheep variable premium scheme offset in part by various savings, and take up of running cost and capital end year flexibility entitlement. The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting on 28 October 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  I attended the EC Council of Fisheries Ministers on 28 October 1991 with my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office.

  This specially convened Council met to discuss the 10th, 11 th and 12th amendments to the Community's technical conservation measures regulation 3094/86. The measures which the Council agreed were primarily designed to reduce the catches of immature fish to secure better conservation of fish stocks and to control strictly the use of drift nets. The measures will come into effect on 1 June 1992.

  In the North sea and west of Scotland areas there will be an increase in the minimum mesh size from 90 mm to 100 mm diamond mesh. Additionally, all EC fishermen may use a 90 mm square mesh panel; the acceptance by the Community of the value of such a panel, which we introduced unilaterally this summer, for the benefit of the conservation of fish stocks is very welcome. Further, new net design specifications which we worked out with the industry will be introduced to prevent the ballooning of nets and so improve selectivity.

  These changes in mesh size and new net design are major steps forward in the conservation of cod and haddock stocks which are of great importance to this country but currently at a low ebb.

  A derogation from the 100 mm mesh provision will permit the use of 90 mm diamond mesh only in respect of a directed whiting fishery for which there must be a minimum percentage of 50 per cent. whiting and a maximum percentage of 10 per cent. cod, haddock and saithe. The details will be subject to review in the first half of next year in the light of trials being conducted this year.

  In the Irish sea we achieved the increase in mesh size from 70 mm to 80 mm which we and our industry have been pressing for and which should lead to better conservation.

  In the North sea the derogation provisions in respect of sole are to be rationalised to allow vessels to use 80 mm mesh all year round south of 55ºN with a minimum percentage of sole of 5 per cent. and no than 10 per cent. cod, haddock or saithe. This should ease enforcement and the introduction of a minimum percentage of sole, which previously did not apply to the large beam trawls, should also assist conservation.

  There will be a uniform mesh size of 40 mm, instead of the 16 or 32 mm requirement, for fishing for the pelagic species of herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, blue whiting, pilchard and squid. Associated with this mesh size will be a minimum percentage of 50 per cent. for any one of these species or a minimum cumulative percentage of 80 per cent. of a mixture of these species. The maximum percentage of other protected species will be 10 per cent.

  In order to reduce the waste of fish by discarding, it will be prohibited for vessels using purse seines or towed gear to carry automatic sorting equipment on when fishing for mackerel, herring and horse mackerel. This rule will not apply to freezer vessels but the sorting equipment on such vessels will have to be installed and used under strictly controlled rules.
  165
  There will be a number of changes in minimum landing sizes of fish. These will include whiting reduced from 27 cm to 23 cm in line with the new directed fishery, 20 cm introduced for mackerel (except 30 cm in the north sea), 15 cm for horse mackerel and 110 mm for scallops (Pecten spp.) in ICES division VIId. It will be permitted to land only entire scallops and not parts, which is designed to prevent the landing of undersized scallops.

  We rejected the proposal put to the Council that there would be an automatic increase in mesh sizes in 1995. The Council will instead consider a proposal in due time from the Co mmission, to be made if scientific analysis confirms that stocks have not been restored, to increase mesh sizes from 100 mm to 110 mm in the North sea and west of Scotland and from 65 mm to 80 mm in the region from the bay of Biscay southwards from 1 January 1995.

  A number of other changes to rationalise the very detailed technical conservation measures regulation and to upgrade conservation aspects were also in the final package.

  Most importantly the Council agreed, in response to the United Nations Resolution on large-scale drift nets, that Community vessels should not be able to use drift nets longer than 2·5 kilometres wherever they fish. The only exception to this will be those vessels which have been fishing in the north-east Atlantic tuna fishery for two years or more. No United Kingdom vessel meets this qualification. Qualifying vessels may, until 31 December 1993, use up to 5 km of net which is less than the nets of up to 8 or 10 km which have been in use. The nets are to be submerged 2 metres in depth to help avoid the catch of dolphins and porpoises. The fishery will be closely monitored throughout and in 1993 the data obtained will be reviewed. Unless it is shown that the fishery is not environmentally damaging the derogation will cease at the end of 1993. This important decision means there can be no development of large scale drift netting by European Community vessels anywhere in the world.

  There are a few elements in the package which we fought strongly against, in particular the whiting derogation and reduction in the minimum landing size for whiting. However, the Government believe that it would have been wrong to oppose what is otherwise a very good package, which incorporates gains which we have sought for two years.

  We have secured a substantive and positive basis on which to work for the recovery and stability of fish stocks for the longer-term benefit of the fishing industry.

  Low-fat Milk
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what answer he has made to the recent reasoned opinion from the European Commission about low-fat milk.

  Mr. Gummer
  In its reasoned opinion the Commission asserts that the exclusive purchasing rights granted to the milk marketing boards under Community legislation extend to whole milk only. It takes the view that the actions undertaken by the milk marketing boards to assert exclusive purchasing rights over low-fat milk, and the extension of the three Scottish milk marketing schemes in 1982 and 1984 to cover low-fat milk are contrary to Community law. It also states that the United Kingdom Government have failed in their obligation to ensure that the boards comply with Community requirements.
  166
  We are today informing the Commission that the Government consider that skimmed and semi-skimmed milk should be regarded as falling within the exclusive purchasing powers of the boards. We therefore do not accept that we are in breach of our obligations under the EC treaty or Community law.

  Our response to the reasoned opinion in no way reduces the need for progress to be made on ending the milk marketing boards' present statutory monopoly. The need for change is as great as ever and we are looking to the boards to advance rapidly towards voluntary co-operative status. I shall therefore be urging the milk marketing board for England and Wales to complete its current proposals.

SCOTLAND

  Examination Costs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of presenting a pupil for an SCE standard grade exam.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Examination Board's charge for each examination presentation in 1991 was £15·68.

  Infant Mortality Statistics (Cot Deaths)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the total infant mortality rate for Scotland;

  (2) what is the infant mortality rate attributed to respiratory disorders up to one year old in Scotland;

  (3) what is the sudden infant death syndrome rate of death per 1,000 live births in Scotland;

  (4) what the incidence of cot deaths each year since 1969 was in Scotland;

  (5) what are the cot death rates for Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The terms sudden infant death syndrome and cot death are synonymous. I have therefore grouped the questions together and the answers are given in order.

  Sudden infant death syndrome was first defined in 1969, but until 1979 there was no specific code under the World Health Organisation international classification of diseases to which to allocate such deaths. Before sudden infant death syndrome became an accepted term for use on death certificates, many cot deaths would have been assigned to "bronchopneumonia", "accidential suffocation in the cot" or "regurgitation and inhalation of milk". It is therefore not possible, with any certainty, to provide numbers or rates of sudden infant deaths in Scotland prior to 1979.

  1. The infant mortality rate in Scotland in 1990 was 7·7 deaths per 1,000 live births, the lowest figure ever recorded.

  2. The infant mortality rate attributed to respiratory disorders (ICD* Nos 450–519, 769 and 770) in Scotland in 1990 was 1·5 deaths per 1,000 live births.

  3. The sudden infant death syndrome rate of death in Scotland in 1990 was 1·9 deaths per 1,000 live births.

  4. The numbers of sudden infant deaths in Scotland since 1979 are as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Total

  >1979

  66

  51

  117

  1980

  72

  58

  130

  1981

  95

  59

  154

  167

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1982

  89

  55

  144

  1983

  79

  45

  124

  1984

  76

  51

  127

  1985

  86

  51

  137

  1986

  95

  52

  147

  1987

  85

  48

  133

  1988

  75

  57

  132

  1989

  83

  55

  138

  1990

  83

  45

  128

  5. The sudden infant death rates per 1,000 live births in Scotland since 1979 are as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1979

  1·9

  1·5

  1·7

  1980

  2·0

  1·7

  1·9

  1981

  2·7

  1·7

  2·2

  1982

  2·6

  1·7

  2·2

  1983

  2·3

  1·4

  1·9

  1984

  2·3

  1·6

  2·0

  1985

  2·5

  1·6

  2·1

  1986

  2·8

  1·6

  2·2

  1987

  2·5

  1·5

  2·0

  1988

  2·2

  1·8

  2·0

  1989

  2·6

  1·8

  2·2

  1890

  2·4

  1·4

  1·9

  * International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision)

  Housing
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will set out the number of(a) housing starts and (b) housing completions carried out in the private housing sector in (i) Edinburgh, (ii) Dundee, (iii) Glasgow and (iv) Aberdeen districts in each year from 1974–75;

  (2) what was the number of (a) housing starts and (b) housing completions carried out in the non-council public sector in (i) Edinburgh, (ii) Dundee, (iii) Glasgow and (iv) Aberdeen districts in each year from 1974–75;

  (3) what was the number of (a) housing starts and (b) housing completions carried out by (i) Edinburgh, (ii) Dundee, (iii) Glasgow and (iv) Aberdeen district councils in each year from 1974–75.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information, as supplied by the relevant housing authorities and agencies, is set out in the following tables.

  Housing starts and completions 1975–1990

  Year

  Starts

  Completions

  Private

  Local authority

  Public sector1

  Private

  Local authority

  Public sector1

  Edinburgh

  1975

  1,100

  227

  215

  1,051

  355

  102

  1976

  1,977

  129

  —

  978

  621

  184

  1977

  1,420

  283

  64

  1,012

  167

  8

  1978

  1,226

  29

  39

  1,563

  84

  20

  1979

  1,808

  35

  40

  1,882

  199

  83

  1980

  1,241

  110

  120

  1,217

  —

  —

  1981

  935

  —

  17

  1,165

  117

  157

  1982

  1,000

  —

  60

  600

  49

  18

  1983

  1,901

  —

  74

  1,206

  8

  55

  1984

  1,403

  —

  13

  1,227

  —

  25

  1985

  1,493

  —

  —

  1,504

  —

  69

  1986

  2,369

  115

  123

  1,711

  —

  1

  1987

  1,899

  107

  —

  1,640

  63

  111

  1988

  1,169

  154

  46

  1,412

  87

  12

  1989

  1,699

  —

  2—

  1,369

  101

  2—

  1990

  98

  —

  2—

  381

  125

  2—

  Dundee

  1975

  179

  32

  89

  158

  263

  12

  1976

  332

  124

  —

  304

  211

  184

  168

  Year

  Starts

  Completions

  Private

  Local authority

  Public sector1

  Private

  Local authority

  Public sector1

  1977

  164

  278

  6

  186

  128

  —

  1978

  249

  107

  133

  232

  84

  —

  1979

  340

  83

  37

  261

  221

  112

  1980

  109

  82

  109

  244

  82

  63

  1981

  224

  84

  9

  160

  163

  114

  1982

  364

  49

  37

  162

  55

  7

  1983

  484

  8

  46

  469

  80

  34

  1984

  434

  56

  38

  470

  5

  49

  1985

  113

  3

  55

  250

  57

  38

  1986

  241

  4

  21

  179

  —

  —

  1987

  279

  1

  6

  260

  —

  76

  1988

  179

  —

  80

  299

  5

  —

  1989

  524

  5

  2—

  338

  8

  2—

  1990

  346

  5

  2—

  397

  —

  2—

  Glasgow

  1975

  164

  1,382

  —

  107

  1,856

  —

  1976

  376

  1,115

  188

  426

  1,923

  —

  1977

  387

  224

  110

  530

  1,733

  20

  1978

  586

  258

  243

  347

  1,430

  182

  1979

  866

  777

  340

  817

  615

  96

  1980

  988

  227

  632

  897

  385

  79

  1981

  971

  —

  42

  1,061

  558

  972

  1982

  1,479

  94

  225

  1,201

  161

  255

  1983

  1,426

  118

  111

  1,299

  63

  147

  1984

  1,591

  —

  290

  1,372

  —

  92

  1985

  1,782

  49

  —

  1,644

  140

  237

  1986

  1,582

  —

  80

  1,814

  58

  101

  1987

  1,630

  —

  218

  1,587

  —

  45

  1988

  1,500

  —

  140

  1,429

  —

  293

  1989

  2,350

  —

  22

  1,745

  —

  297

  1990

  2,001

  —

  2—

  1,961

  —

  2—

  Aberdeen

  1975

  403

  476

  159

  237

  987

  125

  1976

  563

  629

  135

  431

  1,184

  143

  1977

  504

  715

  352

  491

  921

  191

  1978

  935

  386

  —

  609

  754

  296

  1979

  630

  440

  —

  774

  430

  —

  1980

  538

  243

  —

  604

  518

  11

  1981

  866

  63

  —

  834

  372

  —

  1982

  887

  121

  —

  816

  134

  —

  1983

  969

  75

  87

  871

  47

  —

  1984

  1,219

  103

  24

  1,090

  117

  —

  1985

  1,262

  81

  57

  1,214

  178

  111

  1986

  623

  91

  120

  981

  45

  27

  1987

  290

  185

  47

  525

  93

  173

  1988

  295

  35

  57

  295

  136

  52

  1989

  516

  12

  212

  410

  109

  213

  1990

  738

  107

  2—

  729

  71

  2—

  1 Scottish Homes/SSHA and Government Departments except for years 1975 to 1978 which consists of SSHA only.

  2 Returns outstanding for Scottish Homes.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount of expenditure directly provided by central Government in respect of local authority housing to(a) Edinburgh, (b) Dundee, (c) Glasgow and (d) Aberdeen district councils for each year since 1974–75 and in (i) cash and (ii) 1991–92 prices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The amounts of housing support grant paid to the four local authorities referred to are shown in the tables. Before 1979–80, Exchequer support for local authority housing was provided under a variety of schemes, the details of which could not be provided except at disproportionate cost. The tables exclude subsidy paid to local authorities in respect of rent rebates.

  Year

  Aberdeen

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  Dundee

  (i) Cash terms (£)

  1979–80

  9,749,391

  11,269,405

  41,496,149

  7,740,698

  1980–81

  10,733,105

  12,517,913

  49,487,984

  8,602,017

  169

  Year

  Aberdeen

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  Dundee

  1981–82

  9,533,966

  7,869,440

  44,099,691

  5,285,879

  1982–83

  7,089,761

  2,327,904

  37,292,928

  1,820,168

  1983–84

  3,724,702

  0

  32,355,851

  0

  1984–85

  0

  0

  32,269,404

  0

  1985–86

  2,260,303

  0

  32,675,646

  0

  1986–87

  0

  0

  21,891,239

  0

  1987–88

  0

  0

  15,116,893

  0

  1988–89

  0

  0

  24,660,513

  0

  1989–90

  0

  0

  30,697,621

  0

  1990–91

  0

  0

  24,536,123

  0

  1991–92

  0

  526,144

  22,687,417

  0

  (ii) 1991–92 prices (£)

  1979–80

  22,554,982

  26,071,498

  96,000,345

  17,907,919

  1980–81

  20,983,587

  24,472,948

  96,750,702

  16,817,238

  1981–82

  16,997,925

  14,030,273

  78,624,491

  9,424,092

  1982–83

  11,801,909

  3,875,125

  62,079,350

  3,029,927

  1983–84

  5,926,241

  0

  51,480,249

  0

  1984–85

  0

  0

  48,861,203

  0

  1985–86

  3,246,069

  0

  46,926,192

  0

  1986–87

  0

  0

  30,385,508

  0

  1987–88

  0

  0

  19,920,004

  0

  1988–89

  0

  0

  30,243,455

  0

  1989–90

  0

  0

  35,392,018

  0

  1990–91

  0

  0

  26,253,636

  0

  1991–92

  0

  526,144

  22,687,417

  0

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) which parts of the parents charter in Scotland would require legislation if it were to be enforced;

  (2) whether independent schools in Scotland will be required to comply with the parents charter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Education (Schools) Bill, introduced in Parliament today, provides my right hon. Friend with powers to make regulations to implement elements of the parents charter including information about schools and about progress of pupils.

  My right hon. Friend will consider in due course the scope and extent of the matters on which he should prescribe under these and other powers to give effect to the commitments in the parents charter, including the requirements to be placed on independent schools.

  School Report Cards
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which parents' organisations and other bodies are being consulted on the new report card.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office Education Department working paper No. 11 "Reporting 5–14" has been distributed to a variety of bodies and individuals including the following:

  Education authorities for distribution to schools and School Boards; Colleges of Education; Scottish Council for Independent Schools; Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; Teacher Bodies; Scottish Parent Teacher Association; Lothian Parents Federation; Lothian Parents Action Group; Strathclyde Parents Federation; Education Alert; Scottish Council for Research in Education; Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum.

  Table 1

  Government owned land per SOAFD

  1983

  1990

  Region

  Hectarage

  Holdings/Lets1

  Hectarage

  Holdings/Lets1

  Highlands

  Highland

  96,713

  966

  93,380

  933

  Strathclyde

  10,896

  28

  6,626

  19

  Western Isles

  18,195

  409

  18,080

  409

  Vocational Courses
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what circumstances regional councils will be able to provide vocational courses, under the Government's further education proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill provides for the Secretary of State to have a duty to secure in Scotland adequate and efficient provision of further education. Further education as defined in clause 6 of the Bill includes a programme of learning which prepares a person for a vocational qualification. Clause 2 removes from education authorities the duty of providing for their areas further education within the meaning of the Bill. It gives education authorities power to provide such further education. It will be for education authorities to determine in what circumstances they exercise that power, including the power to provide courses which prepare a person for a vocational qualification.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria will be applied when judging whether Robert Gordon Institute of Technology, Paisley College and Dundee Institute of Technology should have university status under the Government's higher education proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposed criteria are set out in the consultation document on degree awarding powers and university title which was issued on Thursday 31 October and to which responses have been invited by 2 December 1991. A copy of the consultation paper is available in the Library.

  Departmental Land Holdings
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the hectarage, number of holdings and numbers of tenants of agricultural land owned by his Ministry in each region in Scotland in(a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information relating to agricultural land owned by the Secretary of State is set out in table 1. The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department has provided information relating to the Highland Estates for 1983 and 1990. Prior to 1983 the detail was not held in the format requested. In the case of the lowland estates records were never held in that format. Consequently the information in respect of the lowland estates is presented in summary form.

  Relevant information provided by the Forestry Commission is presented in summary form separately in table 2.
  171

  1983

  1990

  Region

  Hectarage

  Holdings/Lets1

  Hectarage

  Holdings/Lets1

  Orkney Islands

  280

  9

  247

  4

  Shetland Islands

  2,247

  62

  2,161

  15

  Total

  128,331

  1,474

  120,494

  1,420

  Lowlands

  Lowlands Total

  5,202

  276

  967

  59

  Grand Total for SOAFD

  133,533

  1,750

  121,461

  1,479

  1 The number of holdings/lets may differ slightly from the number of "tenants" because of multiple tenancies.

  Table 2

  Government land managed by the forestry commission position as at 30 March 1990

  Conservancy

  Area of agricultural land (hectares)

  Number of tenancies1

  Number of grazing lets

  North

  24,800

  162

  74

  Mid

  14,100

  54

  61

  South

  10,400

  39

  37

  Total

  49,300

  255

  172

  1 This includes crofting tenancies.

  Note: The total area of agricultural land managed by the Forestry Commission at 30 March 1990 was about 104,000 hectares.

  Forestry
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures the Government are taking to encourage the planting of new forests close to towns and cities.

  Mr. Lang
  It is an important part of our forestry policy to encourage the creation of new woodlands close to areas of population. We have therefore decided to introduce a community woodland supplement, of £950 per hectare, as a top-up grant under the woodland grant scheme, which will be available for planting near to towns and cities.

  I am sure that this initiative will be welcomed. It will provide a substantial boost to community woodland projects throughout Britain. The Forestry Commission will be publishing details of the arrangements for administering this supplement later this year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government will make a statement on forestry policy.

  Mr. Lang
  In our response last year to the Agriculture Committee's report on land use and forestry, we said that we would consider whether there would be benefit in drawing the various strands of forestry policy together into a single statement. We have now decided that there would be advantage in making such a statement available, and a composite summary of our current forestry policy has been published by the Forestry Commission. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits for 1991–92 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate:172

  (a) the cash limit for class XV, vote 3: Training programmes, roads and transport, and industrial support, Scotland will be increased by £23,036,000 from £605,682,000 to £628,718,000. This increase takes account of the £15,000,000 increase in provision for Scottish Enterprise announced by the Prime Minister on 10 May 1991; the final reallocation of £4,921,000 in respect of the transfer of the roads and transport programme from the Scottish Office Environment Department to the Scottish Office Industry Department; also takes account of increased provision of £4,708,000 for Scottish Enterprise and £292,000 for Highlands and Islands Enterprise in respect of Scotland's share of the increased provision for adult training announced by the Secretary of State for Employment on 19 June 1991 after account has been taken of £3,100,000 of residual expenditure incurred by the Department of Employment in respect of training programmes in Scotland; and to take up the £1,215,000 capital end-year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991, at columns 186–90.

  (b) the cash limit for class XV, vote 5: Roads, transport and environmental services, Scotland will be reduced by £3,881,000 from £133,443,000 to £129,562,000. This reduction comprises two changes. First, the cash limit will be increased by £1,040,000 to reflect the full take-up of capital end-year flexibility entitlement and part Of the end-year flexibility entitlement for running costs of £984,000. Secondly, the cash limit will be reduced by £4,921,000 in respect of the transfer of roads and transport expenditure to class XV, vote 3: Training programmes, roads and transport services and industrial support, Scotland. Running cost provision will increase by £123,000 from this vote which forms part of the Scottish Office running cost limit.

  (c) the cash limit for class XV, vote 13: Law, Order, Miscellaneous Health and Social Work Services, Scotland will be increased by £1,700,000 from £211,764,000 to £213,464,000. This reflects the take-up of full capital end-year flexibility entitlement of £1,075,000 and £495,000 of the running cost entitlement. Provision is also included to cover the costs arising from the Orkney judicial inquiry, for social work offender services and to take account of a transfer of provision from class VI, vote I and class XV, vote 26 to cover the costs of grants to voluntary health services bodies.

  173

  (d) the cash limit for class XV, vote 21: Revenue and rate support grants, Scotland will be increased by £170,000 from £2,692,607,000 to £2,692,777,000. This increase is required in respect of expenditure to be incurred by local authorities and the Inland Revenue Valuation Office this year in carrying out the valuation of domestic properties in Scotland for the purposes of the proposed council tax.

  (e) the cash limit for class XV, vote 26: Hospital, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland will be increased by £23,083,000 from £2,332,404,000 to £2,355,487,000 mainly for the costs of the increase in VAT, announced on 19 March; for full take-up of capital end-year flexibility entitlement of £10,068,000 and to meet the legal expenses of haemophiliacs with HIV.

  (f) as a result of the increase on class XV, vote 5 to provide additional management and works services and the take-up of end-year flexibility arrangements in respect of running costs expenditure on that vote and class XV, votes 13 and 20, the running costs limit for the Scottish Office will be increased by £1,084,000 from £260,072,000 to £261,156,000.

  (g) in addition the cash block SO/LA1, which covers non-housing capital expenditure by local authorities, will be increased by £8,763,000 from £542,887,000 to £551,650,000. An increase of £8,900,000 in respect of the end-year flexibility arrangements for capital expenditure was announced on 17 July. Since the July announcement, a further increase of £4,363,000 has been agreed. This will be offset by a reduction of £4,500,000 to offset increases in non-cash limited votes.

  (h) the non-voted cash limit, SO/LA2, which covers net allocation to local authorities on new town capital expenditure, will be increased by £561,000 from £342,935,000 to £343,496,000. This increase results from take-up in full of end-year flexibility entitlement as announced on 17 July.

  The increases are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Gourock Ropeworks
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the circumstances surrounding the sale of the Gourock Ropeworks, Port Glasgow.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 November 1991:] My right hon. Friend understands that Chatom Investments Ltd. may now have concluded missives for the acquisition of the ropeworks. He continues to hope that a new use can be found for this category A listed building.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The running costs of the Scottish Office information directorate for each year from 1985–86 are as follows:

  Year

  £m

  1985–86

  0·9

  1986–87

  1·0

  1987–88

  1·1

  1988–89

  1·2

  1989–90

  1·4

  1990–91

  1·7

  1991–92

  1·9

  Budget proposals for 1992–93 have not yet been finalised. These figures exclude expenditure on information campaigns. Directly comparable figures for years prior to the introduction of new Scottish Office budgetary arrangements in 1985–86 are not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by(a) the Scottish Office, (b) the Scottish Development Agency and (c) the Forestry Commission during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each (i) the topic, (ii) the commencement date, (iii) the duration and (iv) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Information television campaigns undertaken by the Scottish Office to date and those planned to be carried out in the current financial year are:

  Road Safety: 8–21 April, 6–19 May, 3–16 June, 2–29 September; Faulds Advertising, Edinburgh.

  School Boards: 19 August–27 September; Faulds Advertising.

  Crime Prevention: 7 October–3 November, Faulds Avertising.

  Rent to Mortgage: 14 October–4 November, The Leith Agency, Edinburgh.

  Fire Prevention: January-February 1992, Faulds Advertising.

  There have been no other campaigns costing more than£100,000 carried out and none are planned.

  The Forestry Commission has carried out no television campaigns.

  The only publicity campaign costing more than £100,000 carried out by the Commission was:
  Promotion of the Woodland Grant Scheme: 4 June—continuing; Hall Advertising, Edinburgh and Brown Associated, Edinburgh.

  Expenditure on television advertising and other publicity is an operational matter for the Scottish Development Agency's successor body, Scottish Enterprise, and its local enterprise companies. I understand, however, that Scottish Enterprise has no plans for television advertising this financial year.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio

  175
  advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Estimates for 1991–92 are television advertising £339,000, radio advertising £86,000, newspaper advertising £476,000 and other promotional material £364,000.

  For 1988–89 to 1990–91, the figures were:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £

  £

  £

  TV Advertising

  576,000

  974,000

  741,000

  Radio Advertising

  40,000

  85,000

  188,000

  Newspaper Advertising

  378,000

  1,022,000

  613,000

  Other Promotional Material

  933,000

  1,001,000

  1,098,000

  For 1979–88 an analysis in the form requested is not available.

  Total expenditure on information publicity was:

  £

  1979–80

  263,000

  1980–81

  362,000

  1981–82

  393,000

  1982–83

  386,000

  1983–84

  360,000

  1984–85

  704,000

  1985–86

  677,000

  1986–87

  857,000

  1987–88

  1,094,000

  The budget for 1992–93 has not yet been finalised.

  The above figures do not include the running costs of the Scottish Office information directorate.

  HIV
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many non-haemophiliacs in Scotland have contracted HIV infection as a result of contaminated NHS blood/tissue transfers; and how many of those became infected before the introduction of the screening of donations in October 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: As at 31 October there were 11 reported cases. It is not possible from the information currently available to identify when these cases became infected.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount paid from public funds to individuals of groups who have prepared or are in the course of preparation of proposals to set up national health trusts in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Resources have been made available to all health boards to implement NHS reforms. These moneys are additional to the allocations which are provided to health boards for patient care which, over the past 12 years, have increased by approximately 40 per cent. in real terms.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July.
  176
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: I shall place a list of surveys in the Library as soon as possible.

HEALTH

  Hospital Consultants
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the average waiting times for a first appointment with a hospital consultant in England and Wales in(a) ophthalmology, (b) ear, nose and throat and (c) adult orthopaedics; and what are the shortest and longest waiting times respectively in each of these three specialties.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Newmarket Hospital
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made, or received from the regional health authority, about the costs of re-providing at West Suffolk and Addenbrookes hospitals the facilities that will be closed at Newmarket hospital in the event that the latter is run down to community status;

  (2) what information he has received from the East Anglian regional health authority about its plans to continue Newmarket hospital as a general hospital for three years after any decision is taken on the authority's proposals to downgrade it to community status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his decision about the future of Newmarket hospital as soon as possible.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on Newmarket hospital in each of the past five years; and what are the projected sums he has budgeted to spend over the next three years, irrespective of any decision he may take on its future status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Bio Products Laboratory
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many units of BSM factor VIII were sold by the Bio Products Laboratory to United Kingdom hospitals before 31 March.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will audit the Bio Products Laboratory from 1 April; and under what accounting standard this audit will take place.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  From 1 April 1991 the Central Blood Laboratories Authority and the other health authorities will be audited by the Audit Commission. The audits are conducted in accordance with the code of audit practice for local authorities and the national health service in England and Wales dated November 1990.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what requirements the Bio Products Laboratory now lies in respect of the publication of annual accounts.
  177
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Bio Products Laboratory is not required to publish annual accounts separately from the Central Blood Laboratories Authority, which publishes an annual report covering its activities as a whole.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all Bio Products Laboratory products deemed to have licences have been subject to the full product licence fee of £130,000 per product payable on the product licence application to the Medicines Control Agency.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Bio Products Laboratory is required to pay a licence fee appropriate to each of its applications for product licences made under the Medicines Act. Details of the fees paid by the Bio Products Laboratory as with any other pharmaceutical company are confidential between the Medicines Control Agency and the applicant.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what differences exist between the terms, including conditions of confidentiality, on which(a) the Bio Products Laboratory and other state institutions and (b) commercial pharmaceutical companies compete in respect of tendering;

  (2) if he will give details of all contracts or agreements for plasma products including factor VIII, Albumin and IVGG made for 1991–92 by the Bio Products Laboratory with regional health authorities which were not subject to general tenders to the commercial pharmaceutical industry.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The purchase of blood products is a matter for provider units and health authorities. We are not aware of any differences in the terms on which the Bio Products Laboratory and commercial suppliers compete for the supply of such products to national health service purchasers; nor are we aware of any contracts or agreements made by the Bio Products Laboratory in 1991–92 which were not subject to tender to commercial suppliers.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is now responsible for funding any losses made by the Bio Products Laboratory over a financial year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Central Blood Laboratories Authority, of which Bio Products Laboratory is part, is required to stay within the cash limit set by the Department and funded from class XIII, vote 1.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what legal status the Bio Products Laboratory has been trading since 1 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Bio Products Laboratory is an integral part of the Central Blood Laboratories Authority, a special health authority set up in December 1982. The legal status of that body as a special health authority has not changed.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to facilitate the development of an agreed autopsy protocol for the cot death.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The formulation and adoption of an autopsy protocol for cot death will be for 178
  health authorities to determine as part of their involvement in the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the recommendation to mothers on whether to lie babies down to sleep on back, front or side in the "Pregnancy Book" issued to all mothers(a) in the version issued in 1990, (b) as revised in 1991, (c) as reprinted in 1991 and (d) as intended now; and how many copies of it were printed for distribution.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Advice to pregnant women and mothers contained in the Health Education Authority's "Pregnancy Book" and "Birth To Five" on the recommended sleeping position of babies has been changed once in 1990. Prior to that, the advice was that for the first two months or so babies should sleep on their fronts. This was in accordance with the then commonly held clinical view that not to do so could increase the risk of inhalation of vomit, especially in those babies who were vulnerable or sick.

  At the time the text of these books was revised in 1990, the advice was changed to reflect the evidence that was then emerging that the prone sleeping position might have been a risk factor in cot death. On the basis of the evidence at that time, no one type of sleeping position for babies could be recommended. In versions of the booklets reprinted earlier in 1991 this advice continued to be current, although the opportunity was taken to remove photographs of babies lying on their fronts.

  Following the chief medical officer's advice last week that babies should no longer be laid down to sleep on their fronts except on medical advice, the authority has taken immediate steps to notify health education units and prevent them from distributing further copies of both books. Urgent steps are being taken to revise the advice in the booklets.

  Altogether, approximately half a million copies each of the "Pregnancy Book" and "Birth to Five" are issued to first-time pregnant women and parents each year.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is Government policy on the training of health care workers to deal with cot death;

  (2) what steps he is taking to inform health care professionals, doctors, midwives, and maternity homes of how to advise mothers on avoiding cot deaths;

  (3) what television advertising his Department intends or has carried out on cot deaths;

  (4) how he intends to communicate his advice that young babies should be laid on their backs to (a) health care professionals, (b) the public generally and (c) mothers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Although the underlying causes remain unexplained, as the advice issued by the chief medical officer last week made clear, it is possible to reduce the risk of cot death. Sleeping position is only one factor associated with cot death. Other known risks to be avoided are cigarette smoking, overheating a baby and not acting promptly by seeking professional advice when a baby appears unwell.

  Whilst non-breast feeding has been identified as a factor in cot deaths in New Zealand, it has not been identified as a risk factor in the United Kingdom. The Department's advice on the known benefits of breastfeeding remains unchanged.
  179
  The chief medical officer's press announcement last week and the media coverage following that, has alerted the public to the new advice relating to sleeping position. The chief medical officer and chief nursing officer will be writing to doctors and to other health care professionals shortly with more detailed advice to guide them in their advice to parents. We would expect the statutory and professional bodies to incorporate the new advice into their curricula straightaway.

