Sitting of 11 November 1991

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

    Wind Power
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress in establishing wind power as a commercial source of energy.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Wind energy is being given an unprecedented opportunity to become established as a commercial source of energy. The 1990 and 1991 Renewables Orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation have required the regional electricity companies to contract for 58 wind energy projects with a total of 94·63 MW declared net capacity. We have invested more than £38 million in the Government's wind energy research, development and demonstration programme. That is now beginning to bear fruit, as evidenced by the encouraging response to the opportunity being created by the non-fossil fuel obligation.
    In addition, we are preparing a planning policy guidance note on renewable energy and hope to go to consultation on the draft later this month. The document will comprise general guidance on planning for renewable energy, with more specific guidance on the environmental impact of wind farms which we recognise to be an important and pressing issue.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that electricity privatisation has enabled wind energy to develop in a way that it could not have without privatisation and is not that good news for all of us who are concerned about the environment?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend is correct on both counts. It is good news for the environment because the development of renewable energy, which is environmentally sensitive, is essential to security and diversity of supply in this country. Without privatisation, we would not have the non-fossil fuel obligation, which has enabled us to bring two substantial orders before the House.
    Mr. McAllion: As Scotland has more than half the United Kingdom's land-based wind energy potential and as even Government agencies such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise are calling for the immediate full extension of the non-fossil fuel obligation to Scotland, will the Minister explain why the Secretary of State for
    764
    Scotland has failed to respond to that call—or will it require a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland fully to develop the potential for wind energy in Scotland?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman should be well aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland responded recently to the importance of renewables by announcing a scheme under which Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric will contract for renewables projects in Scotland. The Government are considering the longer-term arrangements for Scotland in the current review of the renewables energy advisory group.
    Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend think it a little curious that the people who argue most fervently for this method of energy production often seem to complain most bitterly at public inquiries about planning applications for this alternative energy source?
    Mr. Moynihan: As ever on energy issues, my hon. Friend makes a pertinent and important point. He is right and for that reason we have issued a planning policy guidance note, on which we hope to have further consultation before the end of the month. I hope that we shall manage to reconcile the problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted.

    Gas Disconnections
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas to discuss disconnection for debt.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I have