  In addition, the text of the two books published by the Health Education Authority and distributed to first-time pregnant women and parents, the "Pregnancy Book" and "Birth To Five", is being amended to reflect the new advice. We are considering urgently whether further steps are needed to ensure that the new advice is available to parents of young babies.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which parts of the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy are relevant to cot death; and who has devised these.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be setting up a national advisory body to advise on which aspects of stillbirths and deaths in infancy should be examined in the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of infant deaths are given a proper paediatric post-mortem by someone trained as a paediatric pathologist to recognise cot death.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy was established.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This inquiry is being established on a nationwide basis to examine in detail the circumstances of selected stillbirths and deaths in infancy. This is the first such inquiry worldwide. With increased knowledge of the reason why babies die, health care professionals and others will be better able to prevent these tragic events.

  Liver Transplants
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the contracts between King's College hospital, London, and St. Mary's hospital, London, for liver transplantation with non-United Kingdom residents;

  (2) if he will give to date the number of private liver transplants undertaken at King's College hospital, London, and St. Mary's hospital, London.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The management of King's College hospital is the responsibility of Camberwell health authority and the management of St. Mary's hospital is the responsibility of Parkside health authority. The hon. Member may wish to write to Sir Derek Boorman, the chairman of Camberwell health authority, and Mr. Michael Hatfield, chairman of Parkside health authority, for details.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give to date the number of national health service 180
  patients in whom it has not been possible to perform a liver transplant due to lack of intensive care facilities, and in which the liver subsequently went to a private non-United Kingdom resident.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Paediatric Pathologists
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on conducting paediatric post-mortems and funding them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government required regional health authorities to have at least one paediatric pathologist in post by 31 March 1991 and to conduct a review of the need for further posts by 1992. The conduct of paediatric post-mortems is a matter for professional judgment and there are no special arrangements in place for funding them.

  Blood Plasma
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any voluntary donated blood plasma collected in the United Kingdom is used other than to produce plasma fractions or finished products which are used solely for patients in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our aim is to collect from our unpaid voluntary donors sufficient blood and plasma to meet national requirements for blood products. Not all the products derived from blood and plasma are in equal demand and a surplus of a particular fraction may arise from time to time. Those products which are genuinely surplus to our own needs may then be exported to EC or other countries which may not be self-sufficient in that particular fraction.

  Women's Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact the proposed new women's hospital in Liverpool will have on services for women; how much of the expenditure earmarked for the hospital will be used for security and road alterations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Obstetric and gynaecology services are presently scattered across the city and will be provided on a single site in modern, well-equipped accommodation. The balance of expenditure on new facilities and infrastructure such as security and road alterations is a matter for Liverpool health authority.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letter of 29 October from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, regarding Mr. L. Lowe and the Queen's Medical Centre hospital, Nottingham.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A reply will be sent shortly.

  Nottingham DHA
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will specify the waiting list for the City, Highbury, General and Queen's Medical Centre hospitals, Nottingham, in each of the specialties for which figures are held centrally for each of the years since 1987.
  181
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. H. White, the chairman of Nottingham health authority, for details.

  AIDS and Breast Cancer
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the Government have put into AIDS and breast cancer research and publicity.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Government expenditure on AIDS research in 1990–91 totalled £20·4 million. In the same year £10·0 million was spent on publicity on AIDS. In the present financial year, 1991–92, the estimated Government expenditure is £22·5 million on AIDS research and £11·3 million on publicity on AIDS. Government spending on research into breast cancer in 1990–91 amounted to £3·0 million. The estimated figure for research in 1991–92 is not yet available. Information on the levels of expenditure on publicity about breast cancer and the breast cancer screening programme is not separately identifiable. The Health Education Authority, the Department of Health and the NHS breast cancer screening programme include advice and information about breast cancer in a range of publications giving general advice on health matters.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to revise the amount of money his Department spends on AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The amount of money available for spending on AIDS and HIV is kept under constant review.

  London Health Service
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the recently announced survey of the health service in London will include consideration of hospital provision in the London borough of Havering.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Sir Bernard Tomlinson, was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to advise him on the development of London health services. He has been given a wide-ranging remit to look at the provision of health care, the organisation and provision of undergraduate medical teaching, post-graduate medical education and research and development. Although we expect him to focus mainly on central London, there may well be issues with wider implications where it is appropriate for him to include outer London in his consideration.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes will be made to the cash limits and running cost limits of his Department in 1991–92.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 1—Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England—will increase by £110,667,000, from £16,410,032,000 to £16,520,699,000. This increase
  182
  covers additions of £100,841,000 for health authorities and other bodies for the increase in VAT announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19 March 1991; £31,480,000 for the take-up of entitlement to carry-over underspends under the end-year flexibility arrangements, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991 and transfers from class XIII, vote 3 of £3,000,000 for construction of a building for orthotists and prosthetists and £500,000 for drug misuse publicity. These increases are partly offset by a reduction of £19,678,000 reflecting an increase in the NHS trusts' aggregate external financing limit, and transfers to class XIII, vote 3 of £4,679,000 for the NHS estates agency and £600,000 for the clinical standards advisory group, and to class XVI, vote 8 of £197,000 for an incentive bonus schemes policy group.

  The cash limits for class XIII, vote 3—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England—will be increased by £6,960,000, from £726,469,000 to £733,429,000. This increase provides an additional £4,713,000 for litigation costs of haemophiliacs infected with HIV; £531,000 for the increase on VAT as mentioned above; £4,679,000 from class XIII, vote 1 for the NHS estates agency and £600,000 for the clinical standards advisory group; £91,000 from class XIV, vote 3 for an increase in petrol tax allowance and for replacement vehicles; £75,000 from class II, vote 5 for a contribution to the International Peto Institute; and £69,000 from class XIV, vote 4 for the low income scheme and computer equipment. These increases are partly offset by the transfers to class XIII, vote 1 mentioned above; £127,000 to class XI, vote 2 for conversion of social work training courses. Also as a consequence of the excess on the departmental running cost limit in 1990–91 a further reduction of £171,000 is being made.

  The provision for running costs on class XIII, vote 3 and the Department's running cost limit is increased by £29,000 from £252,892,000 to £252,921,000. The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many of the second wave of hospital trusts announced by him have indicated that they have made provision for a nurse to be on the board of the trust; and if he will list those that have not;

  (2) if he will list those existing hospital trusts which do not have a nurse on the board of the trust.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All NHS trusts providing patient services, apart from ambulance and other transport services, are required to have a registered nurse or midwife as an executive director on their board.

  Dietary Sugars
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that the recommendations of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy report "Dietary Sugars and Human Disease" (1989) are implemented.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 30 January at column 529. Work continues on all fronts mentioned.
  183
  In July this year the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy published its report "Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the UK", in which it fully endorsed the findings in the 1989 report; a copy is available in the Library. It advised that the population's average intake of non-milk extrinsic sugars should not exceed about 60 g per day or 10 per cent. of total dietary energy. The Health Education Authority is now working in close co-operation with officials of the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to translate this advice into further nutrition education material.

  Stillbirths
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be(a) the initial costs and (b) the annual running costs of confidential inquiries into stillbirths and infant deaths in England; and what additional funds he is making available to (i) the Department of Health, (ii) the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, (iii) regional health authorities and (iv) district health authorities to (a) set up and (b) run the inquiries.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Initial costs in regions of setting up epidemiological surveys of stillbirths and infant deaths and of recruiting additional perinatal pathologists are already being met from current allocations. Details of further expenditure are under consideration. As the confidential inquiry will be part of the NHS reforms audit initiative, regions will be

  Hospital medical staff in England as at 30 September 1990

  Consultants

  All other staff

  All staff

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Northern

  878

  140

  1,396

  635

  2,274

  775

  Yorkshire

  916

  118

  1,757

  659

  2,673

  777

  Trent

  1,175

  173

  1,967

  947

  3,142

  1,120

  East Anglia

  564

  83

  905

  427

  1,469

  510

  North West Thames

  847

  227

  1,613

  907

  2,460

  1,134

  North East Thames

  1,176

  306

  1,855

  974

  3,031

  1,280

  South East Thames

  1,069

  207

  1,734

  827

  2,803

  1,034

  South West Thames

  742

  202

  1,122

  641

  1,864

  843

  Wessex

  745

  106

  1,282

  662

  2,027

  768

  Oxford

  629

  137

  1,083

  630

  1,712

  767

  South Western

  817

  109

  1,390

  732

  2,207

  841

  West Midlands

  1,307

  207

  2,333

  935

  3,640

  1,142

  Mersey

  686

  104

  1,137

  504

  1,823

  608

  North Western

  1,128

  189

  2,183

  902

  3,311

  1,091

  LPGTHs1

  544

  110

  698

  303

  1,242

  413

  Total

  12,834

  2,369

  22,275

  10,590

  35,109

  12,959

  1 London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals.

  Notes:

  Figures include all permanent paid and honorary staff and exclude all locum staff.

  England totals do not equal the sum of the regions due to doctors working in more than one region.
  184
  eligible to seek funds which have been especially assigned to clinical audit. The total amount available for all clinical audit work will be around £40 million in 1992–93.

  Health Service Staff
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each national health service region the number of male doctors and the number of female doctors(a) in general practice, (b) who are consultants and (c) other than consultants who work in hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The information requested is given in the tables.

  Unrestricted principals (GPs) in England as at 1 April 1991

  Male

  Female

  Northern

  1,276

  357

  Yorkshire

  1,511

  431

  Trent

  1,877

  531

  East Anglia

  899

  217

  NW Thames

  1,306

  650

  NE Thames

  1,468

  552

  SE Thames

  1,475

  475

  SW Thames

  1,101

  461

  Wessex

  1,196

  391

  Oxford

  1,003

  351

  South Western

  1,573

  409

  West Midlands

  2,116

  586

  Mersey

  928

  313

  North Western

  1,548

  463

  Total: England

  19,277

  6,187

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

Sunday Trading: Scotland
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the freedom to trade on Sundays in Scotland which has existed for many years (since the Shops Act applies only to England and Wales) would be ended or eroded by any directives now being suggested by the European Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, no proposed directives would prohibit Sunday trading but a draft directive on working time proposed on health and safety grounds would require all employees to have a weekly rest period.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply which is reassuring at this stage. Does he agree that Sunday is special in Scotland, although one can buy anything on a Sunday without anyone breaking the law? Would not such an EC directive, if it were put forward in draft, go much further than intervening in nooks and crannies? It would threaten a long-held basic freedom.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is correct in saying that if the directive were implemented, it could affect the employees of shops. However, since it is only a draft directive, we have as yet no idea exactly what its effect would be. In any case, the Government aim to preserve the existing freedoms in Scotland.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does the Minister realise that we agree with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy? In Scotland we have handled the matter rather well in the cities and the country areas. Local authorities on the one hand and the Churches and other communities on the other have got together. Our Sunday trading has worked well, particularly in the cities. There has been no suggestion that it should be extended to areas that do not want it, such as the Western Isles. The point about employees is important. While it is basically a matter for the trade unions, I hope that we all recognise that Sunday is special. Someone who works on a Sunday should receive an increased inducement to give up that day.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a delight to be able to agree entirely with what the noble Lord says.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm what I understood him to say, namely, that the draft directive would not affect Sunday trading? Is he aware that the reports which many of us
212
have received indicate that the German Government are pressing for the directive explicitly to prevent work on Sunday?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I said that it would not prohibit Sunday trading. As I understand it, the draft directive on working time suggested that the weekly rest period should in principle include Sunday. This could give difficulties to those organisations that employ people on Sundays, but it does not include all shops since many are looked after by people who are self-employed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if eventually the draft directive is passed by a qualified majority and the Government do not agree with it, would it not be wise to follow the precedents so frequently established by both France and Italy? They simply do not obey the regulations if they do not agree with them.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in this country we do not have a history of not obeying the law.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is this not an obvious area in which the principle of subsidiarity ought to prevail? Will my noble friend confirm my impression that the Jews have Saturday, Moslems have Friday and the Druze have Thursday?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is quite right. This is an area where subsidiarity should rule the day.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, if the directive came through, would it be possible for us to apply for derogation? Derogation on behalf of the United Kingdom would mean extending to England and Wales the same rules on Sunday shopping that apply at the moment in Scotland. At present large organisations are grossly uncompetitive because they wish to obey the law, whereas other organisations definitely flout it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the situation in England and Wales is entirely different. That is another matter.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, can the Minister help us over the directives? Does a directive require the consent of the Council of Ministers for it to be made? When the directive is made, is it implemented, as in the recent case of the environmental directive, by the commissioner alone or does it require the full consent of the Commission? It seems to me that when we consider the future of the Commission, the matter of its powers and who implements them is of vital importance. If the directive were adopted, would it be open to the commissioner concerned to prosecute whoever he wanted?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at this stage the directive is still a draft directive: it has not yet been presented to a full council. Officials are still discussing the directive. This matter depends on whether the directive will be agreed under qualified majority.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that both Houses of Parliament have an elaborate system of scrutiny committees to look into these matters and have the first bite at the cherry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that if there were any validity in the preposterous German claim that Sunday trading equals unfair competition then, logically, early closing days would have to be synchronised across the entire Community and the opening and closing hours of every shop, bank, building society and travel agency would also have to be synchronised throughout every EC country within any given time zone?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord has clearly demonstrated the illogicality of the proposal.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it not the position that a directive has the quality of a directive from the Council of Ministers to the government of a member state leaving it to the government of the member state to implement it as that government see fit as regards implementing the spirit of the directive? If that is right, do we have to bother with this problem at all?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we do not have a problem at the moment because this proposal is not a directive. When or if the proposal became a directive without any derogations we would then have to examine carefully how we would put it into effect.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, is not Sunday trading an issue on which strong views are held in both directions and one which should not be dealt with on a side wind in this way?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the point is that no one in Scotland wishes to impose the experience of Scotland on the rest of the European Community.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that consumer organisations, including the Consumers' Association, are concerned about the proposals which have been reported? As for Scotland, is the Minister aware that a MORI poll conducted in Scotland a year ago showed that 85 per cent. of the population did not wish to see the present situation changed by restrictions?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is useful and helpful information.

Real Interest Rates
2.46 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the real rate of interest in October 1990 and October 1991.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, there is no single definition of real interest rates. But one method is to
214
divide the average three month interbank rate by the 12 month all-items retail prices index. On this basis, the real interest rate in October 1990 was 2.8 per cent. It will not be possible to calculate the figure for October 1991 until publication of the RPI on 15th November.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I find it incredible that the Minister is unable to answer a simple question. Does he not agree that on the basis of the minimum lending rate minus the RPI the real rate of interest in October 1990 was 3.4 per cent? Bearing in mind that for October the inflation rate is likely to be 4.1 per cent. or less, the figure is likely to be 6.4 per cent. Does not the Minister agree that interest rates, rather than falling by 3.5 per cent., as claimed by the Chancellor, have risen by 3 per cent? Is that not the reason why the slump (as I prefer to call it) has been much deeper than it should have been, and why the Chancellor's prediction of an upturn is proving to be a mirage? Will the Minister advise his colleagues that interest rates should be cut immediately by 1 per cent., as has been demanded by the Director General of the CBI?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not give the noble Lord the figures for October 1991 because, as I said in my original Answer, they have not yet been published. Therefore it is impossible for me to give those figures. However, the noble Lord would perhaps like to hear me compare the figure of 2.8 per cent., which I gave for October 1990, with the figure of 5.9 per cent. for September of this year. The September figure is the latest available figure. The real level of interest rates has risen in the past 12 months, but in that time actual interest rates have fallen by 4½ percentage points. That means that Britain has real rates below those of France and close to those of Germany.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that such high real interest rates have persisted for the past eight years at a level higher than at any previous time since the war? That is one reason why the level of industrial investment is historically low, and it is why our manufacturing capacity is not able to support any sustained expansion.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not agree. The figure for October 1990 which I quoted was the lowest since 1982. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on his elevation—if that is the right word—to the Opposition Front Bench as spokesman on Treasury matters, on which I am sure we shall have plenty of opportunities to joust with each other.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord now answer the other question which I asked him? Will he advise his colleagues in the Government that interest rates should now be cut by a full 1 per cent. in order that the economy can be kick-started into life?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, interest rates will be cut when it is prudent to do so, when it is right

215
in terms of our fight against inflation and when it is consistent with our obligations within the exchange rate mechanism.

Hospital In-Patients: Benefit Reductions
2.50 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to help people who cannot pay essential hills because of benefit reductions imposed during a hospital stay in excess of six weeks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, we are not convinced that any special plans are necessary. Approximately 97 per cent. of hospital in-patients are discharged within six weeks. Although benefit levels are then reduced, in-patients have already experienced an immediate reduction in their day-to-day expenditure. There is therefore an initial financial gain followed only later by lower benefit levels reflecting lower outgoings.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is not the department receiving many letters on this subject, which seems to show that the cases are more widespread than it says? Is it not the case that the noble Lord's colleagues in another place, as recently as 8th June 1989—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am reading the date. Is it not the case that as recently as 8th June 1989 the Minister's colleagues in another place were saying that they were looking into the matter and hoped to do something about it as soon as possible?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. We have received a large number of letters on the issue. but we are not aware of any problems being suffered by individuals.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some quite severely disabled people refuse hospital treatment which could alleviate their condition because they know that even a short stay in hospital means that they will suffer a reduction in their benefits? Can the Minister tell the House how much the Government save as a result of the rule? If sick people lose benefits because of a stay in hospital can the Minister say where they should go for help, because the Social Fund specifically rules out payments for fuel and housing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should certainly advise people who refuse hospital treatment for that reason that they are making the wrong decision. The noble Lord asked whether there are any savings. There are no savings. It has always been the case that the state should not make double provision for the same eventuality. It would therefore be wrong to continue to pay, for example, a pension to someone who is being maintained free of charge by the National Health Service.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when claimants who receive transitional protection revert to benefits they receive a lower rate of benefit because of the hospital break rule?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the issue of transitional protection. Anyone who is not on transitional protection but on ordinary benefit will revert to their proper rate.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that crucial to the solution of the very real problem put to him by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley is the adequate provision of hospital social workers who, as the noble Lord knows, help and advise patients on these difficult matters? Is he also aware that there is a great deal of anxiety about the lack of provision of hospital social workers, particularly in some London hospitals, because of disputes about whether they should be provided by the social services department or the hospital? The noble Lord will know that I have had a great deal of correspondence with his noble friend Lady Hooper on this subject. Can he tell the House whether that problem has now been solved and whether hospitals are now adequately staffed with hospital social workers?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the subject of hospital social workers is another question. I can only repeat that we are not aware of any particular problems being suffered by individual claimants.

Nuclear Weapons
2.54 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will sponsor a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly requesting the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the legality or otherwise of the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons as methods of warfare.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): No, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Earl will forgive me if I refrain from thanking him for that somewhat negative answer. Will he say whether, if such a resolution were tabled by other countries, Her Majesty's Government will support the resolution and if not, why not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question was posed by the noble Lord and I gave him the answer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the significant reduction in nuclear arms proposed by the United States and the Soviet Union and taking account of the fact that the NATO summit will be held in Rome tomorrow and on Friday, can the noble Earl say what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for any possible reduction in our nuclear stockpile?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the United Kingdom has already announced significant cuts in its nuclear capability. I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition understood the gist of the debate on Monday last, which was that we need a deterrent in this country too.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not obvious that there is no question which relates specifically to nuclear weapons which would not apply equally to saturation bombing by high explosive or incendiary weapons, nerve gas or chemical weapons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has raised an important point but perhaps this is not the moment to deal with the semantics of it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I did not suggest that a deterrent was not necessary. That was not implied in my question, as the noble Earl seemed to think. My question is, what new policies, if any, will Her Majesty's Government put before the summit tomorrow and on Friday?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I did not infer from the noble Lord's original question that it was a matter of getting rid of our deterrent. I wished to make the point that the deterrent is an important part of our policy. Following the moves by the President of the United States, we announced significant cuts in our nuclear capability, including giving up ground-launched sub-strategic systems in Europe and ending the deployment of maritime tactical nuclear systems in normal circumstances.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many other countries in the world apart from the various Soviet republics have or are developing nuclear weaponry?
The Earl of Caithness: Not without notice, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, at least attempted an answer to my question? Would it not be a good idea if the noble Earl were to retire and restore the noble and learned Lord to the Front Bench?

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will, with the leave of the House, repeat the Autumn Statement which is being made in another place.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on 31st October last by the Earl of Selborne—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
2.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, having dealt in the last two days with foreign affairs, defence, local government, the environment and agriculture, your Lordships today turn your attention to home affairs, social affairs and education, which are always testing subjects with which any government have to wrangle. It is a fairly wide canvas upon which your Lordships will be able to draw.
In the moving of the Address in reply to Her Majesty's gracious Speech, we had the pleasure of listening to my noble friends Lord Selborne and Lady Seccombe who set the tone of the debate—my noble friend Lord Selborne with his immense experience of public service, in particular in relation to agriculture, and my noble friend Lady Seccombe with her fresh and invigorating views which are such attractive features in a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House. I can reassure my noble friend that it was not just the brevity of her maiden speech which secured for her the invitation to second the Motion. Were that the criterion for such preferment I fancy that there would be a shallow pool from which my noble friend the Leader of the House could draw.
The subjects of today's debate are important because to a certain extent they determine or reflect the society in which we live. Law and order are important. Without them society crumbles. Crime must be fought constantly. It is always there. It always has been and it always will be. Governments cannot undertake to win on crime. Life does not work like that. What they can do is to be determined to tackle it, as the present Government have done with considerable fervour and will continue so to do.
The menace of drugs, the misery that they cause to those who become encompassed by them and the lawlessness that they create by people turning to crime in order to provide the money to satisfy their crippling habit will be a continued high priority for the Government. Drugs debilitate society. They debilitate people. The only winners are those who, for financial gain, feed off the vulnerabilities of others. Drugs will be a prime target for effort both at national and international level. Indeed, following the drugs summit that was held in London last year, the United Kingdom is now actively engaged in helping other countries in an international effort to reduce, and to prevent as far as they can, the use of drugs.
So also will the fight against terrorism continue unabated. There are no easy solutions to that scourge of international life either. The struggle will inevitably be long; and it has to be hard and determined. Anyone who witnessed the devastation that was caused last weekend by the blowing up of a hospital in Northern Ireland must wonder how human nature or what human beings can sink to such levels of inhumanity;

219
yet they do. Whether those who carry out such acts obtain pleasure or satisfaction from such achievements, only they can know. One thing is clear: no one person's opinion, or group of persons' opinions, can be so pre-eminently important or right as to justify such distress and wickedness. The Government will continue to defend the rights of individuals to live their lives peaceably and to confront terrorism wherever it is seen, within these shores or beyond them, with all the determination and the authority at their disposal.
However, as life becomes more sophisticated, so crimes change and the nature of crime and of the criminal changes. Like a virus, when you think that you have found a way of dealing with it the wretched thing mutates and new methods of attack have to be found.
We therefore see a remarkable change in crime—a change into areas which were previously unthought of. The theft of antiques is now big business. Ram raiding is no longer a novelty. That is the scenario in which lorries are driven into the windows of shops and the contents loaded onto the lorry before the police arrive. It is now relatively commonplace to hear of the dangerous and perverse practice of young people taking cars and then driving them at high speeds through the streets hoping to earn the admiration of onlookers, yet endangering not only their own lives but those of innocent people in the streets. We witnessed only last week two more young people being killed by such behaviour.
There is no "joy" in that kind of behaviour. It is criminal behaviour, sometimes on the part of the very young. It is not brave, clever, or smart. It is dangerous and sometimes involves manslaughter. It is always detestable and unacceptable and the Government will ensure that legislation is introduced to deal with it.
A worrying feature is that so much of our crime is now committed by young people. The peak age of offending is now 15 to 18. One need only look at a tiny baby to realise how helpless it is and how dependent and reliant he or she is upon others for everything. I sometimes wonder what happens to that innocent child to make it turn to criminality by the age of 15.
There is never a simple answer to deep and philosophical questions. Perhaps there is a danger in trying to find one, but I suggest to your Lordships that home and school are great moulders of opinion and attitude. What happens to a child in the home and in the school bears a great relationship to what that child eventually turns out to be. It is very much like a potter. He starts with a piece of clay. What he does with it—how he twists and moulds it —determines whether the result is a thing of beauty or a disaster. The attitude prevalent in homes and schools can play an important. part, but by no means the whole part, in the prevention of crime and in the prevention of the inadvertent drift into crime.
Broken homes and single-parent families, whatever their cause—sometimes the cause is tragic and sometimes, curiously enough, it can be the result of conscious choice —start off at a disadvantage as they cannot always provide the child with the security, love and inner contentment that should be a natural
220
concomitant of a whole family background; an ingredient that a child absorbs not by being taught about it but more by a process of osmosis.
So, although we all seek solutions or try to provide intellectual answers for the cause of crime, it is the responsibility of all of us, even possibly a result of our actions. What we do—what each individual does—affects other people. Sometimes it determines their future. Much of the responsibility for the cure, as well as the cause, may be found to lie in the atmosphere and attitude of the home. That is why, as a society, we could, and should, do more to nurture and foster the values of the home and family life.
We cannot expect the police to do everything. They are there essentially to catch the criminal. Increasingly, they are involved in crime prevention, but crime prevention requires the involvement of each person. It starts in the mind—"Is what I am doing preventing crime, or is it allowing or even encouraging it?" The Government will continue to give prominence to the tackling of crime and to the support of the police. One of the features of the Citizen's Charter is that the police, like all other public bodies, should be more accountable to and more caring of the public and more "personal" to them.
I never fail to be encouraged by the enthusiasm, stature and quality of our police. Many of the new, young entrants are of high calibre, but, if we expect the police to respect the public—and we do—it is not unreasonable to expect the public to respect the police. After all, the police are only drawn from the public whom they serve.
When things go wrong in the police service—as they have, and as they do in every large organisation from time to time —they must be rooted out. However, the overwhelming majority of the police are public-spirited people who take a pride in their uniforms and have a desire to ensure that law and order prevails for the benefit of the public. They are there to serve the public, but they often have to put up with a less than sympathetic public. They sometimes have to endure missiles, abuse and even the indignity of being spat on. One police officer told me that during the poll tax riots—the Government prefer to call them the community charge disturbances—he was hit by a brick and was taken to an ambulance. The bystanders cheered.
I recently saw two women police constables who had been stabbed in the street. I was told that, when they were lying on the pavement in their distressed state, a bystander —not the one who had perpetrated the act—said, "I hope she dies". One just wonders at that attitude. It is difficult for the police, faced with that kind of provocation, and even antagonism, always to be all sweetness and light. But they must be and they will be because that is their job and their training.
Recently, we have seen much of riots, especially riots in prisons. While your Lordships may have divergent views over the efficacy of prison and prison life, I think that most will subscribe to three propositions. First, some people have to go to prison. Secondly, if they are there, they must be looked after with humanity and be encouraged to lead more useful

221
lives after their release. Thirdly, if they are in prison they must be kept there and required to behave responsibly. The Government will therefore introduce the Prison Security Bill which will create a new offence of prison mutiny.
The disgraceful scenes that were witnessed during the disturbances which took place at Strangeways prison in Manchester and at other prisons in April of last year were condemned on all sides. The new offence will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment and it will clearly mark, for prisoners and for the general public alike, society's disapproval and condemnation of that kind of behaviour. The Bill will also increase to 10 years' imprisonment the maximum penalties which can be applied for the offences of assisting a prisoner to escape and of harbouring an escaped prisoner.
Another part of our national life which is being subjected to enormous and inappropriate pressure at the present time is asylum. The United Kingdom has always had a very generous, even a liberal, attitude to the plight of those who are suffering persecution, or who fear that they will suffer persecution, in another country. In no way will this attitude be diminished. But the fact is that the number of applicants for asylum has risen from 5,000 a year in 1988 to an estimated 46,000 this year. It is a huge increase by any standards and one with which we simply cannot cope.
While we intend to extend every sympathy to those who are genuine refugees, we cannot as a country be expected to react in the same way to those who think that the way of life in the United Kingdom happens to be better or more comfortable than that which pertains in their own country and who are prepared to use the vehicle of asylum as a means of entering this country. The fact is that the system is being misused. Many asylum applicants deliberately destroy their passports. Some make applications in several names. Apart from anything else, these people, who are called "economic migrants"—a fairly graphic description—clog up the whole asylum system for those who are genuine asylum seekers.
The Government will therefore introduce a Bill and other measures to enable asylum applications to be dealt with more quickly and more effectively. The Bill will strengthen the safeguards for genuine refugees but for others will reduce the scope to misuse the asylum process. It will provide power to take fingerprints in order to ensure that people can be properly identified. Every person who is refused asylum will be given the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator, not from abroad but from within this country before he or she is removed from the United Kingdom.
New immigration rules and appeals procedure rules will clarify the circumstances in which asylum will be granted and when it may be refused and will set firm time limits for the resolution of cases. Due to the vast increase in the numbers who have been applying for asylum, the delay in dealing with them has increased substantially. The asylum division of the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office will
222
therefore be strengthened. The result of all this should be a quicker resolution of all applications for asylum. That is our intention.
An important Bill, which will have the benefit of your Lordships' immediate scrutiny, is the Charities Bill. It has always been our intention to reform the law on charities during the lifetime of this Parliament, and now we are putting our proposals to Parliament in the Bill which was introduced in your Lordships' House on Monday of this week. The Bill will implement the proposals set out in the White Paper, Charities: A Framework for the Future, which was published in May 1989. It will complement the important steps which the Charity Commissioners have themselves taken in the past four years to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of their operations.
The proposals in the White Paper met with the broad approval of the charity world, and indeed of your Lordships, and the Bill therefore follows quite closely the proposals contained in the White Paper. The charity world—if one can so call it—is now big business, if one can so call it that as well. There are 170,000 charities. They have a turnover of £17,000 million a year. When one thinks that the output of British agriculture is some £14,000 to £15,000 million and that agriculture is the largest industry in the United Kingdom, one realises that charity, in all its glory, is very big business indeed. Charities cover subjects which range from a few hundred pounds left to the poor of a village in the 17th century to huge national and international schemes which are aimed at a variety of different projects.
The method of giving has dramatically changed with the advent of credit cards and television. It has always surprised me to see the contrast between the difficulty which a local worthy encounters when trying to raise some money for the village church or village hall and the cascade of wealth, if one might borrow such a phrase, which seems to accompany a telethon project where the donor, in this case the viewer, is invited to give, and does give, to something of which he has no intimate knowledge at all.
Clearly, charitable giving must be adequately regulated and protected. It is vital that the public should have confidence in the way in which charities are run. Confidence is a basic ingredient of both the voluntary and the charitable sector. I am glad to say that the Government have no evidence to suggest that abuse in the charitable sector is widespread or that it is increasing. But any level of abuse in the charity world is unacceptable and proper regulation is therefore essential. The Bill, therefore, gives the Charity Commissioners more effective powers to identify and remedy abuse. It is proposed that the commissioners should have powers to obtain information about the administration of individual charities. That will put them in a far better position to identify cases of risk at an early stage and so to stop abuse.
The responsibilities and the duties of trustees are clarified. We have no wish whatever to put unreasonable burdens on trustees; indeed, we applaud the tremendous amount of voluntary effort which is put nationally into the running of charities by trustees.

223
But the office is not symbolic and there are certain responsibilities which inevitably follow from being a trustee. Charitable funds are very much in the public sphere and in the public spotlight, and trustees have to be publicly accountable for their use. The Bill introduces new accounting and audit requirements for charities. Trustees will be required to submit annual accounts and an annual report to the commissioners, and the Bill will ensure that any member of the public can obtain a copy of a charity's accounts. It is proposed also that there should be a degree of regulation over the activities of professional fund raisers in order to ensure that donors have adequate information about where their money will go.
What we have tried to do is achieve the right balance between freedom and accountability. I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views in due course as to whether we have achieved that. I might add that it would be helpful if your Lordships were to think that we had.
There are other matters on social affairs to which Her Majesty's Government have addressed their mind.
The gracious Speech confirmed the Government's intention to improve the overall standard of health of the population. We intend to make further improvements in the quality and choice of care and to maintain a health service which is universally available and which, as has so often been said, will be free at the point of delivery regardless of means other than for where legislation explicitly permits charging. The Government remain committed to a health service which is funded mainly from taxation.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health announced last Wednesday the Patient's Charter. That will give top priority to the needs of patients and their preferences. It is another example of the way in which the Citizen's Charter initiative, which was launched in the summer by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, will work.
In the education field, the Further and High Education Bill will propose reforms of further and higher education. These were set out in White Papers launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 20th May. It is our intention to ensure that high quality further education or training becomes the norm for all 16 and 17 year-olds who can benefit from it; and that universities and polytechnics can compete for students and funds on an equal basis. Colleges of further education and sixth form colleges will be transferred on 1st April 1993 from local authority control to a new further education sector. They will be funded by new further education funding councils for England and for Wales. Colleges will have greater independence and autonomy and their funding will, in part, be determined by the actual number of students recruited in the year in question. That means that they will have a powerful incentive to expand participation.
Another example of the operation of the Citizen's Charter is in the Parent's Charter. In this, the two principal aims of the Government in relation to school education are spelt out. The first is to improve the management and academic standards of schools. The
224
second, which is closely related to the first, is to widen the choice and to improve the partnership between parents and schools.
In Scotland, similar reforms will be achieved by the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill. This will establish boards of management for colleges of further education, which will be funded by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
In Wales the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill will enable the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation to construct a barrage across the estuaries of the rivers Taff and Ely. It is hoped that the erection of the barrage will provide the key to unlocking the potential of the former docklands area of Cardiff.
I have touched upon one or two of what one might describe as the vast panorama of subjects which can be covered by today's debate. My noble friend Lord Henley, I have no doubt, will refer to other matters when he winds up and he will also, no doubt, be able to reply to some—although I doubt whether he will be able to reply to all —of the points which your Lordships may raise.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, first, I echo what the noble Earl said about those in your Lordships' House who moved the Motion for the humble Address. Both speeches were thoroughly enjoyable; I certainly enjoyed them greatly.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Carter, who will wind up the debate from this side of the House, will deal with issues concerning health and social security. I hope that noble Lords will therefore forgive me if I do not comment on the reforms of the National Health Service in the course of my speech.
I welcomed some of the noble Earl's remarks. Of course home and school are extraordinarily important influences. I do not believe that anyone can conceivably deny that. However, a person's life does not stop when he leaves school. Just as important, surely, are the opportunities for a young person to obtain gainful employment and access to industrial training. I shall say a few words at the end of my speech on that. However, I would not wish the House to believe that we share what appears to be the Government's view: that if only the home is right, and if only the school is right, then that will have an enormous impact on the crime figures.
It is inevitable in discussing the gracious Speech that the debate will be somewhat diffuse. There are difficult and differing issues which are dealt with in diverse ways. Therefore discerning a clear theme in the Government's approach is sometimes somewhat difficult. However, when one considers the Home Office aspects of a gracious Speech usually some strands of coherent thinking appear. In most parts of the gracious Speech relating to Home Office affairs one can discern some logical and coherent framework into which the various legislative proposals fit. I am bound to say that in this gracious Speech and in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I found none of that coherence and none of the framework that I believe the House and the country are entitled to expect.

225
With respect to Home Office affairs the Government have almost elevated "ad hoc-ery" to a principle of government. Dealing with some of the causes of crime, and indeed with specific crimes, is no excuse for fitting that into some coherent social framework. I looked for coherence. Was this to be the year for additional protection of citizens' rights? I do not find that in the gracious Speech. I certainly do not find it in the Asylum Bill to which I shall refer. Is this the Session in which law and order is to be rigorously enforced? There is little reference here except for the new offence of prison mutiny to which again I shall revert. It is certainly not the year in which social cohesion appears to be the impetus behind government thinking. On the contrary, put against the background of the Government's other measures—notably their policies towards local authority expenditure—cohesion seems to be the last issue with which they are concerned. Yet it should surely be at the forefront of government thinking when one considers the difficult problem of how to prevent crime.
I firmly believe that there is a social element to offending which the Government seem to ignore. Deprivation and crime are surely linked. I do not believe that anyone really doubts that basic proposition. As our society grows less cohesive, as it has done over the past 12 years, we should not be too surprised if the crime figures continue to rise. It was in vain that I looked for some appreciation of that relationship in the gracious Speech and the speech of the Government Minister. It is all rather like Churchill's pudding; there seems to be no theme. The centre seems somewhat unimaginative and although the icing may be superficially attractive, perhaps even lurid in parts, I fear that the whole pudding may in the end prove to be pretty indigestible.
We are told that we are to expect a number of specific proposals for legislation on Home Office affairs. I refer to the Asylum Bill, the Charities Bill, the prison mutiny Bill and a Bill, promised but as yet unrevealed, on what I consider is appallingly called joyriding.
I wish to say a word on the Asylum Bill. The Government announced their intention to change the law on asylum seekers in a Statement on 2nd July. The gracious Speech refers to a Bill,
"to enable applications for asylum in the United Kingdom to be dealt with quickly and effectively".
The reasons for the change, according to the Home Secretary, and echoed today by the noble Earl, are that the number of people seeking asylum in this country has risen sharply from 5,000 a year in 1988 to more than 30,000 a year in 1990. The current rate of application is nearly 1,000 per week.
It is right to say that the Asylum Rights Campaign disputes the argument that those figures demonstrate an abuse of the system. Its argument—and I believe it is an argument that is entitled to be considered with respct—is that the Government's own figures show that nearly 90 per cent. of all those who claim asylum are allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. It is
226
also worth pointing out that the number seeking asylum in Britain is less than in most other western European countries.
The main points of the Government's proposals as I understand them—I am not sure whether I understand them aright, and I shall be grateful for clarification when the Minister winds up the debate —are, first, that the Home Secretary wants to make absolutely clear that the United Kingdom is not normally prepared to entertain claims from in-dividuals who have failed to claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. I understand that that is to be achieved by the Dublin convention on asylum, which was signed last year, and by strengthening procedures at sea ports and airports.
Secondly, there is the measure passed recently by your Lordships' House increasing the immigration carriers' liability from £1,000 to £2,000. Thirdly, the Government say that they will improve document checks at certain overseas airports. Document specialists are to advise airline carriers of the authenticity of documents. Fourthly, there is to be a clampdown on multiple applications with the introduction of fingerprinting tests. Fifthly, there is to be simplification and acceleration of the procedure for handling refugee applications, which is the main target of the Bill.
The Home Secretary referred to 50,000 undecided cases—that may well be true—and a backlog of more than 3,000 cases a month. As I understand it, the average decision time at present is no less than 16 months. If one wished to speed up the procedure one would have thought that the length of time which it takes to make a decision should be receiving more urgent treatment. I understand that extra staff at the immigration department are to be recruited and that the Home Secretary hopes to reduces the average decision time to three months. There is nothing wrong in that.
However, certain aspects of the matter cause us concern. If new procedural rules imposing time limits for submission of material in support of claims are to be introduced, speed should not be at the expense of fairness. If the time limits are over-rigidly imposed, it could lead to inadequate preparation of cases and to poor decisions.
When the Statement was made on these matters earlier this year it was suggested that legal aid should be withdrawn from immigration and asylum cases. The Home Secretary proposed that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service should replace the green form legal aid scheme for providing advice and assistance to applicants. An increase in the grant to the UKIAS was also promised. Is that still government policy? The proposal does not appear in the Bill and the Home Secretary did not refer to the matter in another place. Certainly, the noble Earl did not refer to it today.
I must tell the noble Earl that we on these Benches believe that individuals should have the right to choose which advice to take. That should include the right to consult properly trained solicitors and barristers. In our view it is wrong that the UKIAS should be the sole provider of legal advice. Not only

227
is that wrong in principle and in practice, but there is no network of offices and its staff are not qualified solicitors or barristers.
I also understand that in July the UKIAS refused to comply with the Government's proposals because it had not been consulted. Your Lordships may think it a strange affair that, without bothering to consult the organisation upon which the burden was to be placed, the Home Secretary announced the abolition of legal aid in such cases and said that in future the UKIAS would look after the people involved. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House tonight whether negotiations with the UKIAS are continuing. Is it still the Government's proposal that the organisation should be responsible as the sole provider of legal aid in such cases? We would not be in favour of such a situation.
The noble Earl spoke about speeding up cases. At one stage we were told that there would be a weeding out of the obviously hopeless cases and that they would no longer enter the appeals procedure. I have looked at the Bill, although this is not the opportunity to consider it in detail. However, I understand that the decision upon whether an applicant enters the appeals procedure pipeline will now be taken by the Home Secretary. Surely it is not right that the basic decision on whether anybody has a case after an application for asylum has been made should be taken by the Home Secretary. If one is to have an accelerated procedure of that kind I suggest that such a decision should be taken by someone independent of the Government.
Criticism of the proposals appears to be widespread and increasing. It has come from the Law Society, the Bar Council and the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Indeed, noble Lords may have seen a recent article in the Observer written by Mr. Anthony Scrivener, chairman of the Bar Council. When the Bill comes before the House there will be much to occupy us and we shall look at the proposals most carefully. Statements mouthing sentiments about this country remaining jealous of its tradition of receiving asylum seekers are beginning to look somewhat thin.
I have little to say about the Charities Bill at this stage. In broad terms we welcome and shall support the thrust of the Bill. There are some 76 clauses which no doubt your Lordships will wish to examine in detail. Save for the press there is no subject other than charities upon which there are so many experts in the country. We shall support the Bill in broad terms when it comes to this House. It has been a long time in gestation and we shall scrutinise it with care.
I turn now to the offence of prison mutiny which is likely to carry a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. That follows an announcement made by the Home Secretary on 6th September and a White Paper dealing with prison reform published on 16th September. The response to the proposal for an offence of prison mutiny has been interesting and varied. NACRO stated that the offence would do nothing to reduce the likelihood of prison riots. It pointed out that prisoners involved in violence, damage and disorder can already be charged with a wide range of serious criminal offences. If existing penalties do not work, why should
228
the new offence? NACRO was also worried about the suggestion that resources to repair riot damage must come from existing prison budgets. It fears that that could mean finding money for repairs by reducing regime activities. If that is the case it is a risky strategy because restricted regimes can increase resentment and the chance of further disturbances.
I look forward to seeing the Bill dealing with prison mutiny. As those of us who claim to be lawyers know, the statute book is already pretty full of criminal offences. It appears to me that the new offence is needed only in the case of a mutineer who is non-violent and does not threaten to be violent. There are plenty of crimes for which he can already be charged if he is violent or if he threatens violence. Furthermore, he must not occasion criminal damage in the course of his mutiny and must act alone, otherwise he can be charged with his co-mutineers with an offence of conspiracy.
It is difficult to think of an example of a mutiny for which the offence is needed. The only case that occurs to me is that of a solitary, sit-in protest by one prisoner acting alone, non-violently, in his cell and who breaks no furniture and offers no resistance when removed. That example may just qualify as a situation that the present law does not cover but I do not believe it is precisely the evil that the Government have in mind. We shall consider the Bill carefully and scrutinise its provisions intently lest it be an irrelevance introduced for political purposes by a Home Secretary anxious to pacify his party conference.
I turn to the difficult issues of crime prevention hinted at by the Minister in his speech. I echo the general proposition that it is extremely difficult to prevent the commission of crime. However, one must point out that the most recent crime figures published in September of this year show that recorded crime has more than doubled during the 12 years of this Government. It has risen from 2.2 million in 1979 to a projected 5 million in 1991. That is the steepest rate of increase in history. One must ask why.
Noble Lords will know that the Labour Party has been critical of government thinking on the subject for many years. However, recently it has received powerful backing by a report published quietly—one could say almost clandestinely—by the Home Office in August. It is entitled Safer Communities; The Local Delivery of Crime Prevention Through The Partnership Approach. It was produced by a working group of the Home Office Standing Conference on Crime Prevention under the chairmanship of Mr. James Morgan. The report was released so quietly that few people are aware of its content. The reason is clear: it highlights all the key weaknesses of government thinking to which we have been drawing public attention for some time. The report is independent and perhaps I may quote two or three paragraphs.
If one is to consider objectively the reasons why crimes are committed in this country the report deserves proper consideration. It states:
"It is the view of the Working Group that the social aspects of crime prevention, which seek to reduce those influences which lead to offending behaviour and the fear of crime, need to receive attention at least equal to that given to the

229
situational aspects of crime prevention in which efforts are made to reduce opportunities for crime and 'harden' potential targets for crime".
As regards youth, it states:
"Youth crime prevention is critically important since half of all recorded crime and three-quarters of all recorded burglaries are committed by those who are under 21".
It goes on to state:
"Considering the significant contribution that young people make to the crime problem, both as victims and offenders, the Working Group was surprised by the lack of references to specific strategies for preventing crime by and against young people".
It went on to recommend that local crime prevention work should give particular attention to the issue of young people and crime.
Over the past 12 years government policy has worsened substantially the position of young people in our society. They have had their benefits reduced and as a result there has been a substantial rise in homelessness and deprivation among the very sections of society most prone to criminal activity. Not only that; they have seen their training and employment chances dwindle. It is significant that on the Meadow Wall Estate youth unemployment is no less than 86 per cent.
Youth work has been cut across the country. A forthcoming report by youth workers will show that two-thirds of local education authorities surveyed have cut back youth provision in the past year. Why is that? It is because of the financial squeeze on local authorities and poll tax capping which has taken millions of pounds out of inner city areas causing further impoverishment and decay.
Not only was the Morgan Report concerned with those issues —which we welcome—but it was desperately concerned by what it called a lack of leadership at local level for crime prevention. It stated:
"There is confusion at local level about the various centrally funded schemes as well as concern about potential overlap and duplication of effort. What is clearly perceived at local level"—
I invite the House to note these words—
"is a tendency for government departments to promote ad hoc initiatives, often implemented without proper consultation either with other government departments or with the local authorities".
The report's solution, which we echo, is to give the lead role to local authorities. However, if that is to be done they will require resources.
As I understand it, in Circular 44/90 local authorities were asked what they felt about resources. Not surprisingly the answer was:
"Durable schemes require resources. It is clear from responses … that lack of long term resources was given as the single biggest threat to both the establishment and the survival of partnership".
It went on to recommend that there should be central funding of key activities in a larger number of local authorities.
Government projects in that area are grossly and, indeed, shamefully under resourced. The Safer City programme, which we have heard something about from the Government over the years, provides £250,000 per year for cities the size of Birmingham and Liverpool. That is derisory and is compounded by policies which have actually taken money away from
230
local authorities. As we know, crime is disproportionately concentrated on housing estates. Spending on council housing has declined dramatically during the 1980s. For every one pound spent in 1980, only 33p was spent in 1988. Those are not only Labour Party criticisms but the criticisms of many people who are thoughtful and active in that field. Indeed, they are the criticisms of a Home Office working party.
Those criticisms and putting matters right form a theme which we are disappointed does not appear in the Government's programme, nor does it appear in the gracious Speech. Those criticisms underline the point I made earlier. Merely to deal with the results of crime is no substitute for preventing the crime from taking place. That is the theme which the gracious Speech should have pursued but does not.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him a question about asylum and the question of immigration. This country, probably above all countries, has the great merit of not having had to build walls to keep its people in. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me about that. However, when one looks at the potentialities in the present world and the present exponential increase in world population, mostly of people who cannot look after themselves, does the noble Lord believe that the present Government are unwise in the steps which they are now taking to limit immigration and the movement into this country of those who do not seek asylum but who naturally seek a better standard of life?
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course not. However, the asylum Bill does not deal with immigration; it deals with those people who are in the country or coming to it seeking asylum. Of course we do not favour non-genuine asylum seekers coming to this country. The levels of immigration have been dealt with on a number of occasions. I believe it is right to say that the Labour Party has broadly gone along with the Government's approach on immigration.
However, as regards asylum seekers, we are talking about people who come to this country seeking political asylum because they need refuge from an oppressive regime. We are merely saying that there must be a system which excludes those who are insincere and bogus but which virtually guarantees the inclusion of those who are not bogus but are genuine. The present provisions proposed by the Government make more likely the risk of exclusion of genuine asylum seekers.

Autumn Statement
3.46 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Autumn Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement.

231
"Cabinet agreed the Government's expenditure plans this morning, so I am now able to inform the House of the expected public expenditure outturn for this year; the plans for the next three years; our proposals for national insurance contributions in 1992–93; and my forecast of economic prospects for the year ahead. As usual, the main public expenditure figures, with the full text of the economic forecast, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I sit down. The printed Autumn Statement will be published next Wednesday.
"This year's public expenditure survey has been a difficult one. There is no more challenging task in government than to choose between competing expenditure priorities while keeping public spending as a whole under firm control. But there is also no greater test; and let me at once pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary, who has my shown great skill and judgment in bringing the survey to a successful conclusion.
"Firm control of public spending has been and will remain a key element in this Government's economic policy. From its peak in the early 1980s, we have reduced the ratio of public spending to national income by over five percentage points. This has been achieved by reducing the size of government; by a rigorous search for greater efficiency and value for money; and by prudent management of the public finances which has led to a large saving in debt interest. Over the past decade, this careful and responsible approach has enabled us not only to cut tax rates and reduce public borrowing but also to make substantial and well-targeted spending increases in areas of priority; and it is this approach that will continue to underlie the Government's expenditure plans over the years ahead.
"The prospect now is for renewed economic growth. But the recession has inevitably added to the pressures on public spending both this year and next. I expect public expenditure within the planning total to be almost £205 billion in the current fiscal year, slightly below the revised level I set in the Budget. An increase in programme spending, largely the result of weaker activity, will be offset by additional privatisation proceeds.
"After four successive years of debt repayment, I math clear in the Budget that we would see a return to public sector borrowing this year. I now expect a PSBR in 1991–92 of £10½ billion, about 1¾ per cent. of GDP. Our fiscal position compares well with other Community countries. It remains the Government's policy to balance the budget over the economic cycle.
"Last year we made provision for substantial increases in expenditure over the next few years. So our objective in this year's survey has emphatically not been to make significant across the board additions to existing plans. But I have judged it right lo allow expenditure to rise to meet the unavoidable consequences of weaker economic activity. Our priority has been to meet in full our commitments to the most vulnerable members of society; to maintain the expenditure programmes
232
which contribute most to the long-term strength of the economy; and to improve the quality of public services.
"For next year the planning total has been set at £226.6 billion, some £5.5 billion above the figure published in the FSBR. The planning totals in the two following years have been set at £244.5 billion and £258 billion respectively. The planning total for 1992–93 assumes privatisation proceeds of £8 billion, the same level as we now expect in the current year. For the two following years the level assumed is £5.5 billion, the same as in last year's plans. The new plans also include reserves of £4 billion, £8 billion and £12 billion respectively. These are higher than the corresponding figures in last year's plans but by no more than I judge prudent and realistic. I am determined to contain pressures next year within the reserve.
"Let me now turn to the individual spending programmes: first, health. Once again we have provided for substantial improvements to patient care. Planned NHS spending in the UK in 1992–93 has been increased by £1.5 billion. Additional capital expenditure will enable the health service to make faster progress in upgrading buildings and equipment. Total NHS spending in England will rise by 4.2 per cent. in real terms between this year and next and spending on hospital and community health services will rise by a full 5 per cent.
"These latest increases will bring the total real increase in NHS spending since 1978–79 to well over 50 per cent. In England alone this has funded an increase of 1½ million acute in-patient and day cases a year, with 16,000 more doctors and dentists, 51,000 more nurses and 500 major capital schemes completed. At a time when tough decisions have been necessary across the range of public expenditure programmes we could not have made our commitment to the NHS more clear.
"The investment programmes of British Rail and London Transport amount to more than £2.5 billion next year and will contribute substantially to the efficiency and competitiveness of the economy. But their income from passengers and asset sales has been adversely affected by weak trading conditions. We have therefore provided for increases in finance of over £1.4 billion in 1992–93 to support that investment. Public transport has rightly taken priority within the transport programme and provision for expenditure on roads has been held to its planned level.
"Social security represents over a quarter of all public spending. We have added £4¼ billion to plans in 1992–93. This reflects both higher unemployment and increased take-up of other benefits. In addition to full indexation of benefits, the new plans allow for higher rates of income related benefits for disabled pensioners and those over 80, the Budget increase in child benefit and the two new benefits for disabled people which come into operation next April.
"The July local authority grant settlement made provision for an extra £1.4 billion of central government funding next year to maintain the new

233
balance between local and central funding of local services that I announced in the Budget. The Government are determined that this generous level of support should not be used to fund massive extra spending at the expense of local taxpayers. My right honourable friend the Environment Secretary has made clear that he will be prepared if necessary to make full use of his recently extended powers to cap local authority budgets.
"Approaching half of local authorities' revenue spending is on education. So the settlement should allow for a substantial increase in current spending on schools. Provision for capital work on all maintained schools next year will increase in real terms by 10 per cent. Taken together with lower construction costs, this will allow for a significant increase in school building work.
"Public funding for universities and polytechnics will rise by 4.6 per cent. in real terms next year. This will help finance a further increase in student numbers, enabling one in four of our young people to enter higher education next year compared to one in eight in 1979. By the end of the decade it should be one in three—a remarkable achievement. The proportion of students completing their courses in Britain is one of the highest in the industrialised world, a testimony to the quality of our higher education institutions.
"The science budget, which pays for basic and strategic science carried out by the research councils, will rise by around 3 per cent. in real terms between this year and next. By 1994–95 it will be over 7 per cent. higher than it is now.
"We have made additions of nearly £½ billion to employment spending in Great Britain next year. Overall, publicly funded expenditure on training, enterprise and vocational education will be two and a half times as high in real terms as in 1978–79.
"The plans for defence include an increase of £830 million in 1992–93. They provide for the continuing costs of the Gulf conflict, in particular the replacement of ammunition and equipment. They also meet the transitional costs—redundancy payments and works—needed to implement the new force structure and to secure longer term savings. Full details of the new plans for other programmes are being made available separately.
"We recognise that we cannot expect the private sector to control its costs if the Government do not do the same. So the plans we have made assume further improvements in efficiency and firm downward pressures on pay and other costs across the public sector. That underlies the tight settlements we have made both on programmes and on running costs.
"Reflecting the economic cycle, I expect public spending as a proportion of GDP to rise slightly in 1992–93 before resuming its downward trend. Even at its peak the ratio of public expenditure to national income will be significantly lower than the levels that had to be financed following earlier recessions. That is good news for tax payers present and future and good news for the economy. It is a
234
testimony to this Government's prudent and disciplined approach to the public finances over the last 12 years.
"I now turn to national insurance contributions. As usual, the review this year has taken account of advice from the Government Actuary on the income and expenditure of the National Insurance Fund and of the decisions on benefit rates set out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his statement to the House on 21st October.
"The lower earnings limit at which national insurance contributions begin will rise by £2 a week to £54 in April, while the upper earnings limit for employees' contributions will go up by £15 a week to £405. The contribution rates for both employers and employees will remain the same, and the profits-related contribution rate for the self-employed will also be unchanged.
"Let me now turn to my economic forecast for 1992, which is published today. Developments since the Budget have broadly confirmed the forecast I made in March. Over the past year we have made dramatic progress on inflation. RPI inflation has more than halved, from nearly 11 per cent. a year ago to around 4 per cent. in September. Measures of underlying inflation have fallen too, though less sharply. RPI inflation, excluding mortgage interest payments, is down from 9½ to 5¾ per cent. Producer price inflation, excluding food, drink and tobacco, is down from 6½ per cent. to 4¾ per cent.
"Also encouraging is the evidence of much greater realism in wage settlements. Average earnings growth has fallen from a peak of over 10 per cent. to 7¾ per cent. in August, and those figures almost certainly understate the speed of the turnaround. According to the CBI, settlements in manufacturing industry averaged 5½ per cent. in the third quarter, the lowest figure since the summer of 1987. Unit labour costs in manufacturing have actually fallen over the past three months. All this augurs well for the future and suggests that the British labour market has benefited substantially from our trade union and supply side reforms.
"As special factors drop out of the calculation of the RPI, inflation as measured by the RPI may rise slightly early next year, but it is forecast to fall back to 4 per cent. in the fourth quarter. Underlying inflation will continue to fall. Producer price inflation, excluding food, drink and tobacco, is expected to be 3½ per cent. at the end of 1992, the lowest figure since the 1960s. The increase in the GDP deflator, the widest measure of inflation in the economy, is also expected to fall next year.
"I have never wavered from the view that the defeat of inflation is a necessary condition for economic success. The best performing economies are low inflation economies. Our objective is to match those economies, or better them. Our achievements on inflation are essential steps along the way.
"To achieve that objective we have followed a prudent and cautious monetary policy, whose

235
credibility has been underscored by our firm commitment to the ERM. The success that we have achieved on inflation has allowed me to cut interest rates without jeopardising sterling's position in the ERM. Interest rates have fallen 4½ per cent. since last October, and are now below the average of the past 12 years. Our interest rate differential with Germany is at its lowest for 10 years.
"As inflation and interest rates have fallen it has become increasingly clear that we are emerging from recession. Consumer spending fell in the year to the second quarter of this year, but has been rising slowly in recent months. Service sector output seems to have stabilised in the second quarter and manufacturing output may also now be picking up, though again slowly.
"The monthly rate of increase in unemployment peaked in March and is likely to moderate further in the next few months as recovery gets under way. Consumer confidence has increased throughout this year as mortgage rates and inflation have come down, and is likely to go on rising as the fear of unemployment begins to abate. I expect to see personal consumption rise by 2½ per cent. in 1992, providing impetus to the recovery.
"As I forecast in the Budget, output is likely to fall by about 2 per cent. this year. But this fall is now behind us; the economy may already have started to pick up. I expect GDP to rise ¾ per cent. in this half year.
"With consumer spending expected to go on rising, an end to the business investment recession in sight, and the run down in stocks likely to slow, I expect GDP to rise by 2¼ per cent. next year. Growth will gather pace through the year. The increase in output from the second half of this year to the second half of next is expected to be 2¾ per cent.
"The performance of our exporters this year has been remarkable. Our exports of manufactures have shown renewed vigour; up 5 per cent. in volume terms over the past year. Our volume share of world trade in manufactures looks as though it may rise again in 1991, for the third year running.
"The current account deficit in the first nine months of this year was under £5 billion. For the year as a whole, we are on track for a deficit of about £6½ billion, or 1 per cent. of GDP; half the size of the deficit in 1990 and closely in line with my Budget forecast.
"Some rise in the current account deficit is to be expected at this stage of the cycle, though I expect the rise to be moderated by a continued good performance on exports. The current account deficit is forecast to be £9½ billion, or 1½ per cent. of GDP, in 1992. With prudent financial policies in place I foresee no difficulty in financing it.
"Turning to companies, business investment has fallen over the past year. That is never welcome. But it must be set in the context of the boom in the late 1980s. Investment rose by 45 per cent. in the three years to 1989 and was at a record level in the first half of 1990. Even now, after the fall over the past year, business investment is nearly 40 per cent.
236
higher than in the first half of 1979. And the share of the country's resources going into investment remains higher than at any point in the 1970s.
"Investment usually lags the cycle in total activity. But it is likely to rise from about the middle of next year as profitability recovers, company finances improve and the general pick up in activity gathers pace.
"The past few months have seen a surge in business optimism in nearly every sector, nearly every region; in businesses large and small. The October CBI survey was just the latest, but the most authoritative, of a whole succession of recent surveys to confirm that. Business confidence is at its highest level for three years. Output expectations are up, investment expectations have improved and export optimism is rising. That gives powerful support to our view of the recovery.
"Mr. Speaker, the spending plans I have announced not only honour our commitments in full; they also provide substantial additional resources for health, public transport, and education. Once again we have demonstrated that there is no inconsistency between prudent fiscal and monetary policies and high quality, well-funded public services.
"These are the policies that have allowed us to reduce inflation and to cut interest rates. They are the policies that have enabled us to increase spending on the health service by over half since 1978–79, to help the most vulnerable, and to invest in the young people who are Britain's future. And they are the policies which are leading Britain to a sustained, non-inflationary recovery. I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reading the Statement of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that parts of the Statement have been leaked, but I do not see any reason to fuss about that. Indeed, it would be more desirable for the whole document to be published a day or so earlier so that we could respond to it in a more prepared fashion. For years I have also held the view that we should publish our expenditure and tax plans at the same time. That is a view which is gaining increasing support across the party spectrum. It is absurd that today we consider expenditure and then we have to wait until March or April before we can consider how it is going to be paid for. Households which did their budgeting in that way would be regarded as profligate. It is about time that governments—I do not simply mean this Government—approached their budgeting in a more rational way.
As regards the expenditure plans themselves, we have the usual problem of interpreting the Government's words and actions. On the one hand, their ideological doctrine causes them to say that public expenditure is a bad thing. On the other hand, and for obvious reasons which are not entirely independent of the date of the general election, the Government boast about expenditure increases. In

237
that connection there is no bigger contradiction in the present Statement than that shown between their expenditure plans and the promises made by, among others, the Prime Minister himself, of tax cuts and the commitment to a balanced budget, albeit over the cycle.
If their tax cut pledge is to be taken seriously either the Government's expenditure plans will be reversed in the unlikely event of them being returned to power, or we shall be on course for yet another deficit financed inflationary boost generated by the Government to be followed by a recession similar to the one that we have recently experienced or, in fact, which we are continuing to experience.
I now turn to the detail, to ask some questions and comment about it as well as I can. I start with the public sector borrowing requirement for 1991–92. Can the noble Lord confirm that the figure he mentioned is net of privatisation proceeds? I may have missed it somewhere in the Statement, but am I right in saying that there is no statement about public sector borrowing for the fiscal year 1992–93? I have read through the Statement and listened as carefully as I can, but I cannot find any statement about the expected public sector borrowing in that year. If that is the case, then my remarks about irrational budgeting and profligacy hold a fortiori because one of the most important factors which this Government have emphasised is that we should know what are the borrowing consequences of our actions. I ask the Minister whether there is a statement somewhere that I have missed as regards the public sector borrowing requirement for 1992–93.
There is a reference to the national insurance contributions. Again, I may have missed it, but I have not noticed anything about the expected level of unemployment which the Government expect in the coming year. Essentially, public expenditure will depend to a very large extent on the level of unemployment and how much will be paid out in benefits. Can the noble Lord tell us what the Government actuary is assuming about unemployment in the next fiscal year? Is he assuming that there will be unemployment of about 2.5 million? If that is the case, is the noble Lord aware that the direct public expenditure cost of the extra unemployment is around £3 million? There is also a loss of tax receipts of roughly £1.5 billion. In other words, without unemployment, is the noble Lord aware that our fiscal position would be very much better than it is?
May I also ask the noble Lord whether he wishes that this Government had copied the proposal of the Labour Party to get rid of the income limit for National Insurance contributions? That would bring in quite a large amount of additional revenue which would help the public sector borrowing to a considerable extent.
I should now like to ask a question about the figures on the NHS. I found what was said by the noble Lord's right honourable friend very difficult to understand or believe. In paragraph 15 of the Statement he says that the total real increase in NHS spending over the past 12 years or so has been over 50
238
per cent. Is the noble Lord aware that if he looks in the CSO's Blue Book, which gives constant price figures for NHS spending, the increase is nowhere near that figure. I assume that what he is claiming by 50 per cent. is the money deflated by the RPI. Everyone knows that that is the incorrect deflator to get to real terms. The figure in the Blue Book is a good deal less than half that. Is the noble Lord aware therefore that his right honourable friend the Chancellor is rather misleading people in quoting the figure of 50 per cent.? It is a very serious point. One asks a similar question about how the planned increase of £1.5 billion is meant to be interpreted. Is it an actual increase which should be deflated by the prices and costs that the NHS faces? Or is it merely going to be deflated by the RPI, which next year will be unusually—regretfully unusually—low?
I now turn to schools and the figure of £1.4 billion, quoted in paragraph 18 of the Statement. Does that figure include the likely cost of the settlement that the school teachers' pay review body will be recommending to the Government in the coming year? Is the Minister aware that if the settlement is at all generous—in other words, if it leads to school teachers being paid anything like what they deserve—an enormous fraction of that £1.4 billion will be used up just for that purpose? There will be virtually nothing left over for any real increase.
I turn next to public funding for universities and polytechnics. I declare my usual interest in that I still have a modicum of income arising from that source. May I inquire whether the figure of 4.6 per cent. increase in real terms for higher education includes anything that will get university professors' salaries back to something like the level at which they should be? I should perhaps add that the pay of junior staff is also dear to my heart. Has any sum been allowed for that?
Why are the figures for defence not quoted in real terms? Why are they just in money terms? Noble Lords will be aware that real terms expenditure on defence actually peaked some six or seven years ago. One of the oddities is that the row about defence cuts seems to be taking place now. Defence cuts have been pursued by this Government for the past five or six years in real terms. Is that figure meant to be a real terms figure or a nominal terms figure?
Turning to the economy generally, I was going to attack the Government in terms of their forecasting. Then I looked up my own forecasts at this time last year and found that mine were at least as erroneous as the Government's. I have therefore decided not to attack the Government for forecasting errors. However, I have two or three questions. First, how confident are the Government about the alleged rate of growth of the economy next year? Their figures seem rather at the optimistic end of the spectrum compared with those of the average forecaster or indeed most forecasters. Will the noble Lord tell us anything about that? It looks ultra-optimistic to me. I notice that the noble Lord says in paragraph 41 that a rise in current account deficit is to be expected at this stage of the cycle. Will the noble Lord tell us why an

239
increase is to be expected? Surely if we have export-led growth a decrease in the current account deficit would be expected.
Next, I should like to ask about business optimism and take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the one original contribution he has made to economics in his life. He has invented the concept—which I am sure the rest of us will use from now on—of seasonal adjusted optimism. I am already thinking of setting an exam question on, "What is seasonal adjusted optimism, and what use is it in analysing economic policy?" However, there is a serious point here. Has the noble Lord noticed a very definite difference between the response of businessmen when asked about their expectations—I agree that the CBI survey shows that businessmen are more optimistic—and their response when asked about what is going on at the moment? It is an extraordinary contrast. All their answers remain deeply pessimistic. That is one reason why I think the Government ought not to be too confident that the upturn is yet taking place.
Noble Lords may not be aware that in the Statement there are words that are not read out, namely, the sub-headings. The last sub-heading is "Peroration". I therefore come to my peroration, which is very short and very simple. The whole Statement is a complete irrelevance because there will be a different government sitting on those Benches by the time these expenditure plans come to force. There will be quite different plans for expenditure, taxation and economic policy and those will be the ones that influence the economy in years to come.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord for reading the Statement. I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in saying that our rather exceptional practice in this country of considering expenditure estimates six months in advance of revenue estimates makes it very difficult to reach a considered judgment. I hope very much that any future government will take that advice on board and that we shall be able to see the whole thing in the round.
What is particularly difficult for us to see and to give a judgment upon is what will be the impact of the Government's plans on the PSBR? The PSBR is a crucial figure. From that will result the ways in which the Government intend to raise revenue to keep government borrowing under control. The Government have estimated that the PSBR for this year will be just over £10 billion. There are external independent estimates that the PSBR for next year, on the forecast of the Government's expenditures—which have now been revealed to us—could be as much as £20 billion. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell us whether that is anywhere near the truth or not. If it is, what impact would that have on their revenue plans? How would they raise this very large amount of additional money to meet these expenditure estimates?
As to the expenditure estimates themselves, I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that the impact of recession has been that
240
there has to be more public expenditure. They have chosen the three sectors in which we have all been emphasising that additional expenditure is required, namely, health, transport and education. The real problem is whether these levels of expenditure can be sustained in the future.
Here I come to the forecasts. I did not join the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in making any forecasts about what the growth might be for this year. However, I recall that in last year's Autumn Statement the Government forecast that the growth for 1991 would be up by 0.5 per cent. It is perfectly true that in the subsequent budget some six months later they estimated that it would be minus 2 per cent., which is more or less what it has turned out to be. However, as expenditure estimates are based on the forecast contained in the expenditure statement it raises the whole question of the validity of these estimates.
For the year 1992–93 the Government have estimated that the growth will be 2.25 per cent. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that that seems a little on the high side judged by a number of independent estimates which consider that it might be somewhat below 2 per cent. If it were to turn out to be somewhat below 2 per cent., what impact would that have on the Government's plans? Notoriously, these autumn forecasts turn out to be wrong and are corrected in the Budget Statement. However, we are by then committed to the expenditures. That makes the whole exercise a little difficult. I should like to raise the whole question of the validity of the forward estimates. If they turn out to be over optimistic, how can the expenditure estimates be corrected; or will that in turn mean that new and additional revenue sources will have to be looked for?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, for their reception of my right honourable friend's Statement. Both noble Lords asked a number of reasonably detailed questions to which I shall do my best to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, started by saying that the Government had an ideological difficulty with a Statement such as this in that it sets out an increase in public expenditure as against our aim of reducing public expenditure. We have always found room for increases in public expenditure in the sectors which we believe to be most important. Those sectors are again today benefiting from those increases. I refer to health, transport and education. We have no difficulty with that.
As the Statement makes clear, our aim is to have a balanced budget over the cycle. We have had a few years recently when we have made substantial public sector debt repayment. Now we are looking for a public sector borrowing requirement in the next few years. In the past few years we have managed to make substantial tax cuts at the same time as having paid back debt and having made substantial increases in investment in the sectors which I have outlined. That is a very satisfactory situation.
The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, referred to the public sector borrowing requirement for this year and for next year. For this year, 1991–92, the figures are net of privatisation proceeds. If that

241
was not made clear in the Statement, I apologise. As usual we do not make a forecast for the PSBR in 1992–93 in the Autumn Statement. It is normally done and will be done again in the FSBR in 1992. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked about the impact on spending of the 1992–93 PSBR. The Autumn Statement does not forecast the 1993 PSBR. We will have to wait for the Budget Statement next year. The working assumption made for PSBR in 1992–93—of 3 per cent. of GDP—is purely illustrative. It is based on standard tax assumptions and new public expenditure plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the increase in health spending and how that was calculated. The real increase in health spending is calculated, as the CSO estimates, by the GDP deflator. The noble Lord also asked about the forecast for unemployment. We do not make forecasts for unemployment. It is impossible to be precise. The estimates give effect to an additional £45 million of expenditure in this area. The assumption for 1991–92 of 2.35 million for Great Britain is not a forecast but merely an assumption for planning purposes. That is the standard way of dealing with the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the upper limit of National Insurance contributions and advised me to follow the Labour Party's proposals. I have to disappoint him and say that we do not intend to increase the upper earnings limit. It is the maximum permitted by statute, which is seven and a half times the lower expenditure earnings limit. Abolishing the upper limit would increase NICs paid by more than 3 million employees and would add to SERPS entitlement for those earning above present UEL and so increase future public expenditure on SERPS.
The noble Lord asked whether defence expenditure is to be increased in real terms. After allowing for Gulf related and redundancy costs there will be an underlying fall of 6 per cent. in defence spending during the survey period. The noble Lord asked how confident I was in the growth forecast for 1992 and wondered whether it was not too optimistic. The forecast is only ever a central estimate but events since the Budget confirm that forecast. We have every reason to believe that this one is just as soundly based.
The noble Lord criticised the use of the word "confidence". I would say that the business community itself repeatedly says that confidence is the key ingredient to recovery. But it is not only that which gives us evidence that the recovery is under way. Retail sales, manufacturing output, export volumes and car registrations are all higher in the latest three months compared with the previous three months and imports of capital goods and raw materials are rising. That answers the noble Lord's question about the balance of payments forecast. At this stage of the cycle, where there is expectation of recovery, there is the likelihood of some growth in imports—hence some worsening of the balance of payments despite the additional strength of exports to which the Statement referred. The forecasts, as always, are our best estimates. No forecast is perfect, but we always publish errors made in past forecasts.
242
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about school teachers' pay. So far as I am aware, the figures I have given include estimates for pay. If I am not right on that I shall certainly come back to the noble Lord. Whether that includes a figure for professors' salaries, which would suit the noble Lord and to which he would look forward, I cannot answer because I do not know what the noble Lord would like to receive. I hope that I have responded to most of the points raised.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for reading this immensely important Statement. It seemed to me basically a very cheering one. It seemed to express that kind of modest confidence which is the right attitude for the Government to adopt at this moment. I wonder whether my noble friend can indicate how the general outlook as he described it compares with that in certain other countries, especially the major countries of the EC. Does it give an indication of developments which are better or not so good?
I was glad that my noble friend so emphatically rejected the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the rate of National Insurance contributions on higher earnings should be raised to a higher limit. The limit is already too high and constitutes an additional tax on reasonably high earnings. To move it even further up would be a retrograde measure which I am delighted to see the Government have decided not to adopt.
Finally, can my noble friend say a word about the Government's attitude towards pay claims in the public sector? Some of us believe that, with inflation falling and, on the other hand, the need to maintain strict discipline, pay increases in the public sector should be very limited in amount and that, if exceptions to that proposal are to be made, they should be made on only the strongest possible grounds. Some indication by the Government of their attitude generally to pay demands would be extremely helpful. However, I do not know whether my noble friend can also help your Lordships in that way.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his remarks. I too believe, as he said, that it is a cheering Statement. We have seen a continuation of prudent expansion in public expenditure in the key areas where it is necessary, including the National Health Service. It also forecasts modest confidence, as my noble friend said, in the prospect of better times to come.
So far as concerns comparisons with our main competitors, certainly one need only look at the inflation figures to see how closely we are now coming into line with our European partners. In fact, we may even find ourselves shortly with an inflation rate which is below that of Germany. If that happens, I believe that it will be the first time—I stand to be corrected on this if I am wrong—in 25 years. That is not necessarily something to be proud of, but it is at least an indication that we are going in the right direction.

243
My noble friend is quite right, as I said, about our not wishing to increase the upper earnings limit of national insurance contributions. I know that that is the stated policy of noble Lords opposite. But, in effect, it is an increase in tax. There is no point in pretending that it is anything else. We might as well call it that. Whatever the noble Lord likes to call it, it is an increase in taxation and should be seen by those who earn as being just that. One might as well put it on income tax for all the difference it makes.
As regards pay claims in the public sector, with inflation falling, as my noble friend said, I hope that they will be limited and that they will certainly not be more than what can be afforded by the various enterprises concerned. I also hope that there will always be room for increases in pay related to increases in productivity. That is an incentive which is obviously most welcome. But in general terms, with inflation falling as it is at present, pay claims should—as, indeed, they have in the private sector—become very much lower.
Lord Desai: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston has already said that we should have a more rational way of considering expenditure together with revenue estimates, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, agreed with him. I believe that one further reform is needed. The way we account for the public sector borrowing requirement lacks some reason. We should have separate treatment of revenue and capital items in our Budget because we frequently mix them up. The treatment of privatisation proceedings has been taken off the PSBR. That has caused the delusion that we have more money than is in fact the case. I welcome the Government's decision to have a balanced budget over the cycle. But one would like to see a balanced budget over the cycle without the addition of the privatisation proceedings, because that only confuses capital and revenue items.
I move on now to the estimates of the forecasts for GDP growth next year. We have already heard the noble Lord's remark that it may be somewhat optimistic. But while it may be optimistic, and assuming that that optimism will be realised, let us add that what is projected is an inadequate rate of growth for an economy recovering from a deep recession. An economy which has a deep recession ought to be recovering at a much higher rate of growth before it catches up with the trend rate of growth, which is about 2.75 per cent. If, out of recession, we can only hope for 2 per cent. or 2.75 per cent., that means that we have not really cured the recession as thoroughly as we would have liked. I wonder whether the noble Lord can enlighten us as to whether there are any other policies up the Government's sleeve that we shall see within the next six months which might accelerate the rate of growth in the economy. I am sure that that would be welcomed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, added to what the noble Lords, Lord Peston aid Lord Ezra, said; namely, that this expenditure should be considered at the same time as the Budget. I do not intend to go into that argument because it is not something for discussion today. I am
244
merely trying to bring the good news on the expenditure front to your Lordships. The noble Lord suggested that revenue and capital items in the expenditure process, or indeed in the PSBR if that is the case, should be separated. That argument has been going on for a long time. However, if one is in the red, so to speak—in other words, if there is a public sector borrowing requirement—and one goes along to one's bank manager and asks for an increase in one's overdraft, he does not actually distinguish what you are going to spend it on. One is still spending more than one is earning.
I believe the noble Lord suggested that I said that the GDP growth estimates were on the optimistic side. I do not think I said that. It was a suggestion made by other noble Lords. I do not want the House to think that I said it, because I did not. I do not want there to be any confusion on the matter.
So far as concerns the growth figures, I see no reason for assuming that the estimates we have given are not good ones. Growth should be back to trend by the middle of next year. There should be scope for above-trend growth for a while without impairing progress on inflation. We have to hear in mind the fact that the prime concern is not to allow inflation to rise again.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have a few short questions for the Minister. He referred to the return of confidence in industry and indeed he forecast an increase in activity next year. But would he not agree that one of the things industry wants is lower interest rates? As he confirmed earlier today, real interest rates are at a record level. Can the Minister say, first, whether it is the Government's intention to bring interest rates very quickly below their present level? I believe that we are entitled to an answer to that question.
Secondly, is it the Government's intention to give some guidance not only on public sector wages but also on private sector wages and salaries? Would it not be in the Government's interest, if they want to create a consumer boom before the general election, to allow and indeed encourage wages to increase rather more than the retail price index? Then people could perhaps recoup some of the losses which they have incurred during the past two years of disastrous management of this country's economy by the present Government. He should give them some sort of encouragement before the election, but is he going to do so?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords; most certainly not. Of course we should like to see lower interest rates. As I said during Question Time today, we shall reduce interest rates when it is prudent to do so—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That was last week!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is today as well. Interest rates will be maintained at the level which is necessary to keep sterling within its ERM bands and which will enable them to continue to bear down on inflation.
On wages, outside the public sector obviously wages are a matter for private companies and their

245
shareholders. They should not need to pay increases greater than can be justified by increases in productivity or general improvements in the trading affairs of a business. They should certainly not pay more than it is prudent to pay. I would not recommend companies to increase wages more than the RPI in order to engineer some pre-election consumer boom, as the noble Lord suggested. Contrary to some of the policies coming from the Benches opposite, we do not look to the short term, we are considering the long term and looking for increased sustainable growth in the economy. We are not looking for short-term political benefit, as I suspect some of the policies we hear of from the party opposite do.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the growth rate which he has forecast for the coming year, together with accumulated growth rates—some negative—for the past three years means that the average growth for this country over four years is 1.5 per cent. per annum? That is the most dismal record of growth over any four years since the war. I wonder whether he is satisfied with it.
Would the noble Lord like to correct what he said about taxation? I am sure it was a slip but one which we have heard before. It was that taxation has fallen under this Government. Does he agree that, following the redistribution between direct and indirect tax, the tax burden has risen? The Minister mentioned the unemployment assumptions. Were they not rather low? Is he aware that the unemployment assumptions that he mentioned are about half a million below the average City forecast?
Finally, I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when he praised the modest confidence of the document. Perhaps I may recall the comment made by Clement Attlee about one of his ministerial colleagues that he had much to be modest about.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, all I can say on growth is that it is true that for about the past year it has not been as high as one would have hoped. However, over the period it has been remarkably good and better than that of many of our competitors. The average growth of GDP from 1979 to 1991 has been 1.7 per cent., whereas in the period of the last Labour Government it was only 1.2 per cent. That is certainly an improvement.
The rate of taxation has fallen. If I said anything other than that, then I correct myself. As everyone knows, income tax has fallen during the period of this Government from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent. VAT went up in the first year or so but there was still a lowering of taxation.
I can add nothing to what I said at the beginning on unemployment figures in answer to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra. We do not forecast unemployment, the assumptions are made in the figures.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
4.43 p.m.
Debate on the Address resumed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, we very much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in a few moments. I propose to divide what I have to say into two parts. First, I shall deal with the contents of the gracious Speech as they affect the areas of policy for which the Home Office is responsible. Secondly, I shall turn to a number of important matters which are not in the gracious Speech but which have to be addressed by Parliament with some degree of urgency as soon as the forthcoming general election is over.
First, under the matters which were in the gracious Speech, I turn to the charities Bill. I welcome unreservedly the fact that the Bill will be introduced in this House, and the Government deserve credit for having found time for it. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, agrees that this concludes a long campaign which has been waged by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, to have the matter dealt with in this House as soon as possible. We welcome the opportunity of discussing it very soon. The issues in the Bill are important as they deal with the risk of fraud in charities. The noble Earl was quite right; there are not many occasions where we have problems of this character, but nevertheless it is right that the Bill should be introduced here. I look forward to discussing it and hope that it will pass through this House quickly so that there is some prospect of putting it on the statute book before the general election.
I turn now to the Bill dealing with prison mutiny to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred and the other element within the Bill of increasing the maximum penalty for aiding prisoners to escape. I do not wish to express any views on the Bill as it has not been published. However, I am bound to remind the noble Earl that there was no recommendation on these matters by Lord Justice Woolf who conducted a detailed inquiry into the disturbances at Strangeways and a number of other Prison Department establishments.
Although I do not wish to criticise the Bill before it is published, I repeat the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that a whole range of penalties is available for people who are involved in acts of violence in prison. Criminal damage has been referred to but on certain occasions there could also be charges of grievous bodily harm. I therefore find it a little odd that we are to have the Bill at all. No doubt the noble Earl will be able to reassure us of the merits of the proposal when it comes before us.
Then there is the curious episode of the Bill on joyriders. I do not like the term "joyriders". As the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, observed, it is a singularly inappropriate way of describing people committing serious criminal offences. I can understand the circumstances which caused the Government to examine the matter. According to The

247
Times of 10th October 1991 at the Conservative Party Conference the Home Secretary referred to it. The article stated that:
"A new offence to combat joyriding was announced by Kenneth Baker yesterday as he tried to reassure the conference that the government was committed to tough law and order policies".
If that is the intention of the Government, I find it a little odd that proposals did not appear in the gracious Speech. What happened was that following the publication of the gracious Speech a number of tabloid newspapers, and politicians, criticised the Home Secretary for not having put a Bill in the gracious Speech. Next, we were told that although it was not in the gracious Speech we would still have the Bill. The additional comment was made that the Government hoped that they would receive the co-operation of the Opposition in putting the Bill on to the statute book.
I wish to make two comments about that. First, I recognise that large numbers of people are rightly disturbed about what happened in Newcastle, Oxford and Merseyside, particularly the tragic deaths of three people within the past few weeks. I find it unattractive that the business of joyriding has now become a spectator sport with large numbers of people turning up to watch young hooligans who have stolen cars driving them through built-up areas.
However, should this require new legislation? That is the point to which we must direct our attention. After all, a person who causes death in the circumstances I have described can be charged with the offence of manslaughter. There are many other criminal penalties available for dealing with the problem under the various provisions of the road traffic Acts.
Perhaps it is proposed that there should be prolonged periods of disqualification—as has been suggested in the press—with additional penalties of disqualification for children aged 13, 14 and 15 who are involved. The period of disqualification would begin, it is said, at their eighteenth birthday. All I can say to the noble Earl is that the Government are being amazingly optimistic if they take the view that that will cut down the commission of offences of this character. However, we are awaiting the publication of that Bill and we shall debate it on its merits.
As regards the co-operation of the Opposition, certainly in this House there has never been a policy of trying to obstruct the passage of government Bills. It would be quite inappropriate for the House of Lords to attempt to do so. However, as the noble Lords the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are present I wish to remind the House of what happened when the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Bill was being discussed in July 1985. It was proposed by the then Government Chief Whip that we should proceed with all the stages of that Bill in a single day. If that is what is meant by co-operation from the Opposition I must tell the noble Lords concerned that there is absolutely no question of us agreeing to any such procedure. If we are talking about introducing new criminal offences in legislation
248
it is essential that Parliament should have a right to discuss those provisions in detail. I hope that Ministers will take that point into account.
I now turn to the other provision in the gracious Speech that I wish to discuss—the forthcoming Asylum Bill. I accept that there is a serious problem. In my view it is wholly foolish to pretend that there is no problem as regards significant numbers of people turning up at our sea-ports or airports who are in reality economic migrants. None of us on these Benches would deny the existence of that problem. Nevertheless, I find a number of the provisions of this Bill profoundly unsatisfactory. The fast track procedure causes me considerable concern as it gives officials the right to make decisions on some of these matters. The provisions on legal aid are also objectionable.
I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will forgive me for repeating the admirable words he used on a previous occasion. When he was Minister of State in the Home Office he spoke in the House of Commons on the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill, which became an Act in 1987. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, assured the House of Commons that the Bill would be operated "sensibly and reasonably". He stated that in Committee on 26th March 1987 at col. 628 of the Commons Hansard. In the debate that took place in this House 15 days ago, on the final day of the parliamentary Session, I asked whether immigration officers had had the words "sensibly and reasonably" specifically drawn to their attention as regards making a determination on the scale of penalties which were to be imposed on airline and ferry companies that the officials considered were guilty of an offence. As I understood the answer the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, gave on that occasion, the officials had not had their attention drawn specifically to those words. I hope Ministers will recognise that when we debate the Asylum Bill any assurances of a similar character that are given by Ministers will be treated with considerable caution by noble Lords in all parts of the House. We shall want such assurances to be written into the Bill.
I have given the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, notice of my next point. I refer to the two statements made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House on 22nd October in which he, no doubt unwittingly, misled a number of noble Lords. During that debate I and others pointed out that there was no relationship whatever between the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he was Minister of State in the House of Commons with regard to the fines being imposed "sensibly and reasonably" on airlines and ferry companies and the events that occurred after the passage of the 1987 Act. As I said in our debate in October, under the terms of the 1987 Act the airlines and ferry companies concerned could, until August of this year, have been fined £1,000 for every passenger they brought to Great Britain who did not have the proper travel documents. After August the fine was increased to £2,000. Our debate of 22nd October was on a prayer to seek to annul that regulation; namely, the increase in the fine from £1,000 to £2,000.

249
I apologise for repeating myself but those noble Lords who were not present during that debate should recognise what is happening. Following the introduction of the 1987 Act airlines and ferry companies have been fined more than £30 million. Despite the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when in the House of Commons, 65 Turks who boarded a British Airways plane in Cairo en route to Lisbon with the objective of changing flights at London airport destroyed their travel documents during the course of the flight and asked for asylum in London. British Airways was consequently fined £65,000. I asked the noble Lord to justify that fine, which was imposed by Home Office officials and not by any form of independent tribunal, but I was not given a reply.
There was the case of the businessman who had to travel to Frankfurt. He had a one-entry visa to enter this country and was subsequently asked by his company to travel to Frankfurt to do business and then return to Britain. The airline that transported him was fined £1,000. Was that businessman an economic migrant or a person seeking political asylum? Of course he was not. He was a businessman trying to do his job. Yet despite the assurances given by Ministers, officials imposed that fine and there was no appeal against it.
Finally, there is the most ludicrous case of all—that of the Nepalese military band. The uniformed Nepalese military band, 16 strong—the members of the band had one-entry visas to the United Kingdom—arrived at Dover hoverport en route to Heathrow. After playing Nepalese military music throughout the United Kingdom they had made the grave error of doing the same thing in France. The company that transported them was fined £32,000. What conceivable justification is there for such foolishness?
I referred to all those cases in our previous debate but I received no coherent explanation as to why, following ministerial assurances, those extraordinary fines were imposed by officials. I said during our previous debate that I had no desire to force a Division on the matter. However, there was considerable strength of feeling in all parts of the House on the matter. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, whether he could give us an assurance that the Long Title of the Asylum Bill—it has now been introduced in the House of Commons—would enable us to reopen discussion on the issues in the 1987 Act. I received what I regarded as a perfectly reasonable and sensible answer from the noble Lord. He said perfectly reasonably that he could not give an undertaking while standing at the Dispatch Box in the House of Lords. However, he added:
"I can repeat what I said before: that I should be very surprised indeed if the scope of the Bill was not wide enough"—
to allow such discussion. He continued:
"I should certainly like to see all these matters ventilated when we come to discuss refugee status".—[Official Report; 22/10/91; col. 1480.]
Following that debate I received a letter from the noble Lord, on Friday of last week. He kindly sent me a copy of the Asylum Bill. However, the letter had the
250
effect of making a material change to the statement the Minister had made in the House of Lords. The Minister's letter dated 1st November stated:
"So far as the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 is concerned the Bill relates only to the treatment of transit passengers and I am not sure that it will necessarily provide an opportunity to deal with the detailed application of the 1987 Act other than in relation to asylum seekers".
He added:
"I hope this goes some way towards clarifying the position".
It certainly clarifies the position, but unhappily it directly contradicted what we understood to be the position when we discussed the Prayer.
I do not propose to say any more about this matter this evening save that, in view of the character of the statement made by the noble Lord, I very much hope that there will be some discussion in the usual channels of this House as to how the matter can now be dealt with. It is highly desirable that the House should have the opportunity to state a clear position on the matter. I am bound to tell the House that if there had been a vote 15 days ago—and I made it clear that that was not my original intention—there is no doubt that, given the strength of feeling expressed on that occasion, the Prayer would have been carried. I repeat that I hope that the usual channels will discuss the matter to see how it can now be dealt with.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He has just told your Lordships that in certain circumstances the Prayer would have been voted on and carried. Is the noble Lord aware that to have voted on that Prayer would have been a breach of what is now the long-established convention that your Lordships' House does not vote on negative instruments?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I should like to deal with that point very directly. If it is the view that this House should not vote on Prayers there should be an amendment of the Parliament Acts.
The situation which confronted us 15 days ago was that a Motion had been put down in the House of Commons, signed by over 100 Members, but no time had been found to debate that Prayer. Therefore, the only occasion on which the Government could be challenged was in the course of our debate. We put down the Prayer on the last day on which it was possible to discuss the matter.
If it is the view of this House that we should not vote on Prayers, in my view the Parliament Acts should make that clear. I do not believe that it is right for this House to take powers away from itself unilaterally. That is all the more so given the fact that the amount of delegated legislation imposed on Parliament by this and preceding governments makes debates of this sort the only occasions on which the Executive can be challenged.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but does the noble Lord appreciate that, whatever the merits of the proposal, there has been a long-established convention? It would be quite wrong to alter it simply as a result of one particular debate. If the noble Lord considers it wrong that we

251
should have abandoned the power to vote on Prayers—and that is an arguable point of view—the matter should be discussed through the usual channels and debated on its merits. It should not be used as an excuse in connection with a particular matter on which the noble Lord feels strongly.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I was not the only noble Lord who felt strongly about the matter. I was joined by a substantial number of Members of the House on the noble Lord's side of the Chamber, including the noble Lord, Lord King, the chairman of British Airways, and a significant number of other noble Lords. However, I repeat that I do not accept that this House is powerless to vote on a Prayer in circumstances such as I have described. If that is the desire there should be some change in the law to remove that power from the House. I do not accept that it is unreasonable to vote in the circumstances I have described.
I turn now to two other important matters which are not referred to in the gracious Speech but which I believe will have to be dealt with by the Home Secretary as a matter of urgency as soon as the new Parliament meets.
First, there are the appalling industrial relations in our prisons. That is a matter which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I have discussed on the Floor of the House, on a number of previous occasions. The problem existed long before the present Government came into office. It has been going on for at least 14 years and arguably a great deal longer. Therefore, I do not propose to try to apportion blame for all the current disputes which are now under way.
There are now no fewer than 82 disputes in 45 prisons in England and Wales. Last year at the same time there were disputes at 33 prisons. In most cases the arguments are about levels of manning. The consequences have been extremely severe. The refusal of some prisons to admit prisoners has led to their already appalling conditions being made still worse. For most of the past three months, and possibly longer, 1,800 prisoners have been held in police cells. Those cells are normally used to hold prisoners for three or four hours, but they are now being used to hold prisoners for weeks. Some prisons have refused to accept a particular named prisoner who they are not prepared to have in their midst. At others prisons—and this is an extremely serious matter—instructions which have been given by assistant governors have been countermanded by their subordinates who are officers of the local branch of the Prison Officers' Association.
I do not believe that we can continue like that. That represents a clear challenge to the authority of managers within the prison service. It also represents a challenge to the Home Secretary, in whichever government he may serve.
I have no desire to urge a policy of calculated confrontation with the Prison Officers' Association but I believe that this situation cannot possibly continue. It has to be dealt with. I welcome the Home Secretary's action at Wakefield prison a few weeks ago. I very much hope that the Prison Officers' Association will realise that if such conduct continues,
252
any government, of whatever political complexion, will have to take decisive action to deal with it. Fourteen years is far too long to allow such behaviour to continue.
The other matter which I should like to mention is the tragi-comedy of the award of licences by the Independent Television Commission, based on the provisions of the Broadcasting Act of which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was such an eloquent supporter when it went through this House. On that occasion the Government chose, both in this House and in the other place, to ignore the views of a very large number of people who were expert in the matter—my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth (a former chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority), the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, and many others on all sides of the House. Now we know the result. The House will recall the deeply pained observations of one of the principal architects of that legislation, Mrs. Thatcher. In her letter, which Mr. Bruce Gyngell, the chairman of TV-am, chose to publish, she said:
"When I see how some of the licences have been awarded I am mystified that you did not receive yours and heartbroken. You of all people have done so much for the whole of television and there seems no attention to that. I am only too painfully aware that I was responsible for the legislation".
Indeed, she was, but quite a few other people were also responsible for that legislation and not all of them were in the Home Office.
We now have a system in independent television which is based on an absurdity. Scottish Television has had its franchise renewed for £2,000 a year. The Midlands franchise, too, has been renewed at a cost of £2,000 a year. Yet Yorkshire Television is paying £37 million a year, and Granada, which is roughly the same size as Yorkshire, obtained its franchise at roughly a quarter of that cost. TVS was wiped out because it bid too much; TV-am was wiped out because it bid too little.
I fear that there will be a damaging effect upon the quality of programmes in the immediate future. Thames, the largest television company in the country, which has lost its licence, is faced with some extremely difficult decisions. Will it continue to make high-quality programmes for the relatively short period ahead of it, or will it stop doing so? Who believes that Yorkshire, with the immense cost of its licence, will be able to make high-cost programmes? That is the price that we pay for ideology. The Government have got themselves into a truly impossible position and I hope that after the general election the Home Secretary will take early action to deal with the matter.
Perhaps I may say this in conclusion. This country used to have an impressive reputation for many things outside our own shores. It used to be regarded as an oasis of peace and tranquillity in a troubled world. Unhappily, that is no longer true. It used to be seen as a nation with many high-quality public services that were the envy of many other countries in Europe and North America. I find it impossible to believe that that is any longer true. Can we say that it is true of our health and education services when compared with

253
those of Germany? I should have thought not. Can we say that it is true of our railway system when compared with that of Germany or France? Can we say that it is true of the London Underground when contrasted with similar operations in Hamburg or Munich? Can we say that it is true of the cleanliness of our streets when compared with those of Paris?
I for one do not mock the ideas behind Mr. Major's Citizen's Charter. We require an immense improvement in the quality of our public and many of our private services, but, unlike him, I do not believe that any of that can be achieved without spending significant sums of public money.
Some noble Lords may have seen a recent television programme on the Fenchurch Street to Southend line which is alleged to be the worst line in the country. I am perfectly prepared to believe that that may be true. Various passengers were asked what they thought of the Citizen's Charter. They were not particularly against it. They were told that they would obtain a refund if the trains were consistently late. They said that, having been hideously delayed on the trains, they supposed that they would then have to queue up to obtain a refund on a daily basis because the trains are late every day. A British Rail spokesman was then asked how British Rail would pay for all the refunds which are made necessary not as a result of its strategies, but as a result of the totally inadequate public investment programme. He replied that it would have to increase the fares.
It is evident that this country faces major economic problems. The Government can alleviate such problems as the Fenchurch Street line and other public services only by pushing through a substantial and sustained national investment programme. Ministers do us an immense disservice when they talk about reducing the standard rate of income tax to 20p in the pound. That guarantees that we shall have a still more rapid deterioration in the quality of many of our public services.
Fifty-four years ago President Roosevelt stood on the steps of the Capitol to make his second inaugural address. He said:
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little".
That test applies just as much in this country today as it did in the United States in 1937—too little not in terms simply of income but of the quality of public services that our people have a right to expect. That is the issue which should preoccupy the next Parliament.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to speak for a few moments about education. It will be for only a few moments. If I cannot contribute much wisdom to the debate, I hope that I can at least contribute brevity.
Over the past five years there have been a substantial number of changes to the educational arrangements of this country—the national curriculum, standard assessment tests, alterations to the government of schools, local management of schools and so on. Most of those changes have been beneficial
254
and I welcome them, but they have taken place in a short space of time and two consequences have flowed from that fact.
First, there has been heavy pressure on teachers and governors and many in the education world are bewildered, if not dismayed. The latest submission by the Secretary of State to the Teachers' Pay Review Body shows a substantial increase in the number of teachers taking retirement either early or on grounds of ill health. That indicates a depressed profession and does not give us secure hope for the future education of our children.
The second consequence is that it is not easy to see an overall vision or overarching policy for the future. Many proposals are put forward by Ministers, but it is not always clear how they relate to one another and whether there is any basic coherence and overall vision against which each proposal can be assessed. It would help to evaluate the proposals, and if possible to work with them, if we could see more clearly what the overall vision and policy is. What kind of education system are we working towards?
One place where Her Majesty's Government have spelt out their intention for schools is in Section 1(2) of the Education Reform Act of 1988 which refers to:
"a balanced and a broadly based curriculum which … promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
That is an admirable statement.
I recognise also that the Government are working for higher standards, wider choice and greater accountability. However, even having said that, do we not need an education policy stated and recognised so that we have coherent criteria against which to evaluate the performance of teachers, the attainment of schools and the purpose of the inspectorate? Without those declared objectives or policies for education, the various reforms seem arbitrary and lacking in coherence and hence there is defensive resistance. There is therefore a need for declared, acknowledged and coherent policies.
Following that, I should like to pursue the reference in the Parent's Charter to the performance tables for local schools. In general, I wish to support the publication of that information. The charter indicates that information will be available about exam and test results, truancy rates and the destination of pupils in further and higher education or in employment. But are those the only things that parents should look for?
In introducing today's debate, the noble Earl rightly drew our attention to the values of home and family life. He went on to refer to the role of schools in preparing young people for adult life. I fully support him in that, but does that not mean that, if we are to publish information about schools and their performance, we should consider including such things as provision for children with special needs, extra-curricular activities, and provision for the physical, spiritual and artistic elements in a child's make-up? Are the schools producing results in those fields? In any case, truancy rates may well tell us more about the attitude of parents than about the educational provision of the school. Examination

255
results are undoubtedly important but education is not just about pumping information into children and examinations are not a failsafe evaluation of ability. We need a broader base against which to measure attainment.
We need that same broader base also for the inspectorate and for teacher assessment. I welcome a fresh look at the inspectorate and I support assessment of teachers, but the evaluation of the performance of schools and teachers must be open to many more factors than are listed in the Parent's Charter.
The inspectorate might well be reformed. At present all is not well. Schools are inspected only at rare intervals and sometimes inspectors have difficulty in appreciating the ethos and purpose of a voluntary school. Opening up the inspectorate could provide a welcome broadening. It would be an improvement if a school, having made its own mission statement, could be assessed by inspectors who understand and appreciate that statement and will evaluate how far the school measures up to its own aims. But if there is to be a more open system of inspection and it is to attract confidence, there will need to be careful authentication of inspectors and some local comparability arranged, I hope, through the local education authority.
I should like to make a special point about church colleges of higher education. Just as we value the Church's partnership with the state in regard to our church schools, so also do we value the partnership in the provision of higher education through our church colleges. In the promising future of expanding higher education which the Government now propose, we want the church colleges to play a full and active part. Therefore I should value an assurance from the Minister that the church colleges will continue to be individually funded by the new higher education funding council. Funding should allow them to expand in line with growing student numbers and to achieve their strategic plans. Those plans have been framed within the Government's policy of diversity and choice. In order to allow the church colleges to grow and develop as an important arm of our higher education system, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the church colleges as competent to grant degrees, diplomas and certificates under Clause 72 of the Further and Higher Education Bill.
Perhaps I may plead with Ministers not further to undermine the role and confidence of local education authorities. I come from a county which has a strong Conservative allegiance. Many in our locality are disturbed and anxious about the potentially divisive consequences of some recent education policies, such as the 16 per cent. additional funding for grant maintained schools. That may be of immediate advantage to grant maintained schools but it puts at risk the local education authority's responsibility for planning and monitoring a system of education which provides high standards for all. That is the aim and concern of the local education authority in the area from which I come. I support its proper and consistent concern for children with special needs, extracurricular activities and good examination results.
256
Local education authorities also have a strong social duty to provide education of a high standard for all and not just for the successful. I hope that Ministers will give us a clearer picture of what they aim to achieve in the field of education and then be ready to discuss with the practitioners, including local education authorities, whether their proposals will in practice achieve the aims set out.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am very happy to follow in my maiden speech the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. It gives me the opportunity to take up some of his remarks.
As I understand it, in the coming Session of Parliament the Government propose to introduce at least two education Bills. I want to confine my remarks to the first Bill, which deals with schools and is designed to give statutory force to the Government's proposals on inspection and parents' rights. The Government propose to replace the local schools' inspectorate with a system of licensed auditing firms. As part of the Parent's Charter, performance tables for all local schools will be published, including examination and national curriculum results, truancy rates and so forth. The intention clearly is to give schools an incentive to raise standards by threatening them with parental sanction in the form of withdrawing pupils. They will thus lose income if they under-perform. The Secretary of State has also proposed internal incentives in the form of performance related pay for teachers. The proposals need to be judged in relation to both the problems which they are designed to overcome and the Government's policy as a whole.
Concern for the quality of state education pre-dates the change of government in 1979. Indeed, it was the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who as Prime Minister started the great educational debate at Ruskin College in 1976 when he called for more rigorous standards, concentration on basic skills, more emphasis on technical and practical subjects and closer monitoring of teachers' performance. More recently there has been widespread concern about the under-skilling of the British workforce in comparison with that of our industrial competitors. There is therefore a wide measure of agreement on the goals of our education system. The disagreements are about how to achieve them.
Most informed people now accept that educational problems are not solved simply by throwing money at them. A recent Brookings Institution report on American schools concluded that money is not what makes some schools more effective than others. Even in regard to the so-called teacher shortages in Britain, shortages in some subjects go with surpluses in others, particularly in administration. Apparently the private sector uses its teachers more efficiently than the public sector. That simply illustrates the rule that in a non-market system under-funding is always in relation to existing practices and not what might be achieved with different practices.
The sources of our relatively poor educational performance lie elsewhere and chiefly, I suggest, in the

257
way in which our school system is organised and the internal practices of many of our schools. There is now strong evidence to show that the speed and inflexibility with which the comprehensive reorganisation was carried out in the 1960s and 1970s dealt a blow to British education from which it started to recover only in the 1980s. It was only in the 1980s that the rate of improvement in the performance of both able and less able children, as measured by tests and examination results, regained the trend that had been established in the 1950s and 1960s under the older system.
It was in those intervening years that the performance gap between us and the Continent of Europe started to open up. That is, after all, not surprising. Schools are organic things. If they are treated as bits of Lego—a piece to be added here and a bit to be lopped off there—one is bound to destroy the ethos on which a school's effectiveness crucially depends. In retrospect, I believe that a slower evolution to a mixed but flexible system would have served the cause of British education much better. What amazes me is that at no point during this transformation did the Department of Education and Science try to monitor the effects of a changeover to a comprehensive school system even though it had the data to do so.
Equally important, the comprehensive schools failed to develop a credible educational philosophy. What happened was the gradual abandonment of differentiation by ability, aptitude and interest within the schools. That of course seemed to be a logical corollary of abandoning selection by school. But the changeover was bound to have a profound and destructive effect on the quality of much teaching, the content of curricula and the testing of performance. It led to the great vogue of mixed ability classes. It precluded the attempt to develop differentiated pathways which might have led to a variety of school-leaving certificates.
I suppose that it was bad luck that the comprehensive reorganisation coincided with the triumph of progressive theories in education. But in a way the two factors complemented each other. Bad theory simply filled the gap left by the assault on traditional standards and practices.
The question which now faces us is whether a system imposed from above can be reformed from above by orders issued by the Secretary of State or whether it can be reformed only from below by opening it up to the pressure of its users; that is, whether one goes for the centralist or the market solution. The Labour Party stands squarely for the former; the Government seem to wobble between the two or, as they would see it, try to get the best of both worlds. They offer parents choice of school but at the same time tell schools what they must do.
It is an extraordinarily difficult problem. There can be no reason in logic why a state system should not provide good education for all its pupils. It does so in other countries. Nor should it be impossible to provide adequate diversity and differentiation within large comprehensives. After all, it was their very size which was supposed to have made that possible. The
258
Americans have started to develop what they call magnets within their high schools in order to differentiate between pupils. Recently Mr. Jack Straw has called attention to the needs of gifted children—the Cinderellas of our school system.
However, my intuition tells me that the centralist solution will not work because there are not enough people in the education establishment who accept the educational philosophy of the Secretary of State or even of his shadow Secretary. He will issue his instructions but they will have to be implemented by people who do not agree with them. Therefore those instructions will be undermined and subverted. Such was the fate of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, when he was Secretary of State; and it has happened to all his successors. I need only cite, as the most recent example, the fiasco that occurred this summer of the tests for seven year-olds.
My fear is that in their attempt to overcome what they see as the obstruction of vested interests, the Government will be drawn into taking more and more power over issues which ought to be outside their control. A market solution would involve making schools responsive not to the wishes of the Secretary of State but to its customers. The practices of the school system in toto would come to reflect the demands placed on it by its users. Under such a system there would be no need for parents' charters, national curricula and the like. The DES could be largely shut down. Its main remaining function would be to send out vouchers to parents. Of course that will not come to pass either. But the educational problem will not go away and sooner or later we shall have to choose which of the two routes we wish to go furthest down.
In the meantime, perhaps I may urge the Secretary of State to rethink his ideas on relating teachers' pay to performance—to which the right reverend Prelate referred —and privatising the inspectorate. We have had some experience of the former in the universities. We know that it is nonsense because of the weight of unmeasurable factors in good teaching and good research. If we wish to vary pay, the only test that I would use is market demand.
With regard to privatising the inspectorate it is surely a confusion of ideas to see regulators as clients of the firms that they regulate. They are there to protect the public interest. That is what the inspectorate is for. It must not be subject to pressure from either the Government or schools. The best way of ensuring that is to make the schools inspectorate a genuinely independent agency for the first time in its history.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it falls to me to express the view of the whole House today in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on a brilliant speech. We are grateful for all that he said, with his deep wisdom and experience, on the education of our children, a subject which we hold very dear. We look forward to hearing him in the future.
The noble Lord is now a Professor of International Studies at Warwick University. I have read a potted

259
version of his achievements. He has written many books, one of which was called The End of the Keynesian Era. It was written in 1977 with Michael Holroyd. He goes to the opera, the ballet and the cinema. He is good at games and plays squash, also with Michael Holroyd. They are obviously very great friends. We are most grateful to the noble Lord. It is difficult not to call him "Professor" but I am sure that he will become used to being called a noble Lord. We welcome him to the House and thank him for his contribution today.
I wish to make three brief points. Due to my very serious accident in the spring I was unable to attend your Lordships' House to take part in the debates on a Bill which I considered one of the most important to be discussed for many a year. I refer to the Children Bill. I was very involved with the issue but, unfortunately because of my accident, only on the sidelines. However, I wish briefly to state that the repercussions of the Act are already very good. For many years I have been worried about the father's position as regards the matrimonial home and the children's upbringing. We now have the Children Act. One father rang me and said, "The laws did not recognise us in so many ways. We are now fathers again and we are thrilled". One organisation is called Families Need Fathers. I agree with that sentiment so much.
Another father rang me and said, "At long last my wife allows me to see the children. She took them over 300 miles away knowing that although the judge gave me access I could never afford to see my children. We are now on a much more even keel". He is now a very proud father. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for raising the issue but it has worried me for a long time.
The vast Charities Bill, with 77 clauses and six schedules, will occupy us for a long time. However, I am grateful to all those in this country who help by organising charities. I have a certain amount to do with that. In this country our people are renowned for showing their concern about various sections of the community at home and abroad by giving as much money as possible. That has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It appears that we shall need a great deal more money to provide more commissioners. They cannot do a thorough job without more money at their disposal.
I turn now to the main point of my remarks and I shall be brief. It relates to law and order. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said what I wanted to say and because it is difficult to cut out most of one's speech I shall repeat his comments. Everyone is worried about the escalation of crimes committed by young people in our cities. I am not talking about the youths who wilfully steal a car and go joyriding. Often because they are under age and have no experience of driving the vehicles crash, with tragic loss of life. I do not add those youngsters to the criminals in my list because their chime is so serious that the police are the best people to catch the ones involved.
My main worry is for the thousands of youngsters who get into trouble because they are bored and say that they have nothing to do. My inquiries have shown
260
that to be true. Although I express a degree of sympathy with them, I believe that we must take more notice of the problem and the gap in their lives. Television is no substitute for action and that is why they go out with friends and form gangs. I want the young people aged between 15 and 18 years to be encouraged to play games and take exercise. The spirit of competition that has recently been lacking in our schools should be renewed.
A great deal is done to teach young people, but if we can get them away from the gangs much more can and should be done. There are hundreds of school playgrounds and hundreds of sports grounds which are owned by companies. The former are rarely used after school and the latter often only at the weekends. The Sports Council has approximately 500 sports development officers who work with the local education authority and local government. They do a good job, but more resources are needed to provide more officers; 500 is nowhere near enough. I cannot help thinking that many retired people of about 50 years of age would welcome the opportunity to train young people. They would need only little encouragement to return to their football boots and training shoes.
I have also been in touch with the British Amateur Athletics Board. It has about 2,000 running clubs and reckons that a quarter of a million members take part in track and field sports. Three quarters of a million members are thought to take part in road running. The board would be keen to encourage young people. Amateur helpers could be recruited to take the lead and give instruction. One of the members of the board told me about the Broadwater Estate disaster in which a policeman was killed. Many young people were part of the hooligan element, but I have been told that many other young people were present in the sports stadium round the corner from the estate to undertake their training that night. They stayed in the stadium although their friends were to a great extent creating mayhem and disaster on the Broadwater Estate.
Parents and schools must be made aware that it is their responsibility to ensure that young people are not bored and do not therefore get into trouble. I hope we can get the message through to people in the inner cities and elsewhere.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, first I must apologise to the House. Owing to domestic needs I may have to catch the train home to Sussex before the end of the debate. I hope that will not be the case but if it is I ask noble Lords to forgive me. It is my pleasure to add my congratulations to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that he made a most impressive maiden speech. He is most able and well informed. It is clear that he knows extremely well what he is talking about and he put across his points admirably. In fact, he is a difficult speaker to follow.
I want to confine my remarks to school education and to concentrate on two aspects of the Parent's

261
Charter—the inspection of schools and the publication of exam results. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the system of school inspection is to be changed. Her Majesty's Inspectorate is to be reduced from 480 members to 175. It will lose most of its traditional functions in inspecting individual schools and advising Ministers. The LEA inspectorate will also be changed in style. Instead, schools will employ commercially run private teams of inspectors including lay members. Schools will be inspected by such teams every four years. The teams are to be accredited by the rump of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, which will monitor their reports and produce nationwide surveys. Schools will be specifically funded to pay for the inspections. Reports will be published and governing bodies will have to report their responses to them. We understand that the objects of the changes are to make inspections more frequent, to bring in outsiders, to give parents a chance to meet the inspectors and to put added pressure on schools to make improvements.
We on these Benches have great misgivings about the plans. Mr. Eric Bolton, the recently retired senior HMI, has said:
"Over 150 years the HMI has been a force for good in education, because it has reported objectively what is actually going on and because it has been a body of men and women who know what they are talking about".
I believe that to be true. The inspectorate is truly a venerable institution; indeed, the great Victorian poet, Matthew Arnold, was one of its earliest members. I do not claim that to be relevant but it raises the inspectorate's stature in my eyes. Throughout all the government-instituted upheavals in the education world during the past few years—some beneficial but many hasty and misdirected—HMI has stood like a rock with admirable objectivity. On several occasions I have thought to myself that, whatever the damage done to the profession by what I might describe as interfering with political motivation, HMI would stand out as truly independent. It is Her Majesty's Inspectorate and not the Government's. Its members are not civil servants and the Secretary of State may not alter their reports. I call that being as truly independent as it can possibly be. On that point I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, whose final words suggested that was far from being the case. I describe the inspectorate's members as being truly independent, thoroughly professional, vastly experienced and free from fear or favour. Yet they are there to advise the Government.
I speak as one who has withstood the rigours of their inspections. I have suffered their strictures as well as sometimes enjoying their praise. I have always found the inspectors to be formidable, perceptive, appreciative, constructive, forward looking and courteous, although I am prepared to admit that, as the right reverend Prelate said, their understanding of the voluntary sector may not be as good as it should be. I have not experienced that.
Much of the inspectorate's work has been of great service to the Government—in particular their annual reports and nationwide surveys on specific aspects of the educational scene. It has given invaluable advice
262
about the national curriculum, about testing and about teacher appraisal. Its reports and surveys were totally objective and on several occasions the Government have found them embarrassing, as, for example, when attention was repeatedly drawn to the need for money to be spent on the repair, restoration and renewal of buildings. However, that was the inspectorate's job.
I understand that the Prime Minister's policy staff, having decided drastically to reduce the number of inspectors, were embarrassed when a confidential Treasury-led inquiry concluded that the 480-strong HMI provided both value for money and an important safeguard of educational standards. That is an interesting example of dogmatic ideology proceeding independently of observed facts. That has been a characteristic of this Government.
What of the system which is to replace HMI? Most of the inspections will be carried out by small private firms. What is to prevent schools hiring the team which they believe will give them the most favourable report? What is to prevent teams giving favourable reports in order to be re-engaged four years' hence? Can a team really castigate a school which has favoured it with its business? On what basis will the fees be charged? Will highest fees mean the most thorough inspection? If so, schools wishing to avoid thorough inspection will not choose the more expensive firms, which should doubly profit them. How can such a scheme work without fear or favour?
How will parents or children be helped by the reports received? What will a bad report do other than undermine the confidence of parents and children in the school of their choice? Will the children be removed and sent elsewhere in the midst of their career? What if schools challenge the credentials of those partly amateur small businesses? What will replace the informed overall HMI surveys, based on first-hand investigation and not on what they will be hearing from private firms, when a service is fragmented among umpteen small inspection teams, especially if the inspection work carried out by the LEA teams is also to be curtailed? Those and many other questions occur to one as the plans of the Government are considered.
We are concerned also about the proposal to publish league tables of the achievements of the schools in every locality, listing examination results, national curriculum test results, truancy rates and university entrants. It should be noted that secondary schools are already required by law to publish their exam results on an individual basis, or rather to have them published by the LEA. Comparative lists in tabular form will be meaningless unless related to the quality of the intake of each school. Schools in well-heeled areas will inevitably always produce better results and lower truancy rates than those in deprived areas. To provide prospective parents with information which somehow harmonises those variables would be difficult and invidious to devise and equally difficult to interpret. Raw statistics are unlikely in any event to add to local perceptions of the quality of schools. It all sounds to me better on paper than it is

263
in reality. Often there is little real choice in, for example, rural areas, where geography and transport are limiting factors.
Are parents really obsessively hooked on academic achievements? Here, I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate, who drew attention to that aspect. How will an adolescent's good manners, good behaviour, capacity for friendship, contribution to the community and achievements in sport and the arts be pigeon-holed? I believe that most parents' choice of school is based on such considerations. One in a position to know, high up in local government and local education, expressed the opinion that in most cases the choice of school is essentially social. Such considerations make the Government's proposals look more like populist gimmickry than serious attempts to address the real corrosive problems of our education system.
I believe that we probably fail many potential high fliers but my anxiety is our failure of the low fliers—the many children for whom school becomes meaningless past the age of 13. It becomes meaningless to them because they are failing. They are not failing because school is meaningless but school becomes meaningless because they are failing. They are failing because the foundations are unsound. They are unsound not because the teachers are incompetent but because the children have encountered difficulty in acquiring basic skills and there have not been enough suitably qualified teachers to help them over the hump.
Dyslexia—the undue difficulty in acquiring full literacy despite average or above average intelligence and adequate teaching—is one of the most obvious obstacles to the normal progress of a child at school. I believe that some degree of dyslexia is much more widespread than has yet been recognised or acknowledged. What happens is that too many of our children leave school half educated—and I am not just thinking of dyslexics—and with poor prospects of employment, a subject referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Those children so often become a menace to society and to themselves. The correlation between crime and low educational achievement is extremely high. I cannot quote statistics and that may be because no survey of the countrywide situation has ever been carried. However, the other day I heard it stated that in a certain city the correlation between crime and a totally inadequate education was 80 per cent.
Unless we can find the funds—and perhaps what we heard earlier this afternoon about expenditure in the coming year may help: we hope so—to pay specialist teachers who will be able to help at an early age the 20 per cent. or more of our children who have special difficulties at school (the SEN children) and unless we see to it that our young males in particular achieve their potential at school, their frustration and low self esteem will continue to be a potent contributory factor to the soaring crime rate which intimidates our citizens and shames our society.
5.58 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too add my warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on his maiden speech. Although I am no educationist, I found it extremely interesting and informative. As I am not an educationist I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and his predecessor along the education road. However, I should like to comment on a number of home affairs matters.
As have many other speakers, I welcome the Charities Bill. We have long awaited a revised system for the regulation and supervision of charities. As a solicitor working quite a lot in that sphere I welcome the legislation. I look forward to a great deal of hard work on it, although as the Minister said, we shall give it a warm welcome and help it through your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may turn to another matter which was not mentioned in the gracious Speech and ask my noble friend the Minister to inquire whether under other measures which are to be brought forward there is any intention of producing a small Bill for bringing up to date the law on friendly societies. In March I asked a similar question. The then Minister of State for Trade and Industry, who has now moved higher up the field, replied that legislation to give effect to those proposals was being prepared and a Bill would be brought forward in a future Session. I anticipate that this may be the last Session of this Parliament and I wonder whether there is any way in which a Bill could be introduced. It should virtually be prepared, whether it be a government Bill or a Private Member's Bill with government help. I hope that the Minister can make some positive noises on that when he replies.
I should like to comment, as did many others, on the question of asylum. We want the law strengthened in that regard. It is a big problem and a number of other issues are connected with it. It is important that the process is speeded up. However, I would plead that it should not be done at the expense of the thoroughness of the investigations that must be carried out or of the care required in making the decisions. People's lives are at stake. While we want efficiency we also want thoroughness to ensure that the right decisions are made.
Also, like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I am worried about the removal of the green form legal aid. People applying for asylum are tremendously in need of help. That includes legal help and not simply help from the Government's advisory service. I hope the Government will reconsider the question of green form legal aid.
I should like to express my appreciation for the commitment in the gracious Speech to quality in all the services to ordinary men and women. It is something which I believe to be valuable and which must be interpreted in practice; it should not simply be a matter of intention. I look forward to seeing how it works in practice.
However, I am acutely disappointed by the omission from the gracious Speech of any measure to reform the law on Sunday trading. Perhaps again I could ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can bring that in under any other measure specified in the

265
Queen's Speech. The Home Office, who have carried out consultations on the matter during the spring and summer, should surely now be in a position to reach a decision on consensus. I speak as chairman of a Keep Sunday Special campaign. Therefore I undoubtedly have an interest in the matter. I am longing to see my noble friend Lord Ferrers bring forward a measure which will have our approval. I shall return to that in a moment.
I now wish to discuss the lack of enforcement of the present law. There is a great threat that a small number of large companies will open illegally in the run-up to Christmas. That shows the crisis on law and order that exists in the country. The Government gave a commitment to maintain law and order in this regard, but at the present time that commitment is suffering. I reiterate how admirable is the Government's policy on the matter and perhaps I can give one or two examples to your Lordships.
The Government's policy is unequivocal on enforcing law and order in that area and they are to be congratulated. I can quote from the Prime Minister of the time that,
"the law must be obeyed until it is changed by Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/84; col. 907.]
That was in response to a question at col. 906 asking the Prime Minister to agree,
"that the traders who opened last Sunday should be roundly condemned for opening illegally? Would it not have been preferable for those traders not to have opened illegally on Sunday but to have left the matter for Parliament to consider and reach a decision?"
The author of the question is now the Minister of State in the Home Office responsible for Sunday trading. Should we therefore expect a commitment from the Government not only to maintain law and order in this field but also to comply with it? We do not like illegal and unfair Sunday trading today any more than we did in 1984.
There are many examples supporting that from the Conservative Party Conference, from the Home Secretary, from the Secretary of State for Employment and from the Prime Minister himself, who said that there was no excuse for any citizen to take it upon himself to ignore or break the law of the land, nor to exploit it.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has reiterated several times on television during the past fortnight that the law must be obeyed. Perhaps I could quote a more up-to-date answer from my noble friend on the Front Bench. In responding to the first Question today, he said:
"in this country we do not have a history of not obeying the law".
Those who were present for the first Question will remember that a wave of ribald laughter went around your Lordships' House on hearing that answer. I believe that it is important that that alleged historical past is confirmed in practice.
Moving on from the Government's rhetoric to the attitude of public companies in this country, I can quote from Sir Simon Hornby, chairman of the W. H. Smith group. At the company's AGM on 16th October he confirmed what he had written in a letter to a shareholder:
266
"As far as breaking the law is concerned. I am afraid that we will have to continue to do so".
That is only one of a number of examples. It seems to me to be a direct challenge to the supremacy and sovereignty of Parliament and should be totally unacceptable to your Lordships.
Perhaps I may now refer to the position of local authorities. As your Lordships will be aware, it is their responsibility under the law to enforce the Shops Act. However, by a combination of recent judicial decisions and government inaction they have been denied the means of enforcing the law; they can no longer do so. I believe that the Government are burying their head in the sand when they take no action and simply say, "Leave the matter to the local authorities". They cannot do that. The Government should honour their pledge to maintain law and order and take the necessary action. It is not good for their image to be seen to take no action on the big businesses which flout the law and the sovereignty of Parliament.
My last point touches on the question of reform of the law of Sunday trading. The Government rightly say that they want a consensus reform on a basis that is workable, enforceable and clearly supported by both Parliament and the country. I believe all noble Lords will endorse that, as I most warmly do. In past debates on the subject noble Lords have spoken of the REST proposals that have been produced as a basis for the reform of the law. During the course of the past six months there has been wide consultation both among Members in another place and with retailers throughout the country. We have found widespread support for reform of the law along the lines of those proposals. The consultations have been carefully recorded and they are available to my noble friend the Minister if he wishes to see them.
In our consultations we have found that the REST proposals are much preferred in the country generally to the so-called limited hours proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Our proposals are also backed by our European Community partners' consensus and by various surveys carried out in Europe both in the Common Market and more widely.
Noble Lords may have read last month about the case of Robert George. He successfully brought his case for wrongful dismissal for being made to work for seven days a week over quite a long period. I believe that the case shows that we need stronger measures to safeguard individual rights of employees. I hope that a Bill can be urgently brought before Parliament during this Session. Only thus can Parliament fulfil the Government's commitment to law and order and quality in the services offered. It would also foster a closer relationship in Europe, a matter which rightly features in the gracious Speech.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as others have done, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on his maiden speech. In a sense, I feel that I am making a maiden speech myself because this is the first time that I have spoken from the Back Benches. It is a

267
special privilege to do so. There have been some suggestions that I am speaking from the Back Benches rather than the Front Bench because of some differences on policy between me and my colleagues on the Front Bench. There is no truth in that at all.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Carter is speaking on health. He will get maximum support from me whenever he wants it, or silence whenever he wants that. I served for eight years on the Front Bench dealing with the subject of health, which is quite a long stint. Some will say that it was too long. That deprived me of the opportunity of taking part in debates on other issues such as those which are the subject of today's debate. They are subjects which deeply concern me. I have a new freedom and I welcome it.
I have a lifetime's commitment to the United Nations, human rights and the cause of refugees. I am chairman of the Asian Committee of the British Refugee Council. Therefore, I wish to concentrate today almost entirely on the Asylum Bill. I warmly support everything said by my noble friend Lord Richard when he was opening the debate for this side of the House. I also greatly welcome what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, as regards the care that we must take in dealing with the Bill. It seems to be designed to limit the rights of refugees or asylum seekers to state their case for refugee status or to be able to stay in this country. That is a very retrograde step. In my view that is not only wrong in principle but unnecessary.
It is a sad fact that there are more and more refugees in the world. There are more today—probably about 18 million—than there have been in our lifetime. The refugee crisis has been a sad feature of the late 20th century. The numbers seem to be increasing in every continent. The asylum seekers are fleeing their homes for the same reasons that they have always done so. It is because of the denial of human rights, of torture, of unjustified arrest and oppression. The overwhelming majority of refugees are accepted by neighbouring countries. The vast majority of the refugees are in the developing countries.
A few weeks ago I was in Pakistan where there are over 3 million refugees from Afghanistan. A quarter of the population of Malawi are refugees from its neighbours. These poor countries provide refuge for millions of arrivals. The effects on local communities, the environment, the infrastructure and the economy are drastic despite such international assistance as we can give. The strain of tens of thousands of refugees on the prosperous countries of Northern Europe is, by contrast, very small indeed. We have heard the present at ion by the Secretary of State and by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. From that one might have assumed that we are facing a very serious situation. Europe provides a home for about 5 per cent. only of the world's 18 million recognised refugees. Furthermore, Britain is under far less pressure than any other Northern European country. Britain receives far fewer applications in relation to its population size. It comes at the bottom of the league when relating asylum-seeking applications to population size. For every million inhabitants, 159 asylum seekers come to Britain annually while 631 go to
268
France, which is the next country up in the league. One would not have imagined that we have such a protected position.
We have to ask ourselves why it is thought by the Government that there is a need to introduce this legislation. What is the basis of the Government's determination to make it more difficult for bona fide refugees to be able to plead their case as provided for quite specifically in the 1951 United Nations convention to which we are committed? I hope that we shall get an answer at the end of the debate as to whether we stand by that commitment. I believe that if we do stand by the commitment that we made in 1951 we shall have to look again at the Bill which the Government are putting before us. It is not simply that Britain has accepted that convention, but that it has often claimed that it takes the lead in being prepared to accept refugees who are genuinely fleeing from oppression, torture and other uncivilised conditions.
We have benefited from some of the refugees who have come here. Some Members of your Lordships' House are refugees. The man who is perhaps most in our minds at the moment, Mr. Robert Maxwell, came to this country as a refugee. There is nothing wrong in being a refugee; it is just bloody bad luck that you come from a country where conditions are as they are. Perhaps I may add at this stage that the statement made by Kenneth Baker that the Labour Party is somehow or other pursuing an open-door policy is absolutely untrue. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Richard intervened after he had been asked a question. He made that quite clear. Together with my noble friend Lord Callaghan I was the Minister who, in 1968, carried through the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. It was done with a heavy heart and much criticism. I believe that the Labour Party has always shown that it stands by proper restrictions on immigration.
However, we are not talking about immigration, but about refugees. They are people who are fleeing from countries of oppression. According to government statistics, during the past 10 years over 20 per cent. of the refugees have come from Iran and Iraq. Can we blame the refugees for doing that? The percentage of refugees from Sri Lanka is 14.6 per cent.; 9 per cent. have come from Turkey; 7.5 per cent. from Uganda; 8.4 per cent. from Somalia and 5 per cent. from Ethiopia. These figures represent people who are fleeing from oppression. If we determine, by the processes on which we decide, that they are not refugees then they have no right to be here.
It appears that the legislation which is to be put before us in this House, after it has gone through another place, denies to genuine refugees the opportunity to properly state their case. It appears that the Government are not really claiming that there has been real abuse. I heard the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, refer to that. So far only about 10 per cent. of applications end in removals. Indeed, the proportion of asylum seekers eventually being removed has steadily fallen year by year over the past 10 years.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has become slightly confused, if I might say so. I said that

269
we had seen no record of particular abuse over charities. I did not say that in regard to immigration. I said that there have been people trying to come in, abusing the system.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am very grateful for that intervention. If there are people coming in and abusing the system then our system must determine that they are abusing the system. We are talking about refugees, not immigrants. Under the 1951 convention we have to determine whether they are genuinely fleeing from persecution and oppression, or fear of persecution and oppression.
All the organisations which have been dealing with the question of refugees seem to oppose the policies that Her Majesty's Government are bringing forward. In his reply may we hear from the Minister whether there are any reputable bodies which actually support the Government's proposals? We must look at some of those proposals. For example, the Home Secretary proposes to withdraw legal advice and assistance under the legal aid scheme not only from those seeking asylum but also those seeking any advice on immigration. That clearly has a widespread implication for many citizens of this country in addition to the comparatively small number of asylum seekers with whom we shall be dealing in this Bill. Indeed, the Home Secretary proposed that the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service should be the sole provider of such legal advice.
I do not know what stage the state of play has reached in negotiations with the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service. However, I have an interest, because I was the Minister at the Home Office when steps were taken to establish the UK Immigration Advisory Service. The essential principle on which we provided Home Office funds for that purpose was that it would be an independent body. Admittedly it was to be funded from the Home Office. I hope that there will be no implication that the Immigration Advisory Service is to be told what it must do and that it will operate in any way other than it has in the past, as an independent body.
The Government are also proposing an accelerated procedure to deal with asylum seekers who are turned down in the determination process. Where the Home Office decides that cases are clearly unfounded they will be looked at by an adjudicator who will be able to dismiss an appeal without representation or any oral hearing. I believe that that would be fundamentally wrong. I believe that whatever happens in another place we must ensure that that wrong is put right in this House.
I do not wish to say much more. I have been much impressed, having read through many of the comments made by organisations who very much care for these issues. I was much impressed by the views given by the Law Society, which takes no party political view on the matter. Perhaps I may quote a couple of sentences from a briefing prepared by the Law Society's immigration sub-committee:
270
"The Society is concerned that the procedures for dealing with asylum seekers should not be more complex than those procedures for dealing with other categories of immigration cases".
I am sure that is right. The briefing goes on to state:
"The lack of appeal against a refusal to grant leave to appeal will bar many asylum seekers from having access to full appeal rights and a proper review of their case".
There will be opportunities when the Bill comes before this House for major debates and for changes. However, I hope that in the time between now and when the Bill comes before another place the Government will think again. I believe the Government are bringing a very illiberal measure before Parliament. They will do no good to their own reputation if they do this. I hope that we shall return to the liberal traditions in relation to providing a refuge for refugees, in which, over the centuries, we have taken pride.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am conscious that after the very authoritative and humanitarian speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, my own contribution may seem rather pedestrian—and so it will be. I am venturing to keep your Lordships for a few moments on the subject of law reform, which is represented in the gracious Speech—if indeed it is represented at all—by the proposed measures on charities and on prison mutiny.
My theme, which I shall try to develop, will be that there are a great number of important actions in the area of law reform that require to be taken and for which no provision is made in the gracious Speech or, indeed, in recent legislative programmes.
The Law Commission, as your Lordships know, was established in 1965 and has in the course of its existence produced over 200 reports, many of them with recommendations for legislation. Of course, it is only fair to say that many of them have been passed into legislation if only after a period of considerable delay. Many have been rejected, no doubt fittingly, by the Government of the day. However, there remain at present, if my account is correct, 39 substantive reports by the Law Commission which have not been implemented, though the Government have in many cases indicated that they agree with them and would like to see legislation brought forward.
The Law Commission is not the only body operating in this area. There may be separate committees or commissions dealing with separate areas. We have had the report of Lord Justice Neill on the subject of damages for libel. We have had the report of Lord Justice Mustill on arbitration. Those were both very weighty and important reports. We shall shortly have the Royal Commission on crime. All these enter into the pipeline.
With regard to legislation one cannot say that Lord Chancellors have been idle. On the contrary, they have been very active. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, during his long period of office, had an enormous record of measures in the nature of law reform which he saw passed into law. Moreover, the noble and learned Lord who at present occupies the Woolsack has shown every intention of keeping up the

271
pace. But in both cases, and in others, the powers of the Government in bringing forward such a Bill have been limited by the pressing need to reform the courts' structure to deal with the machinery of justice, to deal with the legal profession and legal aid—the nuts and bolts of all that—and also, of course, by lack of parliamentary time and money.
It is in the area of substantive law that so many important things need to be done but which, so far, have not been done —that is, substantive law as opposed to machinery or procedure. The British—perhaps I ought to say the English—are traditionally complacent about their legal system, both civil and criminal. They keep on saying, "It is the best in the world, let the Eurocrats keep their hands off it." There is a certain failure to recognise that in many respects we are falling behind our partners and our competitors. Our law in many directions is now becoming old-fashioned and difficult to apply to modern life. It is also true that certain departments of state are traditionally reluctant to bring forward measures of law reform. As support for that proposition I have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who said that the Department of Trade and Industry is neither keen nor positive. It is not the only proposition. Successive chairmen of the Law Commission—eminent people—have expressed their anxiety about the failure to implement its recommendations by legislation.
I should like to make the point that here we are not concerned only with lawyers' law or with theory; or even, as some seem to think, with little areas of law like family law, adoption, and so on. We are concerned with matters that directly and importantly relate to trade and business and many aspects of our social system.
I cannot give a complete list of all that needs to be done, but I shall give some examples just to make the case. In these areas legislation has been approved in principle and is ready, or nearly ready, to be brought forward. The first area is commonhold, covenants and other matters in the leasehold area. That is important as regards the housing situation. Just as bad legislation in the form of the old Rent Acts has been responsible for a large measure of our housing problems and for housing shortages, so these measures, though apparently modest, would do a good deal to redress and improve the situation.
The second area is grounds for divorce. I need not elaborate on that. It is deeply important in our social system. The third is arbitration, to which I have already made some reference. Here again, following the Mustill Commission, and following the example of our competitors in Europe, all of whom have taken this course, there is urgent need for a major Bill. We are getting behind, to the great damage of the City of London and of our businesses. The fourth area is the right of suit as regards the carriage of goods by sea. That sounds a little technical but is not. It is a important lubricating measure to the whole of our sea-borne commerce. It is non-controversial. It has been urged on the Government by trade interests and was the subject of a vigorous and important article in the Financial Times a week or so ago.
272
The fifth area is offences of fraud and dishonesty with foreign elements. Fraud extending beyond national boundaries is a growth industry. The recommendations of the report on this subject should be implemented. Europe is threatening to legislate if we do not. The sixth area is the sale and supply of goods; a subject on which the Law Commission wrote an important report in 1987. Such legislation is necessary for us to keep up with our European friends. Two other modest measures are not without importance. One relates to access to neighbouring premises. Such a Bill came before the House in the last Session but failed to surmount the parliamentary hurdles. The second measure concerns the law relating to friendly societies, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, referred.
Those are all matters on which legislation is ready and can be brought forward. There are other measures on which there is at present no progress simply because it is felt that parliamentary time cannot be found. I refer to the provision of a criminal code, a code of the law of contract and reform of the law of trading malpractices. Such measures would be non-controversial, as distinct from the area of Sunday trading, and should command all party support. They are met with the plea of no parliamentary time. That is the established answer and I feel sure that, if necessary, it will be given today by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. It need not be given, but it is a good, incontrovertible answer. That is the present position.
Noble Lords may ask why I am raising the issue now, when only a few months remain of the present Parliament and a large number of measures have to be squeezed through. I raise it exactly because the dilemma is so stark. It creates in effect a reductio ad absurdum. The present system is such that no legal measure of any substantive importance can be brought forward. There is no means of doing so. There never will be time under the existing system of legislating, with legislation passing through two Houses, and with Bills having three readings in each House. It is true that Parliament as at present constituted is not 100 per cent. efficient. However, even if its efficiency were to be increased by 20 per cent. through improvements, there would still not be time adequately to deal with measures involving major consideration.
Moreover, apart from the time argument—this point is not as uncontroversial and is no doubt open to argument—our present procedure of line by line discussion and examination on the Floor of the House does not work for many, indeed most, legal Bills. We saw that during proceedings on the Courts and Legal Services Bill. The House sits very late at night with perhaps 12 lawyers, or quasi-lawyers, on their different Benches discussing the clauses against the background of a number of gentlemen outside the Chamber waiting to be called in. It is impossible to carry amendments to a Division. The argument becomes farcical and justice is not done to the enormous amount of work that has been put in. A criminal code or, for that matter, a law on arbitration

273
should not be discussed under such a procedure —late at night with 12 lawyers of different views and the gentlemen outside the Chamber.
Adherence to such a system inevitably involves renunciation of any serious attempt to reform large areas of our substantive law. What are the alternatives? There is one easy alternative which is the panacea for everything—leave it all to the gentlemen in Brussels. They will do it all for us; they are only too anxious to legislate on any subject which we desire. I somehow think that the House would not adhere to that suggestion. However, we cannot in the same breath object to the gentlemen in Brussels legislating on important matters of our criminal and civil law and at the same time fail to provide the machinery for doing so ourselves. We on these Benches—I say this with respect to my friends by my side—are not well adapted to suggestions of change to the machinery of legislation in order to get Bills through the House. All parties have an interest in this matter. The issues involved are mainly non-controversial. They are certainly not party issues although there may be disagreement in certain areas. Surely some steps can be taken.
I raise the matter at this stage, when the dilemma is starkest and when we have less time than ever and many measures before us, in the hope that before the next Parliament we here may be able to equip ourselves in some way with the means of doing better. After all, by contrast with our friends in the other place, we have some degree of continuity. Some of us may hope to be here in the next Parliament although we may be sitting in slightly different places. We have the continuity to be able to start planning now for what may happen in the next Parliament. Ought we not to be looking seriously at the techniques which we have tried partially, but not seriously enough, in relation to legal Bills? I refer to the techniques of Select Committees, committees upstairs and perhaps even a joint committee with the other place. I am sure that, given the will, there is enough ingenuity here to devise some better way of legislating on these subjects.
Of course not all Bills can be dealt with by such a procedure. Some will always need to be heard on the Floor of the House. I have in mind Bills on divorce or on the law of charities. But many are capable of it. In addition, there is always the point that we can only make proposals for ourselves; and these remain similar difficulties in the other place. Nevertheless, if in the course of a year we were able to get through two or three Bills on law reform and those could be segregated from the rest of the programme, that would be worthwhile progress. We have excellent and first class institutions for providing the material for law reform. We are at present wasting their work and their potential to do much more. We should take steps to enable them to fructify. I wish that the gracious Speech had given us greater encouragement in that respect.
6.40 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I too should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on his brilliant maiden speech. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on his first speech in his elevated position. We shall miss him very much on the Front Bench.
As the noble Lord did not mention the National Health Service, I almost hesitate to mention the progress of the Government's reforms in the health service. It was a brilliant idea to change former health authorities into purchasing authorities with the job of sitting down with the local experts to work out the needs of the local population and then, with the resources given to them by the Government, buying those necessary services bearing in mind quantity and quality.
The idea is beginning to work. In one hospital the purchasing authority felt that the waiting list for operations was too long. The authority said to the relevant people, "How can we help you?" That is a polite way of saying, "If you can't deliver better services, we shall have to go elsewhere, and you know what that means". The purchasing authorities are proving to be powerful advocates on behalf of patients. Those who pay the piper call the tune.
A purchasing authority said to another hospital, "We are not prepared to have our patients waiting in your clinics for hours on end. If you can't do better, we shall go elsewhere". The fact that the patients are all seen before the end of the morning or afternoon indicates that the problem is not due to a lack of resources; it is due to a lack of consideration for the patients. In many ways the National Health Service has become too big, too bureaucratic and too bossy with patients. The purchasing authorities are beginning to change their attitude simply because they have the clout so to do. The old health authorities and community health councils did not have the power to work in that way.
Another purchasing authority recently told a hospital that it was not treating enough of its patients as day cases. The authority wished to see half of general surgical cases treated on a day case basis, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal College of Surgeons. That is a much better way of treating the patients, in spite of some of the knockabout political slanging matches where it has been alleged that day case surgery results in more complications and a greater readmission rate to hospital. The fact is that the complication rates and readmission rates are substantially lower than those for ordinary patients. Further, as day cases do not require beds they are rarely ever cancelled by the hospital.
In trying to gauge the wishes of our patients we learn much more from the very young and the very old. They are the ones who tell us what is required. Those two groups of patients hate spending even one night in hospital. I was recently consulted by a young lady aged 102 who needed an operation. I had to negotiate with her how long she was prepared to spend in hospital. We settled on 60 minutes. On the arranged day, her young son-in-law, aged 84, brought her to my

275
secretary's office. From there I walked her down to the operating theatre and helped her on to the table. I then carried out the operation under a local anaesthetic and under very informal and friendly conditions. If requested, music of the patient's choice can be playing in the background, although we tend to discourage numbers such as "The Day My Heart Stopped Still".
Having completed the operation, I walked the patient back to the office, where she had some tea with her son-in-law and then returned home. It was done in exactly the way she wanted. It was a one-to-one relationship. She did not want to be handled by dozens of health care workers in rapid succession. That is one sure way of disorienting senior citizens. They want a one-to-one relationship. They do not want to stay in a bed. Children also hate staying in a bed because they do not like being separated from their family. Senior citizens avoid staying in hospital beds because they recognise the dangers. Keep out of beds, my Lords. If possible, agree only to running repairs.
The advantages of a self-governing hospital are now becoming obvious. For the first time in years we have a matron at Guy's, and, like the matrons of old, she actually goes around the wards visiting the patients. She understands all about good nursing and good hospital management. She recently went into one of the wards during the evening. She approached a lady who looked very much the worse for wear. When the matron said to her, "Good evening, I'm the matron", the old lady nearly leapt out of the bed with joy. She said, "We haven't seen a real live matron for 25 years". Matron has returned and a very good thing it is for the hospital. We have also succeeded in restoring to the ward sister the authority to determine the work load in her ward. She has the most variable resource in terms of the number of nurses available. Clearly she ought to have the major say in how many patients are admitted. This we have achieved.
The medical profession has made repeated efforts over many years to reduce the number of hours worked by junior staff. National agreements are always difficult to reach. They involve long, ponderous consultations which are often unsuccessful. But now the individual self-governing hospitals can arrange with their junior staff how many hours they work. We have just started arrangements to allow a house surgeon who has been on duty all night to have the next day off. We hope thereby to reduce the total hours worked per week to below 70.
Being free of the shackles of bureaucracy, national norms and agreements will give a much better deal for our junior staff and therefore, indirectly, a much better deal for the patients. When all the hospitals in the country are self-governing they will again blossom. They will be free to try out new ideas, new schemes of training, better ways of managing and better rates of pay related to work done. All those improvements will be to the advantage of the patient.
Compared with last year, before the trust took over at Guy's and Lewisham hospitals, we have treated nearly 3,000 more patients. Our wage bill has been reduced by over £5 million and our unit cost reduced by 7 per cent. That means that we are now confident
276
of living within budget by the end of March next year. We will have saved the equivalent of over £7 million but we will have treated 10 per cent. more patients. Moreover, our waiting lists have been reduced by 5 per cent. It is exciting to note that as a result of this the trust will shortly be announcing how, in part, this improvement in performance will be reinvested in our staff and patient services.
The first seven months of Guy's and Lewisham hospitals being a trust would have been much easier if we had not been subject to so much abuse from people who should have known better. Such behaviour may be regarded in another place as jolly good political knockabout, but it upset many patients quite unnecessarily and demoralised many hardworking people in the National Health Service.
The NHS is not being privatised. Self-governing hospitals are not leaving the National Health Service. They cannot leave it and they have no desire to do so. We want to change the whole attitude to patients, becoming much more sensitive to their needs. We are doing just that.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I have only two matters to raise. One is a compliment and the other a proposal. Both concern animal welfare. The compliment is to the Government for having succeeded in getting agreement in Brussels from the Council of Ministers to the retention of our ban on the export of horses for slaughter. It was announced only a few days ago. I have not seen much comment about it except reference to a possible misunderstanding about the nature of the concession given to us.
The Council of Ministers agreed that we should keep our own ban on the export of horses until such time as the standards of the rest of the EC are brought up to those that we regard as satisfactory. When additional safeguards have been introduced in the EC, the case for the retention of our own ban will disappear.
We have an interest in trying to improve upon the better standards being introduced under the new directive. New and higher standards are being introduced for the Common Market under the recent directive of the Council of Ministers. But the council has given another direction on efforts to find additional safeguards to those recently agreed. When additional safeguards are introduced to deal with special sections of animal transport, particularly of horses, the council sees no reason why Britain should stand outside the general harmony and interchange of trade in horses.
When we go to the Commission and the Council of Ministers asking to be excluded from something, it can sometimes be taken as a reflection upon our friends in the rest of Europe. This was a case in point. We wanted to stay out because we had better conditions for the transport of our horses than seemed possible in Europe. That seemed to reflect upon other people's ideas of the adequacy of animal protection. We must bear that in mind; they do not always like it. We shall try more of it shortly, the House may be sure.

277
I compliment the Government. We harassed them and pressed Ministers responsible for agriculture and other matters to stand firm. They have come out with something quite satisfactory. I am pleased. However, we still have to work for higher standards in Europe so that we can enter into the European conditions, fully satisfied that our wishes have been met. That is the first point.
The second point I have to raise concerns dogs. That will send a shudder down the spines of many noble Lords. They may think, "My God, is he going to start these dogs barking all over again?" I propose to have my own mini-Queen's Speech. It reads:
"Legislation will be introduced to provide for the setting up of a dog control and welfare council."
I hope to introduce the Bill under the Private Member's Bill procedure on 27th November. The Bill proposes to set up a dog control and welfare council comparable in its composition, wide terms of reference and conditions to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. That is all, but it is a great deal, especially in the area of dog control and welfare. The situation is in a mess. There have been unhappy events both in Parliament and elsewhere during the past two Sessions of Parliament.
The intriguing aspect of the proposal is that if the Government are in favour of it, the legislation need never proceed at all. The Government have the power to appoint such an advisory committee without any legislative sanction. In July 1979, one of the first actions that the new Conservative Government took was to honour a pledge given during the election that they would raise the scope and powers of the very low level institutions of an advisory nature that existed. They have lifted the status and composition, the range of activities and the power of reporting of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the advisory council on the use of animals in laboratories. Those were the two actions the Government took straightaway following the election. The Farm Animal Welfare Council is alive and active to this day and proves useful. Much of farm animal welfare has been canalised and a good deal of unjustified propaganda removed. A well equipped and serviced council has been given scope to look into matters, including conditions of slaughter, from which it was previously excluded. Much good work has been done and many changes brought about as a result of its recommendations.
The Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments in laboratories was replaced by the more prestigious Animal Procedures Committee which was created by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That is a prestigious advisory committee. I do not seek for the dog control and welfare council anything of quite that standing. It should be comparable with the Farm Animal Welfare Council: there should be no real difficulty about that.
I shall not anticipate the further stages of the Bill but I ask noble Lords and the Government—I am keeping them well informed of what I am doing—to consider how beneficial it would be to bring together so much scattered legislation, separate activity and panic stations. Those matters could be brought within
278
the survey of a committee of not less than 12 suitable people, who would examine all aspects of dog control and welfare.
I strongly recommend the Bill to your Lordships and urge the Government to consider it favourably. I have not sought support from any quarter, I have not yet canvassed anyone. I believe that I may modestly say that I am a veteran in the field of dog control and welfare. I produced the very first report on dogs in society just short of 20 years ago. I have introduced more Bills on animal welfare in your Lordships' House during the 18 years I have been here than any other Peer, including Ministers, for the simple reason that governments have fought shy of introducing their own Bills on animal welfare. I have been the honoured introducer of many Bills that have come from another place. In the previous Session we had a Bill on badgers and the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, on the conditions required at the time of animal slaughter. I saw that Bill finally pass on to the statute book. There were other Bills on puppy farming and breeding establishments. The Government said at the beginning of 1990 that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 was quite adequate for their purposes. However, by 1991, the tabloid press had persuaded the Government that they must act without delay. The Government did so and did great damage to Parliament and its reputation. We are still in the midst of deep emotional disturbance as a consequence of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
I do not contemplate the next few weeks with any equanimity. I am not the slightest bit surprised that there has been considerable passive resistance to the provisions of that Act which stirred deep emotions in many people who feel affection for animals.
I have not asked for any support in what I wish to undertake, but nevertheless I am to receive support. I have received encouraging messages from some important bodies in the field of animal welfare, for example the British Veterinary Association, the League Against Cruel Sports and others. I have received an especial welcome from the National Canine Defence League. I am attracted to that body as I am interested in the word "defence" in relation to dogs in society. It is time we introduced that word in relation to dogs as they have so many potential assailants. Such individuals do not understand that our dogs give great emotional satisfaction to millions of people. I fear we do not give full weight to that factor.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, is the patron of the National Canine Defence League. He and I have been such constant adversaries for so long that I welcome the opportunity of forging an alliance with the noble Duke on my Bill. I hope I shall obtain the support of the National Canine Defence League for the Bill. That is all I have to say for the moment. I hope that my short speech will mean that we can make progress with my Bill when it is introduced later this year.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, it has become almost traditional to complain that we have too much legislation, and certainly too much government

279
legislation. It is only the uncertain duration of this Session which makes it hard to say whether we have been promised too much or too little in the months to come. However, we can look forward to legislation which should allow this House to do what it is best at; that is, to perform its function as a revising Chamber. Those of us who are concerned to improve the function of this House in that respect will, I hope, ensure that the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is widely read.
The need for charity reform has become increasingly obvious to those involved in the field and to their advisers. The reform is overdue. I do not want to repeat the points which were made when the House debated the topic in November 1989, nor to anticipate the Second Reading debate of the Bill later this month. I simply hope that the proposed reforms will be seen on all sides as necessary and useful. There is a large number of charities of differing scale and differing standards. They all have large amounts of other people's money and they should be subject to the important administrative controls which are proposed.
I wish to concentrate for a moment on a matter which seems to have slipped out of the Government's timetable. If newspaper reports are correct, the proposals for leasehold reform which have been accepted by the Government were to be mentioned in the gracious Speech. However, in the event they were omitted. The proposals for a commonhold Act—for which a draft Bill was presented in a consultation paper a year ago—were widely welcomed. Earlier this year the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor informed the House that legislation to implement the commonhold proposals would be introduced as soon as parliamentary time could be found.
We on these Benches welcome the proposals for leasehold reform. As they have emanated from the Law Commission, the proposals are bound to be well thought out and well presented. Therefore I should like to know what the Government's present intentions are for commonhold legislation. I hope that legislation is still in the pipeline. It is inevitably a complicated subject and some powerful interests would like to water down the proposals. Leasehold flat dwellers stand most to gain if the reforms are introduced, and they stand to lose most if they are not. I hope the Government can end the uncertainty as it helps no one. I also hope the Government can assure the House that commonhold reforms will now advance as a government Bill.
I shall now discuss the asylum Bill which is in the Government's programme. It is apparently intended to have a fast track procedure to deal with asylum seekers. There is nothing inherently wrong with fast tracks unless they are so quick that justice cannot be properly done and is not seen to be properly done.
It must be a matter of great anxiety that it is apparently proposed to withdraw the availability of legal aid for asylum seekers and give the task of providing advice and assistance to the advisory service. It must be doubtful whether, even with more resources the advisory service can do the work which lawyers have done successfully hitherto. Legal
280
representation is not a panacea, but legal aid should be available to gather evidence and to present cases where basic human rights are at stake. The Government should look hard at the Law Society's proposals. As I understand the proposals, they involve the provision of accredited solicitors willing and able to do this specialised work.
That measure ought to be seen as part and parcel of this country's overall policy for race relations. The Race Relations Act 1976 provides us with a good framework. In many ways it is superior to measures in European countries where racial tensions are manifesting themselves. Effective national legislation is particularly important as the European treaty makes no reference to racial or colour prejudice or disadvantage. European law seems more concerned with internal movements than with migration from outside.
In 1985 the Commission for Racial Equality made proposals for improvement of the 1976 legislation. The Government did not respond, with the result that this year the commission produced a second review and a consultation paper. This is not the time to go into the detail of the proposed improvements. The proposals are not radical. They come from those with knowledge of the limits and the capabilities of the existing legislation. The legislation is not breaking down but it requires routine maintenance and improvement.
In recent years I have undertaken some discrimination cases and have become aware of some of the weaknesses of the law. However, I do not lose sight of the fact that our race relations legislation is a valuable national asset which does much to influence the atmosphere in which we all live and work. It behoves any government to keep it in good running order. To do so both government and all who are concerned with this topic must be properly informed. Over the years we have had regular surveys and reports from the Policy Studies Institute. It is a matter of considerable concern to know whether the Government will continue to allow the funding of further work by the PSI, building, for example, on the ethnic question in the recent census.
Apprehension about race relations must be heightened in the context of a Europe in which national barriers are being lowered and removed. It is inescapable that with those welcome developments there will be a temptation and a tendency to increase the mechanisms for internal surveillance and controls. We must be vigilant to protect our racial tolerance in particular and our civil liberties in general. I hope that the Government will respond to the proposals of the commission with urgency.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, with other noble Lords I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on his maiden speech. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrers on introducing the debate today. However, I am sad and disappointed that among the seven social concerns he mentioned the social services were not dealt with at

281
any time. Perhaps in fairness to him I should say that they have not been mentioned by any other noble Lord either.
If there is an area to which the principles of the Citizen's Charter should be applied it is the social services, which work with the most vulnerable in our society. They are responsible for implementing the new Children Act which came into effect on 14th October and the National Health Service and Community Care Act when that comes into force.
I seek to speak today on the statement in Her Majesty's gracious Speech that:
"My Government will continue to develop policies to enhance the nation's health and to improve the effectiveness of the health and social services, and the social security system".
Those who work in the statutory, voluntary and private sectors of the social services will welcome that statement. I propose to deal with the training of those who work in the social services, the wise use of resources both by the Treasury and local authorities and the part played by the media.
I suggest that the inadequate training of those working in the social services is an apolitical matter for which all parties in both Houses of Parliament and within local authorities should be held responsible. The Council for Education and Training in Social Work was set up in 1970. Over the years the inadequacy of training has been highlighted in the notable report of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss on the events in Cleveland, in reports made on the deaths of children by Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper and others and latterly in the reports on "pindown" in Staffordshire and the events in the Kincora home in Northern Ireland, in the Leicester children's home and in Orkney. No part of the United Kingdom is exempt.
To be a social worker in residential work, field work, day care and community work involves working as a colleague of and in co-operation with those in the health service, education service and legal profession. Many judges have spoken to me with compassion of the inadequate training social workers have received in the law which has put them at a disadvantage in court.
Social work involves working alongside families with difficulties and children and young persons in trouble and in need. No one who has not worked in the field can know the wisdom, knowledge and skill required. It also involves the implementation of the Mental Health Acts, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Acts, the Social Security Acts, the adoption Acts and work with the homeless and elderly people seeking support and help. Social work as a profession means working alongside other professions.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that Great Britain is the only country in the EC which has only a two-year basic training in social work. Other EC countries have a three or four-year training. With more resources coming forward from the Treasury, the Council for Education and Training in Social Work has produced a small document setting out future plans for the training of social workers. It is to be hoped that even more resources may be made
282
available, particularly in the field of residential child care. Residential child care workers are inadequately trained for what are the most difficult jobs in social work.
I am not the only peer in your Lordships' House to discuss the role played by the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who is sitting by my side, has spoken of it, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in a notable speech last July. Surely it is for the Treasury to lay down the amount of money which is or is not to be made available, as the case may be, but not to stipulate policies and how that money is to be spent. What can Treasury officials know of the training of social workers? I may be wrong and if I am perhaps the Minister will correct me, but I understand that it was the Treasury which laid down that there should be only a two-year training for social workers.
In the 13th century the barons complained to the King that the Treasury was dictating what they should do—and I have the book here, which I borrowed from the House Library. That was in the 13th century; this is the 20th century and nothing has changed. Could this be the notable year when we change the attitude of the Treasury? We all pay tribute to the Treasury. It is a magnificent service. However, I wonder which of the Treasury staff has dealt with an abused child, a delinquent child, a mentally handicapped person or a mental case in hospital. I should be grateful to know whether they have. However, in fairness to the Treasury I must preserve a balance. I should be considered ungracious if I did not point out that the Treasury has allowed provision for training to rise from £10 million in 1986 to £26 million today.
However, more resources are needed for the training of staff working in residential establishments. That is the most difficult sector and the work is undervalued and poorly paid. I recognise that we must reduce the inflation rate. I do not wish to push it up, but so often resources are cut back in such a way that we have to spend more money in the long run. Furthermore, there is often overlap between departments when savings could be made if they co-operated more closely.
I make a plea to the media. For them bad news is good news. Work well done against difficult odds is rarely highlighted, with notable exceptions. The most notable exception is perhaps the professional press, which is often supportive of the social work world. In fairness, I must mention an article by Polly Toynbee, entitled,
"Care and Be Damned—Polly Toynbee spent a day observing the struggle of social workers with human catastrophe".
I wish that the media would sometimes look at the good work that is done. That would encourage those who work in the service. Furthermore, it would give the country a sense of pride and security in and an appreciation of the social services, the health service, the education service and the probation service. I implore the media to take notice of good practice. If any members of the media wish to be shown good practice, I should be glad to help. To preserve a sense of balance, I should say that bad practice must be investigated and reported. The public expect that.

283
Two weeks ago I was invited by the Social Care Association to its annual seminar on dignity and rights. The association is responsible for residential and day-care services. I was moved and impressed by the commitment of all those present who worked in residential and day care. I learnt of the good work done, often in poor conditions and with poor pay—pay not commensurate with the work done by the people concerned. We await the Howe Report following the report of Sir William Utting on residential care.
We must surely congratulate the Government on putting the Children Act of 1989 on the statute book but without better resources it will not be possible to implement that Act as was intended. Many noble Lords have asked for better resources. If better resources are not provided, we shall pay the price later. W se giving and use of resources by both the Government and local authorities is therefore bound to improve the service and in the end benefit our country.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, nothing encourages a man so much as to find that the good advice that he has freely given has been enthusiastically accepted. Yet, when speaking on higher education in your Lordships' House on 21st November 1990 I pointed out certain manifest shortcomings in the work of the Universities Funding Council and suggested some modest reforms that a new chairman might attempt, I did not anticipate that within a matter of a few months the Government would have been so overwhelmed by the power and truth of my arguments that they would propose to abolish the council and all its works Truly, there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over 99 just men which need no repentance. I must be grateful.
Yet it is wise to be cautious in those matters and to apply the salt of scepticism to the statement in the gracious Speech that legislation will be laid before us to reform higher education. So it is the Government's intention that the universities shall be reformed. We shall not be reassured, we shall not be reinvigorated and we shall certainly not be rewarded, but the bits and pieces of the ever-burgeoning bureaucracy that controls us will be shaken around once more in the great kaleidoscope of Whitehall in the vain hope that some good will come of it. There is absolutely no evidence that, as a result of that reform, universities and polytechnics will be any happier or any better, and they will certainly not be richer.
We have heard this afternoon in the Autumn Statement that public funding for universities and polytechnics will rise by 4.6 per cent. in real terms next year. For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful. However, it is nothing like enough for the expansion that we are also told we must undertake.
We have been here before. The UGC begat the UFC, which will beget the HEFC, or the WHEFC if you happen to be in Wales, and all within a couple of years. As we lurch from one council to the next, it is clear that there will be more bureaucracy, more
284
demands for information, more questionnaires and more financial forecasts and demands for data which no one ever does anything with and that there will be no more money to fund that reformation. That will involve professors, readers and lecturers spending even more time on committees and working parties so that they will be less able to produce the research on which their departments will be evaluated and funded. From a thousand laboratories and lecture rooms around the country we hear the great sigh of resignation, "Heigh-ho! Here we go again".
We shall hear sterner words from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. No one would describe the CVCP as a seething cauldron of socialist ideology. This is no pinko quango. By its very nature and constitution it is dependent on the lowest common denominator of consensus. Yet it has been reliably reported that within a matter of a few weeks the CVCP will present the Government with an assessment of the state of higher education, based on an analysis of current spending plans and student recruitment, and will put forward scenarios for the next decade based on the assumption that there will be no significant increase in public funding. Those sober-suited citizens will invite the Government to consider at least three pictures of the future.
The first of those pictures is what is known as the Italian option, under which universities in this country will copy the practice of universities like Rome or Milan and enrol all students who have obtained minimal qualifications for a place. Some of them never turn up and many of them fail the first examination that they take, but it is a marvellously easy way to double the number of undergraduates by early next century. Of course, academic standards must suffer.
I know of one student at Milan University reading English Literature who in an examination in his first year was invited to name three characters in Shakespeare's King Lear, apart from the King himself. He found himself unable to do so. He was adjudged narrowly to have failed the examination, but was allowed to resit it a year later after payment of the full year's fees. It is worth noting that the University of Rome has a staff/student ratio of almost 200 to one. That is not unlike the kind of thing that we could expect in this country. The sentimental old idea of a tutorial as forming any part of a course in higher education would have to be abandoned straight away.
Secondly, the CVCP will warn of a scenario in which students will shortly be expected to pay fees for their courses. Despite the fact that the Education Secretary has distanced himself from such a proposal because, as he put it, it would,
"reduce participation and put off poorer students",
a growing number of vice-chancellors believe that charging undergraduates for their teaching is inevitable and will not be long delayed. Another possibility is that there will be a system of top-up fees paid by applicants with lower A-level grades. The paradigm for that would appear to be: if you are not good enough to come, you can still come, but you have to pay more.
The third spectre at the CVCP feast is the possibility of privatisation of research. It seems

285
possible that we shall have to contemplate companies sponsoring a number of specialist universities to develop work beneficial to their industry. To some extent, they already do. But this trend is especially a nightmare scenario for medical researchers, who have every apprehension that they will be at the mercy of the pharmaceutical companies. Indeed, academics at University College Hospital, London are reported to have said that they would rather give up their research than be the paid slaves of the drug companies.
In the area of research many vice-chancellors privately admit that they do not believe that the Government will significantly boost funding and Sir Eric Ash, the Rector of London's Imperial College is quoted as saying that in recent years "real, quantifiable damage" has been done to research in British universities. I say again that these are not the scaremongering dreams of irresponsible people but the careful prophecies of those who are charged with the management of Britain's universities.
At the other end of the higher education spectrum it is perhaps remarkable that neither the gracious Speech nor, so far as I can see, the Bill as it has come before us has anything very much to say about students. Yet the Government have selected higher education students for very special treatment. They have pushed them entirely outside the safety net of the welfare state. Perhaps I may quickly give your Lordships six specific instances in which the Government have discriminated against students.
First, the Government have driven down the worth of the student grant, leaving students far worse off than they were 12 years ago. Secondly, they have withdrawn from students—from students alone—the right to claim housing benefit. Every other person has that right; but if you are a student you have lost it. Thirdly, the safety net for income that applies to every other adult in the country—income support—is withdrawn for students. The basic minimum income covering the rest of the country excludes students. As citizens students simply do not count.
Fourthly, the vacation hardship allowance has been withdrawn, showing yet once more that students have to suffer their hardship entirely on their own. Fifthly, through their limitation on local government spending, the Government have cut the amount of money that local authorities can provide in discretionary grants.
Sixthly, in one spectacular piece of meanness it has been decided that part-time students, however poor they may be, have to pay their fees out of taxed income, while full-time students, however rich they may be, will have their fees paid by local authorities. That bears particularly heavily on institutions such as Birkbeck College in the University of London which, in the opinion of most, has suffered enough "reform" at the hands of government over the past few years, culminating in the acknowledged error by which the UFC underfunded that college this year and yet, after admitting its mistake, took more than six months to rectify the anomaly.
The Government's proposals in the gracious Speech for the reform of higher education have been
286
described by one Member of another place as "very lame stuff from a government on its last legs". It may be lame stuff. What worries me is that it is the same stuff—the same stuff that we have had before, through the UGC, the UFC and all the other instances of bureaucracy which are now rehashed, reheated, reordered, reissued or, as the Government prefer to put it, reformed. The Government's proposals for higher education in the gracious Speech can best be described in the words of the poet Juvenal: crambe repetita. For the benefit of those noble Lords not born and bred to the purple I translate as "rehashed bubble and squeak"—the cabbage left over from yesterday's dinner, reboiled and served up again.
Yet we may extract one crumb of comfort. We may see one ray of light in this dismal scene. In the Further and Higher Education Bill as it is now before us, we may read on page vii a clause entitled "Financial Effects of the Bill". It states that:
"The Bill will have no direct financial effect on the funds available for further or higher education, apart from transitional costs of £28 million in 1992–93 to establish the Further Education Funding Councils and to prepare institutions in that sector for their new management responsibilities".
That is all that it says and it says it all. Apart from £28 million to be spent on bureaucracy, when the Bill finally receives Royal Assent, the universities of this country will be reformed, redirected, readministered and not a penny better off.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in his opening speech the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to crime prevention and young offenders in our inner cities. I should like to say a few words this evening on that aspect of our debate.
After the riots which took place this summer in Oxford and Newcastle, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury referred to poverty and deprivation in the inner cities. There is no doubt that such poverty and deprivation exist. The most reverend Primate suggested—and I am sure that the Opposition Benches would wish to push the argument—that such deprivation and poverty is caused by the niggardliness of the Government's funding of benefits available to unemployed people living in the inner cities.
There is a snag to that argument; namely, that many families succeed in living satisfactorily on those benefits and bring up clean and healthy children who are secure and well adjusted and who go on to live normal, happy lives, making a contribution to society. Why then are some others unable to do the same? The seriousness of the problem is emphasised in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities which we shall debate next week:
"Moreover the Committee concludes that there exists in many Member States a small but significant group of especially disadvantaged young people who form an isolated or 'marginalised' element of society living in very deprived conditions; some have become anti-social or criminal. The existence of this group and the scale of the problems revealed by the evidence have profound implications for social cohesion and integration in Europe".
The report goes on to say that it is not possible to identify a single cause for that situation.

287
Of the many causes of poverty and deprivation, I believe that one of the most common is poor parenting. Young people who suffer this kind of multiple deprivation tend to have a low level of self esteem and a low level of ability to cope with the complexities and stresses of modern life. They tend to lack the skills of homemaking and child-rearing which traditionally have been learnt by example within the family and passed on from one generation to another. They tend to have truanted at school and as a result are poorly educated and trained.
What happens when a child grows up without any experience of a supportive family? What happens when a child is deserted by one or both parents, is beaten or sexually abused by its own parent or is deserted by its father and then sexually abused by the mother's lover? What chance do such children have of knowing how to create in their turn a secure environment for their children or to make ends meet when the going gets tough? Can one really blame them for turning to alcohol and drugs as a form of escape—"Alcohol is the quickest way out of Glasgow", they used to say—or to prostitution or crime in order to make ends meet?
I want to try to persuade the House that these victims of inadequate parenting are handicapped in just the same way as is a child who is born crippled. It is through no fault of their own. I want to argue that we should help them to overcome their disabilities just as we help handicapped children to overcome their physical disabilities. Above all, I want to convince your Lordships that it is possible to do so.
In this context I can tell your Lordships that over the past rive years I have been involved with Toynbee Hall Children's Department. I have had the privilege of working for a few weeks each year with children and young people who have suffered such disability. They are children who are disruptive at school; many are in the care of the local authority; often they have already had brushes with the police.
Without help, many of those children will without doubt be the young offenders of tomorrow and the criminals of the day after. Yet I have not come across one of those young tough guys who will not respond in some degree to uncritical affection, support and encouragement. I am convinced that there is a real potential to build good citizens and to create happy lives for a high proportion of them if society is prepared to give them the help that they need.
Am I just another voice asking the Government for money? No, I am not. I ask the Government to make an investment in these young people. If that is not done, they will become the criminals of tomorrow and a charge on society. If those young people are helped to become useful and happy members of society and good parents, there will be an enormous dividend through savings on expenditure on prisons, the police, probation services, hospital care and benefits. That is a dividend which will repay many-fold the initial investment. Those benefits would also continue in large measure from generation to generation—and that is before taking into account the saving in wasted lives.
288
There is an urgent need for teachers, youth leaders and social workers, and training for those adults who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out, are prepared to give to this group of difficult young people the uncritical and non-exploitative support and guidance that they so desperately need to enable them to gain the confidence to become responsible members of society and to give them the knowledge and experience of relationships which will help them to become good parents.
From my experience I am convinced that this cycle of inadequate parenting can be broken. I am convinced that this must be done. I hope that it may be the present Government who will have the courage to do it.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I am pleased to follow what I consider to be a moving speech. I hope to talk about other handicapped people in the way that the noble Lord discussed those who were the subject of his speech.
It is a bad plan ever to look back at speeches of the past. Most speeches, in particular mine, should be forgotten with the shortest delay possible. However, in the light of the controversy over health that we experienced during the summer and are apparently still suffering, and having listened to the robust speech of my noble friend Lord McColl, I wish to say this. Two years ago when my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State introduced his health proposals for the National Health Service, I remember expressing the fervent hope that both in this House and in another place we should not confuse argument about method with criticism of motive. I added that it would bring no gain to the National Health Service if anyone tried to suggest that the arguments of opponents were directed more closely to its destruction than to its improvement.
I was obviously over-optimistic, and I was probably naive to expect a different approach. I ought to have heeded the wise advice of a former Prime Minister, who pointed out that the long hot summer was the time when irritating midges came out of dirty ditches. Yet one gain from the sterile controversy about the future of the National Health Service may be the fervent expressions of devotion to the service that we have listened to across the whole political spectrum. Those expressions can be valuable if accompanied by a genuine desire on all sides to bring the institution more closely into accord with an ideal that is still, sadly, far beyond the past achievement of any government.
Some months ago Her Majesty's Government took a realistic step forward by publishing a Green Paper entitled The Health of the Nation. They asked for suggested priorities before the Green Paper became a White Paper and made a request for proposals of appropriate targets and the accompanying means adequately to measure the progress made. The Health of the Nation contains a backward look at the triple targets of the National Health Service as defined by Lord Beveridge in the 1940s. Lord Beveridge naturally stated the importance of treatment and the still greater

289
importance of prevention. However, the third objective has been largely neglected for close on 50 years.
Men, women and children with faculties lastingly impaired either congenitally, by disease or by subsequent accident are too often left with too little help when their acute treatment comes to an end. My favourite definition of rehabilitation—probably because it is simple and I can understand it—is turning a patient into a person, a process which clearly goes far beyond the part which medicine alone can play. It must therefore include among many other factors education and re-education, training and re-training, adaptions to people's houses, equipment, either simple or sophisticated, steps to restore mobility and so on. It naturally involves local authorities, the social services and many of the departments in Whitehall.
Today I wish to focus attention on medical rehabilitation. Much of the present argument about the National Health Service is centred on the need to increase resources. Today we have had news from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those resources will be increased. However, I wish to sound a note of caution with which many will agree. Provision of more resources, whether of people, money, buildings or equipment, will go only a small way to meet an almost infinite demand. Nevertheless, any scarcity of resources at least underlines the imperative need not to waste those that are available. One reason why resources are scarcer than they need be is the appalling financial burden imposed by disability on individuals and their families, on industry, on local authorities, on the National Health Service and on government.
Perhaps I may take a few examples. The cost of back pain, bed sores, incontinence aids and medication for the physically disabled runs into hundreds of millions of pounds each year. Those costs could be eliminated only by the prevention of disorder. But they could be significantly reduced by improved methods of rehabilitation. They could be further diminished by effective measures, financial as well as medical, to enable far more people than at present to continue to live in their own homes. That is a matter on which I know that I have the sympathy of my noble friend Lord Henley who will reply to our debate. I regard such independence, which naturally depends on some degree of mobility, as among the most precious of benefits that this world affords.
I believe that sensible provision for the thousands of men and women who devote their lives to caring at home for people with severe disabilities would not only vastly increase the sum of human happiness but, to return to more worldly terms, would save the Government a large amount of money. Therefore, I beg my noble friend, and in particular my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as he searches for key areas in the National Health Service where the results of effective action are virtually assured, to look carefully at the lessons clearly to be learnt from the rehabilitation that already exists. I hope that he will decide that the success and cost-effectiveness of any extension of the existing system are not only probable but certain both in terms of restoring individuals to
290
full functional capacity and enabling the most seriously disabled people to achieve a marked improvement in the quality of their lives. Both objectives seem infinitely worth while.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, for his consideration for the disabled. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to an organisation of which I am a patron. It is called CONCAH; continuing care at home. It deals with the kind of patient described by the noble Lord.
I wish to refer to the section of the gracious Speech which declares that the Government will continue to develop policies to enhance the nation's health. The consultation period on the Green Paper The Health of the Nation, published in June, has just ended. It provides a useful framework which includes a number of health targets to be achieved by the year 2000. It has been widely welcomed by all health professionals. The Department of Health will have received a wealth of suggestions from numerous organisations on how to flesh out the Green Paper. I wish to focus on the way to achieve one of its targets; that is, the reduction in the proportion of the population who smoke from 32 per cent. to 22 per cent.
Before tackling that problem I wish to touch briefly on another aim mentioned in the Government's programme—to improve the effectiveness of the health and social services. I am sure those services include the London ambulance service. For many years while working as a GP in North London I found that my patients were well served by a highly efficient emergency ambulance service. However, in recent months I have become increasingly anxious about its effectiveness. There have been times in my practice when the ambulance service has taken 20 minutes to answer a 999 call put through to it by British Telecom. Emergency admissions promised within the hour have taken up to three and a half hours. On one occasion I was told by an ambulance controller answering the telephone that at that time 40 telephone calls were waiting in a queue to be dealt with.
More tragically, on Saturday 7th September this year a neighbour—not my patient—a young woman aged 24, died at home from acute overwhelming pneumonia while waiting for an ambulance to arrive. The ambulance was based in Barnet, eight miles away from the patient's home in Islington. The driver eventually arrived in the district but he did not know the local environmental road block system and wasted valuable minutes negotiating it. I am not sure that the woman would have survived if help had come immediately—possibly not. However, her friends and neighbours had to wait for 35 minutes, which was a painful and traumatic experience. They felt completely powerless to help her.
I gather that there has been an internal inquiry into the incident. It would appear that the service is in a near-crisis situation with an acute shortage of staff. Will the Minister tell the House how a service which was once amazingly effective and prompt has been allowed to deteriorate to such a degree? I suggest that prompt improvement is required.

291
The main thrust of my speech concerns a matter which is of greater long-term importance to the health of the nation; it is how to reduce smoking among 32 per cent. of the population to 22 per cent. That may appear to be an ambitious target considering that the level has remained virtually static for the past five years. However, if the rate of reduction that occurred between 1978 and 1985 were repeated, we could reach 18 per cent. by the year 2000. That will require new measures to be adopted.
It is hardly necessary to repeat that smoking is the biggest single avoidable cause of death. That is clearly stated in the Government's Green Paper. It outweighs by a factor of six all the other avoidable causes put together—that is, all accidents, road and other; fires; suicide; murder; manslaughter; drug abuse; alcohol abuse and AIDS. It is calculated that rear seat belt legislation will save some 100 lives per year. Smoking kills almost three times as many people every day.
The largest single factor in the dramatic reduction in smoking which occurred between 1979 and 1986 was the increase in the real price of cigarettes. However, in recent years the Government have been reluctant to raise the price through increasing duty largely because of the effect on the retail prices index. The solution would be to remove tobacco from the RPI. After all, only 30 per cent. of the population smokes and it is a habit which the Government wish to discourage. France, Portugal and Luxembourg have already taken that action.
Much is expected from better health education. However, even if the present allocation to the Health Education Authority of some £8 million were doubled, that would be unlikely to be effective when faced with the estimated £100 million spent by the tobacco industry in promoting its product, which contains a unique combination of insidious poisons whose continued consumption is driven by nicotine, a highly addictive substance. In July last year Mrs. Virginia Bottomley in another place, said that if cigarettes were introduced today their production and sale would probably be banned.
The problem with health education against smoking is that at present its credibility is questionable. That is especially so for children when seductive advertising legally stating the exact opposite is found on every urban street corner. "If cigarettes were really bad for you the Government wouldn't allow them to be advertised", is a logical view that I have heard expressed by a teenager.
It is in that connection that I wish to discuss the draft EC directive banning tobacco advertising except indoors at the point of sale. I understand that on Monday 11th November the EC Ministers of Health will meet to discuss the draft directive, among other matters. The draft directive is backed by eight of the 12 EC member states, with the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark apparently opposed to it. The Government's position to date has been that legislation to prohibit tobacco advertising has not conclusively been shown to be effective in reducing cigarette consumption in the countries where it has been introduced. However, recent evidence from
292
New Zealand and Canada shows clearly that a decline in the number of people smoking occurred in relation to recent legislation banning advertising.
I am slightly embarrassed at this point because I shall quote back a letter written by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to Professor Sleight, who is chairman of ASH, which discusses this problem. The letter indicates that, while the Government still hold the position that the case for a ban is unproven,
"officials are in contact with the New Zealand authorities seeking further information and we will continue to study their experience and that of other countries and to review our position as necessary".
We can possibly see a chink in the Government's opposition to an advertising ban. It is time to admit that the voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry to control advertising are not effective. The prevalence of smoking has stayed level for the past five years.
I do not expect the Government to swing behind the EC directive by next Monday. That would be too much to expect and would be difficult because, despite the Government's target of reducing the prevalence of smoking from 32 per cent. to 22 per cent., there is no proposal in Britain to bring in legislation to ban advertising. If the Government cannot endorse the draft directive, I hope they suggest a formula which keeps it very much on the table.
The Secretary of State for Health, William Waldegrave, said in July of this year on Radio 4:
"I am rather carefully not ruling it"—
that is, an advertising ban—
"out for ever—I'd be foolish to do so".
As a doctor who has dealt, and is dealing, with hundreds of victims of smoking, I suggest that it will greatly assist the achievement of the Government's target if the banning of tobacco advertising is moved right to the top of the priority scale.
An argument used by the tobacco industry is that a ban on tobacco advertising would be an interference with personal liberty. I answer that in the words of John Stuart Mill, who said:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".
The harm done by tobacco is now fully accepted. We should rightly exercise power to prohibit its advertising.
8.2 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rea can count me as a devout but not very effective ally in his campaign against smoking. I gather he wishes to ban smoking altogether. Clearly his wish to ban the advertising of tobacco is a halfway house. If it is put on the same level as cannabis, smoking should be banned and we should not allow it at all. I have never smoked in my life and that is why I am not a useful ally because people will say that I do not know what I am talking about. I suppose that my noble friend is a reclaimed smoker. He has smoked, has he?
Lord Rea: Not really.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, that is more than I have. I suppose that we all agree that the most famous rugby player of the past 10 years has been

293
Blanco, the French captain. He was asked whom he admired most among the rugby players he had met over the past 10 years. He said that it was Willie Duggan of Ireland because, "he smoked more cigarettes before a match than I did". That was Blanco's testimony and it obviously has not ruined his rugby playing. As I say, I lend my support but it will not help my noble friend very much. Other experts must offer their views.
Because of a misunderstanding for which I take full responsibility, I am speaking in what is technically called "the gap". I do not know whether other noble Lords here have ever been subjected to that humiliation in their careers. I have listened to other noble Lords speaking in the gap with visible impatience because one always wonders why such people must speak at all. I hope that the House will conceal its impatience as I offer a few thoughts—fewer, however, than they would have been had I obtained a more exalted place.
The House will not be surprised to hear that I wish to offer a few thoughts on penal affairs. Owing to my position in the gap and because of the hour, I shall leave out some of the most important issues; namely, the causes of crime and its prevention. They were dealt with effectively by my noble friend Lord Richard and the noble Lord who spoke about young offenders. I have spoken previously in this House about sentencing and have pointed out that we send more people to prison per head than anywhere else in Europe. Therefore, I shall not deal with the matter now.
I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would have time to denounce privatisation but he did not do so before he felt bound to conclude his speech. I have said before that to make a profit out of unfortunate people in our power who have committed crimes—and perhaps terrible crimes—is obscene. I say it again, but I shall not deal with the topic now.
I wish to deal with the treatment of prisoners. My mind goes back to 1955 when I opened the first debate on prisons ever held in this House. I was followed by Lord Templewood who had been a Conservative Home Secretary and was then president of the Howard League. I remember him saying, "We know what we should do but we do not do it". That is how I place the matter before the Government now. They know what should be done and are not doing it. I hope that it is a compliment to say that they know what should be done. It would be terrible to say that they are too thick and obtuse to know what should be done. They know what should be done because they have the Woolf Report and they claim that in principle they accept it.
When I say that the Government do not do what should be done, I do not blame Ministers. I have a higher regard for Home Office Ministers than for anyone else sitting on the Front Bench today. For reasons which are not obscure, it is the Government who do nothing. There is no mention of penal reform in the gracious Speech. If the Government are dedicated to any reform, however feeble, they should say something about it. It is not mentioned at all. The
294
noble Lord, Lord Henley, cannot explain that away although I am sure he will try. Therefore, they know what should be done but their colleagues do not allow them to do it.
I wish to touch on one aspect of the Woolf/Tumim Report. It is the most authoritative document ever produced on penal reform. It has been accepted and applauded by all including the Government. The aspect to which I shall refer has been dealt with many times in the scathing reports of Judge Tumim, the chief inspector of prisons. The regimes in prisons are quite deplorable. The amount of time spent in a cell is longer today than it was 20 years ago. If anything, we have gone backwards.
That is the opinion of people who were in prison service before the noble Lord was born. I do not mean the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I think he had just been born. However, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had not been born when I first visited prisons. People like ex-Governor Timms of Maidstone and others agree that on the whole the situation in prisons is worse than it was 20 years ago because people spend so long in their cells. The life is more wasteful. I accept that that is not the case in all prisons because I can give examples of prisons where people are receiving full-time education. I know one person who has acquired such an art and skill that in the past few months—and your Lordships may not believe this—he has painted a portrait of me. Just think of that! That took some doing. He did it without my having to sit for him. So people can acquire skills in prison. Nevertheless, by and large, life in prison is futile and worse than it was a number of years ago.
What is the answer? It is simple. It may be acceptable to Home Office Ministers but it will not be acceptable to what is called the Treasury; that is, the Government whom we have chosen to represent us at any rate for the time being. They do not like the answer, which is that we need more prison officers. That means more money. Either one is ready to put more money for reforms at the disposal of the prison services or one is not. Noble Lords apparently are not ready to put more resources at the disposal of the prison service.
Let us think for a moment about the prison officers. The Government are, to put it mildly, not at all nice about them. It may be that the prison officers are not nice about the Government, but that is not my immediate point. The Woolf Report said that,
"members of the prison service as a whole, against heavy odds, have managed over a number of years to contain an almost impossible situation by showing immense dedication, courage and professionalism."
That is the considered view of the Woolf/Tumim Report. But the Government treat prison officers as a lot of scallywags and with contempt. It is hardly open to argument that one of the reasons the Government favour a policy of privatisation is because it is a way of bypassing the prison officers.
I beg the Government to think carefully about their relationship with prison officers. I remember an account given by the late Lord Stockton. He said that when he went to his preparatory school, Summerfields in Oxford, and was crying himself to sleep on his first night, the occupant of the next bed said, "Don't cry,

295
little boy; your position is bad but not hopeless." In a sense that is how the relationship stands between the Government and the Prison Officers' Association. I beg the to consider a new initiative.
We are aware of the infinite charm and astuteness of the noble Earl opposite. Perhaps he and his colleagues in the Home Office can meet the prison officers personally and not leave matters to subordinate arrangements. I beg the Government to consider the matter, give it at least some attention and not simply dismiss it as ludicrous. I hope that the Minister will say that he will at least consider the idea of a direct approach by Ministers to the prison officers to see whether or not a new relationship can be formed. Without that no good can happen.
When I opened our debate at the end of July I said that I wished Ministers well but that the omens were not good. They are no better now, but I still wish Ministers well. However, I am afraid that it is becoming increasingly a matter of hope over experience.
8.13 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is my pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on an extremely able and interesting maiden speech. His claims to be uncontroversial, I hope, were as good as my own on an equivalent occasion. I shall not discuss his arguments further. However, on many future occasions I look forward to discussing them in this Chamber.
It may not have been noticed that power is an addictive substance. It is dangerous to those who indulge in it for too long and yet it does not seem that people show a great eagerness to give it up. The trouble is that there is a limited distance one can travel in any direction before one hits the limits of the possible. The line which separates the visionary from the Utopian is thin. Therefore any government in power for too long must face David Lodge's question, "How far can you go?" Beyond that point they risk finding that their legislative offspring are illegitimate.
I do not for a moment suggest that the problem is peculiar to any one party. After 1951 the view was quite widely held, I believe inside as well as outside the Labour Party, that it had taken socialism as far as it could go. I have been waiting since 1955 to find out what the Labour Party was going to believe after socialism. I am still waiting. Similarly, watching the first programme of the Major Government and watching to see what the Conservative Party will believe after Thatcherism, I wonder whether I shall have to wait as long.
That is the sort of circumstance in which a politician must fall back on the old familiar cliche, "These are our principles. If you do not like them we have others". Mr. Major's tragedy is that he does not have any others. The one idea which seems to me to be specifically associated with Mr. Major is that of the Citizen's Charter. On that I cannot improve on the comment of Mr. Roger Freeman. On the issue of the Fenchurch Street commuters, on which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich had so much that
296
was useful to say, Mr. Freeman said that the principle of the Citizen's Charter could not, by definition, address fundamental problems.
If we were sure that the Government agreed with that, we would find it easier, as my noble friend suggested, to go along with maintaining that one should not sneer at the Citizen's Charter. But it cannot be used as an alibi for fundamental problems. It cannot be used as a whipping boy to punish public services for fundamental problems whose origins are elsewhere. Other proposals such as the privatisation of British Coal and British Rail seem to have succeeded to that special niche in Cloud-cuckoo-land once occupied by Labour proposals for nationalising banking and insurance.
What are the country's greatest problems? I would mention homelessness, among others, without dwelling on it. At this stage it is inevitable that most of the country's greatest problems should be ones that cannot be solved by Conservative principles. I do not blame the Government for that. That is the inevitable price of being in office for too long. There are some problems that could be addressed by Conservative principles. For example, I cannot yet get it into my mind that there is anything in Conservative principles incompatible with adequate levels of student support, on which people can live, eat and above all work.
I am, I hope, always ready to admit to this House when I have been wrong. On the Education (Student Loans) Bill and the disentitlement to social security I was wrong. The position is a great deal more grave than I then foresaw. Some noble Lords have no doubt read the report by NACAB on the subject, which is an extremely powerful document. My experience with my own pupils—on which I shall not dwell in detail—is slightly worse than appears from that report. I have learnt as a rough rule of thumb to recognise a serious financial problem as a case where the undergraduate has a four figure overdraft the day after receipt of his grant cheque. The social security safety net is a vital one and a citizen's right. Without it any of those multiple misfortunes which any of us may experience are capable of pushing people over the edge.
What do we see instead in the programme put before us? What are thought to be the great issues facing the country? We have a Bill shooting the messengers at Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. On that I agree with everything said by my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee. We have a Bill for stopping some universities doing research; we have a Bill for keeping refugees away from the courts. Can any of your Lordships imagine a foreign journalist writing back to his or her country about the major problems of Britain in 1991 beginning with those three matters? I find that very difficult.
I am pleased to see in the gracious Speech that the Government attach the highest priority to improving public services, but I cannot help feeling a little the way I feel when listening to the Labour Party on the economy: I am glad that the will is there; the feeling for the subject is not. I do not believe that this Government have any more understanding of how to improve public services than the Labour Party has of how to improve the economy. The Government keep

297
on concentrating obsessively on the notion of efficiency with a narrow, impoverished definition which is in effect a synonym for "cheap".
Perhaps I may give one example of that. I refer to the new scheme for performance-related pay for the funding of magistrates' courts. I understand that the courts are in effect to be paid in proportion to the number of cases they get through. They are to be rewarded for getting the cases done fast regardless of whether they get them right. In fact, they are being given an incentive to do it quickly and not to do it well. Mr. Anthony Scrivener, the chairman of the Bar Council, commented:
"The important thing in any system of justice is to get the correct decision. This is achieved by putting the attainment of justice first, not the selling of some notional produce".
We have here a financial incentive to do something other than to do justice. In Her Coronation oath Her Majesty is sworn to do justice to her subjects. There is judicial precedent for holding that that oath is binding on Her Majesty's Ministers. I am not a lawyer and I speak tentatively. I ask whether the Home Secretary has taken legal advice on that point.
It is the same spirit of concern for efficiency, regardless of the ultimate objective, which seems to inform the Government's Bill on higher education. In speaking on anything to do with higher education I must of course declare my interest as a university teacher in post. The objective, stated no less than nine times in the White Paper Higher Education: A New Framework is, once again, so-called efficiency. I am not sure that it is any more compatible with scholarship than it is with justice.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches accept, have been arguing for for a long time and warmly welcome, the abolition of the binary line dividing universities and polytechnics. That is an obviously sensible measure. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who pushed the matter to a Division in 1988. The interesting question is why the Government have been so long about doing it. The answer is even more interesting. If the binary line had been abolished in 1988 and therefore polytechnics had been given the scale of research funding which universities enjoyed, it would have cost the Government a good deal of money.
Since then we have had a long string of changes in university research funding which at the time appeared to university teachers to be nothing worse than incomprehensible. Now they are all too dreadfully comprehensible. It used to be a key principle that in universities teaching and research were done by the same people so that every university was in part funded for research in proportion to its student numbers. That is to go from October 1992. Certain places will be funded for research in proportion to their perceived excellence according to performance indicators. I agreed with everything that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford had to say about performance indicators.
Others go through the research councils. We now have the prospect of universities which do not do research. It is a little like bicycles without wheels.
298
Talking to the council of directors of polytechnics on 17th September of this year, the Secretary of State said:
"A number of institutions in the new sector will receive teaching funding only".
We have here the old argument of levelling up or levelling down. Noble Lords opposite will remember going through that argument many times. What is new is that we are using it against a Conservative Government. What I am suggesting is that this is not a Bill to turn polytechnics into universities—which we would have welcomed—it is a Bill to turn a considerable number of universities into polytechnics by depriving them of the right to research.
The link between teaching and research is very much like the link in another place between constituency case work and performance in the Chamber. It is a two-way link and it is a close one. I would not for a moment wish to denigrate the dedication of Members of another place to their constituency case work. I admire it daily. But if we knew that two-thirds of the Members of another place were shortly about to be deprived of the right to enter the Chamber and confined to their constituency case work, first, we should have a rather unhealthy atmosphere of competition and, secondly, when that competition was concluded we might find that the most hotly contested office in British politics was that of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds. We expect a similar position with universities when the Bill has gone through. That is as about efficient as the meat packaging factory which Mr. Anthony Scrivener said the Government were making out of the courts.
When one is discussing educational expansion one must ask what is the purpose of all this education. We ask that inside the business quite as much as it is asked outside. I believe that perhaps the most important factor is not inculcating any particular body of knowledge, but getting people used to the fact that the body of knowledge changes and to understanding that. My noble friend Lady Seear has discussed this matter with industry. She tells me that that is the message that she gets from there. That is precisely why it is important to have teaching done by those who have actually moved the frontiers of knowledge, who have seen them moving and who understand how that happens.
I do not know what is going to happen, but I believe that this measure is changing the notion of the essence of a university as we have hitherto known it. We do not know whether employers will believe that degrees from the teaching-only institutions, no matter by what name they may be called, are as good as what used to be real university degrees. We do not know whether students will feel that they are getting the same quality of degree that they were used to.
In this context I must warn the Government of something that some principals and vice-chancellors have learnt the hard way; that when you take students in for a three year course there is a legal commitment to teach them on the type of degree for which you have contracted. So, whenever the list is drawn up of which universities are to be entitled to do research there will have to be a three year timelag before it comes into

299
effect, or else the undergraduates of the losing institutions, deprived of the degrees for which they were contracted, would have a ground for legal action. We could not be sure that they would not bring it and we could not be sure that they would not win it.
There would be less anxiety if the performance indicators, according to which these excellent places will achieve selective research funding are to be selected, commanded wider confidence; but they have been drawn up by people who do not altogether understand the nature of the business. The effect of some of them is to produce a distortion as between one subject and another.
I hope I may be forgiven for taking an example of which I have some personal knowledge; that is, the indicator of the amount of outside money won in grants by the academic concerned. In history it is perfectly obvious that one needs more outside money if one is a European historian than if one is a British historian. If one has to spend six months in Simancas more outside money is needed than going to the Public Record Office. The only expense I normally incur in research is London Transport fares. They have not yet risen to a level which makes me feel entitled to apply for a grant to meet them.
Anyone who remembers the debate on the national curriculum cannot believe that this effect of encouraging the European historians at the expense of the British is what the Government intended. Perhaps that is what they should have done. I am sure that was not their intention. Similarly, it rewards research in the social science scene—heavy computer-based analysis of data with expensive equipment, for which grants are needed, at the expense of standard political history. Again, anyone who remembers the comments on the national curriculum of the former Prime Minister will wonder whether that is what the Government intended.
We are told that we are getting improvements in the public services. When this Government understand what an improvement in a public service is, then we can talk about it.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am sure he will not mind my saying that there were times during his speech when I was irresistibly reminded of the old chestnut that the Liberal Party has a great future behind it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will still have that view after the by-election in Kincardine and Deeside?
Lord Carter: My Lords, we shall certainly have that view after the general election, that's for sure.
We have had a wide ranging debate, which has covered the whole field of home affairs and the social policy, with many excellent speeches. None was better than the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I am sure we all look forward to hearing him in the future. Having congratulated him, that does not mean to say that I agree with everything he said.
300
My noble friend Lord Richard has dealt extremely capably, as always, with Home Office and criminal justice matters. I shall concentrate on education, social security and health —three crucial areas of social policy. Traditionally a debate on the Address ranges rather wider than the measures contained in the gracious Speech. That tradition is particularly relevant in this our last debate on the Address before a general election.
I shall turn first to education. As has been said, we are promised two Bills: one to reform the funding of further education and sixth form colleges and to reform higher education in England and Wales, and the other to make information available about the performance of individual schools.
It was perhaps a coincidence that the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century was published on the same day that the Government announced a decision to abolish the poll tax. One cannot help wondering how much of the switch of policy on further education is due to the Government's evident difficulties over the finance of local government and how much to a genuine need for a change of policy.
The proposed transfer of control of further education to a national funding council seems to ignore the difference between the further education sector and the university and polytechnic sector. To use a word which the Government like, they serve different markets. The universities and the polytechnics cater largely for national and regional demand, while, as we know, further education is locally based. We shall wish to examine the Bill very closely to see whether some better form of local involvement can be secured.
The abolition of the so-called "binary divide" in higher education is welcomed. It has been said by many of your Lordships that one extremely important proviso is that it must not result in a levelling down of resource provision. We can all agree that to give parents information about the performance of individual schools is a good idea. But the Government seem to be in something of a muddle about how to do it, as has been mentioned by a number of your Lordships. There is the other truly crackpot idea of privatising the education inspectorate.
In passing, it is curious that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is apparently entirely happy to use the word "privatisation" to describe these changes in a service which is wholly funded from public funds, while the Secretary of State for Health seems to get in a dreadful lather about the use of the word to describe changes in the National Health Service which do involve commercialisation.
It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that when the number of His is reduced from 500 to 175, as proposed, there will be only 39 involved in the quality assurance of inspection; that nine will be allocated to grant-maintained schools and to territorial intelligence—whatever that means—and 15 to independent schools. I wonder just how much confidence the consumer would have if the newly privatised industries could appoint their own regulators.

301
The next Labour Government will establish an education standards commission to oversee the work of a combined inspectorate at national and local level. The commission will be independent of the Department of Education and Science. It will report to Parliament and will be responsible for inspecting and measuring the effectiveness of schools and for securing the measures to raise standards.
There is no mention of social security legislation in the gracious Speech, apart from the technical social security measures required to implement the council tax. I wonder whether this will be the first Session of this Parliament that does not have a social security Bill. If so, it is a great pity. That means that, again, nothing is to be done to alter the situation where the number of people who are living below half average income has increased from about 5 million in 1979 to about 12 million now. The proportion of people living on or below the benefit level has tripled from 6 per cent. in 1979 to 19 per cent. now. The income divide between the top 20 per cent. of men in work and the bottom 20 per cent. is greater now than it was 100 years ago. The gap between those on income support and the rest of the population is greater than at any time since 1948.
We know that we are at the bottom of the European league for economic growth and investment. However, there is one European league where we are outright champions; that is, the poverty league. One in five of all EC residents defined as poor is in the United Kingdom; one in four of all EC households defined as poor is in the United Kingdom. We have more poor people than any other member state and we have seen a bigger increase in poverty in the 1980s than any other member state. In fact, by far the larger proportion of the increase in poverty in the European Community in recent years has been in the UK.
I have to say that the Government seem to be in something of a semantic muddle when it comes to discussing poverty. Sometimes they seem to imply that poverty does not exist, that it is all a matter of relativity. I agree that sometimes poverty exists when it cannot really be measured. However, more usually it does exist, and it can be measured, but we would sooner not collect or publish the statistics which would reveal the facts about poverty. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when we can expect to receive the latest figures on family incomes and the period that they will cover. I understand that they are some years behind.
We often hear the phrase "the poverty lobby" which is usually used in a fairly denigrator fashion. We never seem to hear about "the wealth lobby". When we look at what has happened since 1979 there is no doubt which lobby has been the most successful. Although the total burden of taxation has increased as a proportion of GDP since 1979, the carrying of the burden has been deliberately shifted from the rich to the rest. We heard a great deal in the early 1980s about the trickle down theory, by which the poor could be helped if the rich got richer. In fact the Government seem to have achieved the geographical impossibility of a flood upwards.
302
There are many areas of social security to consider but time does not allow it. I should, however, like to draw the attention of the House to the serious situation which is still facing those in residential and nursing care and the people who look after them. I am indebted to the Motor and Allied Trades Benevolent Fund for sending me information about the problems which it faces. It is a typical charity in this respect. It states:
"Income support, which was close to or even above our own costs in 1985 has relentlessly fallen behind and the recently announced increases of £15–£20 per week for 1992 do not begin to fill the gap, let alone make provision for rising costs next year".
That organisation has also sent me the preliminary findings of a survey commissioned by the Association of Charity Officers in conjunction with Age Concern and carried out by the Institute of Gerontology at King's College. I shall quote two figures from that excellent survey. It looked at 55 charities which run residential homes. Between them the 55 faced a deficit in 1990–91 of just over £11 million and the forecast for the deficit in 1991–92 is just over £15 million. Sixty per cent. of all the residents in the 81 homes were on income support and they were unable to meet fees at a realistic level. Evidence of hardship and suffering was reported. The benevolent fund concludes:
"In summary, the voluntary movement has worked incredibly hard to co-operate with Government in providing and funding care, but we are losing the battle. It really is only a matter of time before well established and managed charities start to implode, reducing and withdrawing care in order to survive. Social security costs will then rise steeply as Government is forced to buy the care which until now we have provided".
That is only one of many areas of social security where this Government have manifestly failed in the first duty of any government—to secure a decent standard of living for all our citizens.
In turning to health, I must pay a word of tribute to my predecessor as Front Bench spokesman on health, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. It is a great honour to succeed him. If his outstanding speech on asylum and refugees is anything to go by, his occupation of the Back Benches will add greatly to the quality of our debates in the many areas of his interests. As I understand it, the only legislation that we shall get in the area of health is the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill. It is not controversial but we shall need to look at it to ensure that standards of education and disciplinary procedures are protected at the highest level in the nursing profession. We shall have a detailed discussion at the Second Reading of the Bill next week.
The gracious Speech refers to,
"bringing forward Charters for individual public services",
and we have, of course, now received the Patient's Charter. We discussed this at Question Time yesterday and today's debate provides an opportunity to clear up some confusion in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will remember that I asked her the following question:
"My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is confusion over the use of the word "rights" in the Patient's Charter? Are those rights enforceable at law? Will the patient receive compensation if the rights are not met?"
Later on in Question Time the noble Baroness said:

303
"My Lords, there are seven existing rights which are enforceable at law and through the additional channels that are being provided. From April of next year there will be three important new rights".—[Official Report, 5/11/91; cols. 144–45.]
The charter refers to national charter standards in nine key areas. It states:
"These are not legal rights but major and specific standards which the Government looks to the NHS to achieve, as circumstances and resources allow".
This phraseology seems to imply that the 10 Patient's Charter rights are legal rights. Perhaps when he comes to reply the Minister can tell the House whether they are in fact legally enforceable rights. If they are, on what statutes does the patient rely to secure enforcement? Can the patient obtain legal aid if he or she sues? It would also be interesting to know how the Patient's Charter will help the patient where a consultant will not put a patient on an already long waiting list.
The charter says nothing about the right to a minimum length of time before a patient receives his or her first hospital appointment. It is a little ironic that the press office note from the Citizen's Charter unit, published with the gracious Speech, says, under the heading "Consultation":
"customers' views must be sought about type and standards of service they expect; there must be up-to-date, accurate market research".
That certainly did not apply to the introduction of the NHS reforms and certainly does not apply now to the decision of hospitals to opt out which, as we all know, is basically a decision by the hospital manager.
The charter is silent on the crucial question of patient choice. One of the existing rights is,
"to be referred to a consultant, acceptable to you, when your GP thinks it necessary, and to be referred for a second opinion if you and your GP agree this is desirable".
How will this right operate if the consultant and the patient wish the patient to be referred to a particular hospital and the health service manager refuses to pay either because there is no contract with that hospital or because the extra-contractual referral budget is exhausted?
A survey is to be published tomorrow of the first six months of the NHS reforms. It is a survey of directors of public health medicine and was carried out by the Health Research Centre of Middlesex Polytechnic. It states:
"District health authorities, who now have responsibility for making contracts with hospitals, rely on their directors of public health medicine to assess the needs of NHS patients and guide them in setting spending priorities. Comments provided by these doctors, who are pivotal to the reforms, focus on lack of resources for patient care, undue haste, lack of management skills and burgeoning bureaucracy … Many directors also commented that they welcomed doctors' involvement in management and finance, medical audit, and a greater focus on the patient"—
we can all agree on that—
"but at the same time were deeply concerned over the relentless pace of implementation and 'the mounting chaos of extra contractual referrals and budget holding GPs'. A look at the future finds one-third of those responding doubting the continuing availability of local comprehensive services".
I shall quote some of the comments reported in the survey:
"The NHS is inherently more expensive for the same volume of work done".
"Waiting times are going up despite pronouncements to the contrary".
304
"The pace is untenable".
"Results are only slogans".
Some noble Lords may feel that this survey is slightly more objective than the entertaining but anecdotal report by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, an acknowledged enthusiast for the NHS reforms. It is perhaps a pity that the noble Lord did not tell us—
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Does he not realise that "anecdote" means unpublished? What I said was published and is true. Furthermore, does he accept that it was not the decision of management at Guy's to become self-governing; it was the two to one vote by the consultants?
Lord Carter: Yes, my Lords, I entirely accept that. I shall remove the word "anecdote" and just leave in the word "entertaining". It is a pity that the noble Lord did not tell us exactly why the Guy's and Lewisham Trust managed to get its sums so badly wrong when it produced its business plan to justify opting out.
The current debate over the NHS reforms has concentrated largely on the hospital service and opt out hospitals, but it is much more than just the hospital service. The whole field of community care is vitally important. There is already grave disquiet about both the funding and the operation of community care after April 1993. I make it clear that the next Labour Government will ring-fence the funds for community care, which is a necessary but not a sufficient condition if the programme is to be successful. The totality of resources is equally important. There is a creeping influence of commer-cialisation in the NHS. I shall give one example. Some Fuses are apparently noticing a larger than usual reduction in the number of women between 25 and 64 on some GPs' lists. The reduction makes it easier for those GPs to hit their targets for cervical smear tests and to be suitably rewarded.
There is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition where health policy is concerned. We just do not believe that the internal market is an appropriate, fair or workable mechanism to allocate health care. In any area of activity where demand exceeds supply there are only two ways of allocating scarce resources: you can allocate according to need or you can allocate according to price. The Labour Party, and the great majority of British people, prefer to allocate according to clinical need. But the Government prefer to allocate according to cost, which means price.
Allocating according to need still means that harsh choices have to be made. Allocating according to price means that those with the most money get the best service. Opt-out hospitals may not be opting out of the NHS, but those who buy private health care are certainly opting out of the National Health Service. However, the Government by way of their reforms have performed one service. They have brought this fundamental choice out into the open. I have little doubt which approach the people will choose when the election comes.

305
I should make the policies of the Labour Party entirely clear. In government each year we shall ensure that, if we approve a pay award in the health service, we fully fund it in a way that this Government have never done since 1985. When we produce our budget for the National Health Service we shall have taken fully into account the pressures on the budget and the growing numbers of the very elderly in our community. In the first year we shall start to tackle under funding and shall continue to do so year on year. Over the lifetime of the Parliament we shall seek to restore the under funding and each year we shall make progress towards achieving that end. That is a rather more rational and coherent statement than the Government's apparent intention to increase public expenditure and reduce income tax. That can only be done by increasing indirect taxation, and that is exactly what has happened over the past 12 years.
"How far and how fast we shall be able to increase spending will depend…on how successful we are at managing the economy and restarting economic growth … we could afford a substantial increase in money spent on health only when the economy is once again producing the resources to enable that to be done".— [Official Report, Commons, 2/11/78; cols. 220, 221 and 222.]
I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was vastly amused by that last sentence. It is actually an extract from a speech made by Mr. Patrick Jenkins, as he then was (now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Roding) as Opposition spokesman on health. He was speaking in the debate on the Address in another place in 1978. It was the last debate on the Address before the 1979 general election. That is exactly what he said. He said that the incoming government would increase resources for the health service when they had achieved growth in the economy. We shall do the same; but the difference is that, as history has shown since the war, economic growth under Labour governments has been faster than that under Conservative governments.
What we have seen in the past 12 years is a massive exercise in redistribution. I refer not just to redistribution of income and wealth between individuals but also redistribution of power and resources. The figures are entirely clear regarding taxation. The reduction in the rates of direct taxation and the switch to indirect taxation plus the updating of social security benefits in line with prices rather than earnings means, as we know, that the rich have become considerably richer and the poor much poorer. Power has been increasingly centralized in education, local government and in health, and resources have been redirected. The city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme, opt-out hospitals and GP budget holders are all examples of the latter.
I make no apology for saying that the next Labour government will set about correcting this misdistribution of wealth, power and resources. This gracious Speech does nothing to correct that inequity; the next gracious Speech, after the general election, most certainly will.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on his maiden speech which we all greatly enjoyed. We look forward to his future participation, for example, in the debate on the report on education in schools which will no doubt take place in this House in due course. I regret that I shall not be debating the issues with him on that document but I would welcome very much his participation in any social security debates which may arise.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, this kind of debate covers an immensely wide variety of topics—indeed, "a vast canvas" of them, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers put it. The debate impinges upon a large number of departments. Chief among those that have been mentioned are the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the departments of health and of education and science and obviously, last but not least, my department, the Department of Social Security. We even had mention of such departments as transport and the Welsh Office, although they do not strictly appear under the heading of today's debate.
The subjects which we have covered are very wide and varied. We have had crime and its causes and prevention, asylum, social cohesion, deprivation, charities, industrial relations in prisons, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, the award of licences under the Broadcasting Act, the education of our children at school, the Parent's Charter, Church colleges and schools, the role of Leas, the Children Act, the NHS and the reforms, the boredom of children, the friendly societies, Sunday trading—quite surprisingly—law reform, the law of common-hold, animal welfare and the ban on the export of horses for slaughter. We also heard the mini-Queen's Speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, which we were pleased to welcome. I look forward to his dogs Bill but regret that I shall not have the opportunity to debate the matter with him. We have also had mention of social services, the training of social workers and of course comments on the role of the Treasury in the 13th century. Further, we heard about disability, tobacco advertising, students and social security, inadequate parenting, the London ambulance service and the privatisation of prisons.
If I were to attempt to cover all those topics, I should have to speak for as long as some of the great parliamentarians of earlier centuries. Even then, I do not think that I could, without speaking all night, cover all the points raised and the questions asked. I do not believe that it would be wise to attempt to do so. Moreover, I do not think that the House would wish me to do so. The spirit of our times does not really welcome overlong speeches and certainly The Companion to the Standing Orders positively discourages them.
Nevertheless, I hope that I shall be able to cover a number of the more important issues. I have listened to each and every speech in the debate and those subjects raised with which I am not able to deal I shall endeavour to answer in writing. Certainly a great many of the matters raised will be the subject of

307
debates and legislation which will come before the House in due course. They will of course be more properly dealt with on those occasions. I am referring especially to two pieces of legislation. The first is the Charities Bill which, I understand, will receive its Second Reading, on the 19th of this month and the Further and Higher Education Bill which will receive its Second Reading on the 21st of this month. I hope therefore that noble Lords will understand if I do not say much, or anything, about them on this occasion.
I intend to deal with the debate by subject matter based on the department involved. I shall begin with the Home Office and to some extent the Lord Chancellor's Department. I shall then move to the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and lastly, as I said earlier, but by no means least, to my department, the Department of Social Security.
I shall start with law and order issues in the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, rather amusingly said that the prison mutiny Bill was not necessary and that it would really only cover the non-violent solitary prisoner offering no resistance and causing no damage. Obviously, we can at present charge those who riot with a very wide range of offences such as riot and violent behaviour under the Public Order Act. But the new offence set out in the new Bill will tackle specifically the problems within prisons. It will be a visible sanction for the prisons and will therefore, one hopes, have some deterrent effect for that reason.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the joyriding Bill. He asked where it was and why it did not appear in the Queen's Speech. He also asked why we required a new Act. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently announced his intention to bring forward proposals to increase the penalties for taking vehicles without consent when that offence is aggravated by damage or dangerous driving. I believe that that goes further than the old offence which was provided for in the Theft Act. I cannot remember exactly which section of the Act, but it goes further than the old taking and driving away offence. We shall bring proposals before Parliament as soon as we reasonably can. But I am not in a position to give full details of the offence today. Details of the Bill have still not been finalized.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Lord leaving the Home Office?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, I am not leaving the Home Office at this moment. Perhaps the noble Earl will bear with me, I was moving on to a subject which is perhaps more a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department than the Home Office. It is the matter of leasehold and commonhold, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I thank him for having had the courtesy to write to me on the subject.
In a Statement made by my noble and learned friend Lord Chancellor in this House on 12th July it was promised that the Government would introduce legislation on commonhold and related matters as soon as parliamentary time could be found for it. We have not been able to find time for it in the current
308
Session, therefore it will not be possible to bring it forward in this Session. Similarly, I cannot give the commitments for which my noble friend Lord Brentford asked on legislation on Sunday trading and friendly societies.
I turn now to the Asylum Bill, a subject which cropped up largely in the earlier part of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, raised various points, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I am glad that the latter accepted that there is a serious problem here. My noble friend Lord Brentford, and the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Meston, also raised the subject. There will be appropriate time to debate this when the Bill comes before the House but it may help if I respond to one or two of the points put to me in the course of the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, argued that, since at the moment 90 per cent. of immigrants were allowed to stay, most claims could not in any sense be abusive. The noble Lord shakes his head but that was the point of the argument as I understood it. Only 25 per cent. of applicants for asylum are found to be genuinely fleeing persecution. A few more have other humanitarian reasons, but most are allowed to stay because by claiming asylum they have managed to extend their stay in the United Kingdom so long that their removal would be unreasonable. They may, for example, have married or had children while their claims were under consideration. We feel that the Government's proposals will deal with the problem by speeding up the consideration of claims. All time limits will be applied reasonably and exceptions will be made if necessary.
Another anxiety that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and other noble Lords raised was whether the Government intended to abolish legal aid for asylum seekers. Our only proposal is to withdraw legal aid for advice. This is because we already fund the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service to provide advice. There are no plans to abolish legal aid for court appearances. No changes will be made until satisfactory alternatives are in place. We are still discussing these alternatives with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, but that is not a matter for primary legislation, so it is not in the Bill.
I turn to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made about the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act and allegations that my noble friend had to some extent misled the noble Lord as to whether amendments could be part of the Asylum Bill. The scope of the Bill and questions as to which amendments may be tabled are, as the noble Lord knows, always a matter for the Clerks. My understanding is that the Clerks do not consider that amendments to that Act would be within the scope of the Bill. I regret that the noble Lord considers that he was misled by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal on this occasion. However, my noble friend made it quite clear on two occasions in the debate on 22nd October 1991 at columns 1476 and 1480 that he could give absolutely no undertaking on the point and it had to be a matter for—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to read out the context in which that statement was made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am quite happy to refer to the second quotation. I quote my noble friend:
"I can repeat what I said before: that I should be very surprised indeed if the scope of the Bill was not wide enough. I should certainly like to see all these matters ventilated when we come to discuss refugee status". [Official Report, 22/10/91; col. 1480.]
If I can find it, we shall see that he had given the undertaking earlier at column 1476:
"In any event it is not a matter for me. Presumably, it is a matter for the Clerks of this House and of another place to say how wide the Long Title is. My opinion is that—"
It is not my noble friend's opinion that is relevant. He made it quite clear on two occasions that it was a matter for the Clerks. I shall not take any more interruptions on this. I hope that the noble Lord will accept—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I find that objectionable. The accuracy of the Minister's statement has been challenged. Now he is trying to avoid answering any further questions on the issue. I expect the answer to be from the Leader of the House rather than the noble Lord: it is not his responsibility. The fact is that Ministers were aware of the Long Title of the Bill at the time when the noble Lord made his statement in the House. If they did not know it, they could have found out from their own officials. The fact is that the words read out by the noble Lord make it quite clear that we were misled—unintentionally, of course—by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not accept that. My noble friend made it quite clear on two occasions that his advice on the matter could not be relied on. It is always a matter for the Clerks. Noble Lords will know perfectly well that on many occasions amendments will have been put down and though, speaking for the Government, I have said, "That sounds as though it should not go down", the Clerks have allowed them. It must always be a matter for them. The noble Lord can say "nonsense" till the cows come home but I wish to point out that on this occasion my noble friend made it clear—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not give way to my noble kinsman. My noble friend made it quite clear to the noble Lord that he could not give the undertaking. It was a matter for the Clerks. At column 1480 on 22nd October 1991, my noble friend said:
"I cannot give an undertaking on behalf of the … Government while standing on my feet at the end of a debate".
He went on to give his opinion, but said quite clearly that he could not give an undertaking. The noble Lord must accept that and it is then up to him to take advice as he wishes. He should accept what I have said in good part.
I shall continue on the subject of the Asylum Bill and questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, as to whether we had any support for it. Amnesty International, the British Refugee Council and the Medical Foundation for the Care of the Tortured have
310
all urged us to speed up our procedures and to grant a right of appeal to all those refused asylum. The Government's proposals do both and I should be very surprised if such bodies objected to those aspects of the Government's plans.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, with respect, the Minister knows that Amnesty International and the British Refugee Council are involved in a campaign against the Bill. It is misrepresentation if he says that there is one little bit that they support. Basically, they oppose the Bill and he knows it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was merely saying that there are aspects of the Bill that those bodies support. The noble Lord must accept that. I now turn to the matter—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hope I may participate once in the semi-private row that is being conducted. I put a specific question to the Government. I asked whether I was right, in my reading of the Bill, to deduce that the initial weeding out—without any form of formal adjudication or court hearing—would be carried out by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case? If it is the case, as I understand it, those who are weeded out by the Secretary of State do not have a right of appeal under the Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether a case that could go to appeal should be a matter for independent decision and not a matter for the Home Secretary. That is precisely how the proposed system will work. The draft appeals procedure rules which were published last Friday make it quite clear that this is a matter for the independent appeals adjudicator.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is unfair to press the Minister on this point when the person who can answer the question is sitting next to him but is silent. Claims for asylum that are considered to be totally without merit are weeded out right at the outset. As I understand it that decision will be taken by the Secretary of State and not by an adjudicator. Am I right or wrong about that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that matter. As I have said, a large number of issues crop up in a debate of this kind. The noble Lord was right to say that I am not a Minister in the department concerned with this matter and therefore I may have some problems in replying to his question.
I move on to education. As I said earlier, I do not intend to speak on the Further and Higher Education Bill as it will come before this House shortly. It is right to leave discussion on the Bill until that time. However, I shall expand a little on what my noble friend said in introducing this debate on the parents' charter and the document on education in schools. Those are matters of some concern to the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and others.
In this legislative programme we attach great importance to a measure designed to secure the

311
implementation of the Parent's Charter. This Government have two principal aims in relation to school education. The first is to improve the management and academic standards of schools and the second—closely related to the first—is to widen choice and to improve the partnership between parents and schools. Both aims are carried forward by the Parent's Charter which was published at the end of September.
The charter also showed how the Government plan to strengthen rights by introducing new school inspection arrangements—the subject of criticism on the pare of some noble Lords—thereby increasing and improving the quality of the information given to parents. Until now too much of what schools have done has been shrouded in darkness. Too many children have not had the quality of education to which they are entitled. Our policies are changing that situation. An inspection which will be both more extensive and of better quality than before will help to underpin our proposals. Parents and governors need, and will have under these arrangements, an objective, reliable assessment of their schools so that they can judge whether those schools are doing as well as they should by comparison with others.
Parents will be consulted before an inspection takes place. Inspection reports will be available to parents and governors, and governors will have to inform parents of the action they propose to take to follow up the reports. As more schools take over responsibility for managing their own budgets, they must be able to account publicly for the quality and standards of education in the school and the effective and efficient use of resources. All concerned will now have a clear basis on which to work to secure freedom.
Worries about the quality of the inspections were expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Ritchie of Dundee. The quality must be central to the new arrangements. We shall create a new office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools to give HMI in statute the independence it has enjoyed in practice since its Foundation. HMI will be placed at the apex of the new system of school inspection with responsibility for regulating and closely monitoring standards of inspection and reporting. HMI will determine who may inspect in future and under what conditions. It will also have the right to remove anyone from the register of approved inspectors. At the same time HMI will remain under a duty to advise the Secretary of State on the quality and standards of education in the country as a whole. More and better information from inspection will help throughout the education service to raise the quality of provision.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I made a point about the number of inspectors. I understand there will be 39 for the whole country for quality assurance, nine for grant maintained schools and 15 for the independent sector. Are those figures correct?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot confirm or deny those figures offhand. I, or one of my colleagues, will write to the noble Lord on that matter.
I turn now to the Department of Health and to the health service. Here our record provides the best case.
312
Since 1979 we have increased the number of doctors and dentists by some 16,000. We have increased the number of nurses and midwives by 60,000. We have increased the number of people treated each year as in-patients in hospitals by more than 1 million. We have raised the number of out-patient attendances by more than 2 million. We have reduced the number of people waiting for treatment for more than one year by 22 per cent. and put forward proposals to eliminate all two-year waiting lists.
We have seen life expectancy increase by some two years for both men and women, and we have seen deaths among babies and very young children halved. We have seen an increase of over 50 per cent. in hip replacements and an increase of 250 per cent. in coronary artery bypass operations. We have reached agreement to end the dangerously long hours worked by many hospital doctors, and I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord McColl had to say about various initiatives which are being tried at Guy's in that respect.
Lastly, despite what is sometimes said, we have increased funding for the National Health Service by more than 50 per cent. in real terms, as we promised. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quoted my noble friend—I was about to say Lord Jenkins of Hillhead!—Lord Jenkins of Roding in another place at another time when he promised those increases. We delivered them in a way in which the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 did not.
I turn now to the reforms themselves. Any change at any time in any organisation is rarely greeted with universal approval. Certainly there were a number of doubters as to the merits of the health reforms. However, now that the trusts and GP fund holders have been established the debate is moving more towards how those concepts can be developed to secure better standards of service. That can only be for the benefit of patients.
The Government have set out a clear programme of action for the health service. There is a broad measure of agreement that the structure of the NHS had become wasteful of resources and insufficiently attuned to the needs of its patients, as my noble friend Lord McColl put it. It needed to be developed. The expressions of interest emerging from the service show that the Government must proceed with the reforms.
The Government have sought to underline the rights of the patient through the Patient's Charter and emphasise the role of health promotion and disease prevention in the proposals in the Green Paper The Health of the Nation, which my noble friend Lord Holderness mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked some rather detailed questions about the London ambulance service. He also raised one individual case which I should not like to comment on today. However, either I or my noble friend Lady Hooper will write to the noble Lord on those issues and particularly with respect to the personal case which he raised.
I turn now to the department for which I have direct ministerial responsibility, the Department of Social Security. I was interested that, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, perhaps in his last day as a

313
social security spokesman, made new promises, which go somewhat beyond the promises that have been generally agreed by the Front Bench of his own party in another place and particularly by the Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters. The noble Lord promised to up-rate all benefits in line with earnings rather than prices. I wonder whether he has tried costing that.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. I referred to the fact that over 12 years the Government have up-rated social security benefits in line with prices. As a matter of simple arithmetic that means that those in receipt of benefits must be worse off compared to those in work. I said nothing about up-rating all social security benefits.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry. I obviously misheard the noble Lord but I understood him to say that all benefits would be up-rated in line with earnings. I am certainly very interested in what he has said and the fact that he has confirmed that his party has no intention to do that.
In the last Session we brought forward to this House no fewer than four major Bills concerning social security. As the gracious Speech has made clear, our legislative programme in this area is not as demanding as it was in previous Sessions. Since I received one private inquiry on this matter, I should stress that three social security Bills have been put before the House but they are merely consolidation Bills and therefore not a matter for my department but for the Lord Chancellor's Department.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked when was the last year without a social security Bill. I am not sure that I can answer that question off-hand but I should be interested to research the matter.
However, by the implementation of existing measures and by bringing new measures through this House, we intend to continue the development of the social security system and to direct extra resources to those who need them most and to improve the quality of service in the delivery of social security.
I should like to refer to one matter which has not been raised this afternoon. The House will know that we are committed to achieving equal treatment in pensions and in particular to equalizing the state pension age. We shall shortly bring forward a discussion document which will provide the background information and set out the options and their costs for equalization of the state pension because we believe that it would be wrong to take any decisions in that complex area without a period of public discussion. However, I must stress that all our options will be discussed. Our minds are in no way made up; they are entirely open. Despite the allegations by the Opposition Front Bench in another place, we have not made up our minds on any of those matters.
We shall continue to take opportunities to direct extra resources to those who need them most. In the up-rating measures that I repeated to the House on 21st October, we not only up-rated the main benefits in line with increases in relevant costs but continued our policy of directing extra help to the less well off
314
pensioners. From April 1992 the higher pensioner premium, which goes to those pensioners over 80 or those who are disabled, will be increased by £1 for a single person and by £1.50 for a couple over and above the normal up-rating.
Additionally, we are raising the income support limits in residential care and nursing homes by significant amounts. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, they are being increased by considerable amounts. There is no evidence of homes in any area of the country which are not able to prosper within those limits. Obviously there are many homes with fees well above those limits, but there is no evidence that people cannot find homes within the limits, which at the lowest rate will rise next April to £175.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, about students and their alleged lack of help with social security. We believe that student support is properly the responsibility of the educational maintenance system which is designed to provide for the needs of students and has been considerably enhanced in past academic years. Therefore, the majority of students do not need to look to the social security system for support. However, we have protected the benefit position of certain vulnerable students, including lone parents, disabled students and student couples with dependent children who continue to be eligible for income support and housing benefit. Partners of students and part-time students may also claim.
We have already announced changes to the SDA residence test which I believe I mentioned to the noble Lord at the time of the up-rating Statement. That change is a further improvement in the benefits for the disabled and will come into effect next April. Disability living allowance will help with the extra costs of care and mobility for people who become disabled before the age of 65. Disability working allowance is a wholly new, income-related benefit which tops up earnings for disabled people and provides a path back into the employment field.
The full package of measures will mean extra help for an estimated 850,000 people, with £300 million added between 1993 and 1994 over and above inflation, to improve the structure and balance of help for disabled people. Those increases in resources will give real help, but no less important to us is the fact that the new measures will promote independence and integration for people with disabilities. DWA will remove the rigid distinction between those able and those unable to work. For those who want it, it will provide a new route back to work and will enable disabled people to attempt to work with security; but if their attempt at work fails within two years, they will be able to return to their long-term incapacity benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about figures on family incomes and, as I understood him, when the next set of household below average income figures would come out. We produced those figures for 1979 to 1987 in July 1990. I therefore think I can say fairly safely that we shall produce the next set sometime next year. Those figures show that total real income had increased at all levels of income. The Social Security

315
Select Committee published the figures for 1988 in April of this year. They confirm the trend of the previous figures. Figures for 1989 are not yet available, but we are consulting specialists in that area about both methodology and presentation.
We also intend to continue the process, as set out in the Citizen's Charter, of improving the service given to social security customers. The contributions agency has already published its own contributors' and employers' charter and the charter for customers will shortly be published by the benefits agency and the employment service. The Government will continue to improve services to customers and improve efficiency through the further development of the department's executive agencies and greater use of new technologies.
In opening for the Opposition in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, claimed that there was no unifying theme in this year's gracious Speech. There is one theme that runs through many of the Government's endeavors; namely, a belief that the best guarantee of success for Britain lies in the talents and energies of its people. It is in order to tap those energies that across the whole of government we have sought to widen opportunities and create new choices. Those policies have paid off. It is a sign of the power of our message that the once revolutionary doctrines of wider ownership, tax reform and privatisation are today the received wisdom.
But there is more to do, not least in sharpening up the performance of that 40 per cent. of our economy which is accounted for by the state sector. Families are increasingly reluctant to put up with seventies-style second-rate services from the public sector. They rightly expect services to provide decent value for money. The past 12 years have seen real progress. By applying the new ideas, techniques and technology, we have transformed the way in which the public sector operates. One has only to look at the way in which contracting out has delivered better services at lower cost to see those powerful changes at work. In the Civil Service itself, the move to agencies has unleashed new energies and ideas by devolving more power to those who provide services to the public.
We plan to build on those changes. The Citizen's Charter initiative has put the drive for better public
316
services at the very heart of our plans for the 1990s. I might add that it has also underlined the Prime Minister's personal commitment to good public services. I need hardly repeat our commitment to the health service, proved by the figures which I quoted earlier and not least because I believe that the Labour Party has recently had to carry out a rather speedy and undignified retreat from its privatisation scare stories.
In the health service, as in our schools, we wish to see higher standards. We want to provide greater choice for consumers and more responsibility for staff. The Citizen's Charter initiative will increasingly provide consumers with a lever to obtain the best possible service that they wish to have. We want to see high quality public services which are truly responsive to the needs of their consumers. That, too, is what the public overwhelmingly demand. Only this Government have the energy, the ideas and the commitment to deliver them. That is what our proposals for the next Session are all about.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will be good enough either to answer one simple question or to say that he will write to me about it. Are the patients' rights in the Patient's Charter legally enforceable? The answer is "yes" or "no".
Lord Henley: I shall write to the noble Lord. If I fail to do so, my noble friend Lady Hooper will write to him.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

Severn Bridges Bill
Brought from the Commons and, pursuant to resolution of 15th October last, deemed to have been read a second time; committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past nine o'clock.

  UNPAID PARKING FINES
  UNPAID PARKING FINES
  DoT CASH AND COSTS LIMITS
  DoT CASH AND COSTS LIMITS
  PSO GRANT CASH CEILING
  PSO GRANT CASH CEILING
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES: COMPETITIVE TENDERING
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES: COMPETITIVE TENDERING
  ECO-LABELLING: RESPONSE TO SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  ECO-LABELLING: RESPONSE TO SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  COUNCIL TAX
  COUNCIL TAX
  NON-DOMESTIC RATE
  NON-DOMESTIC RATE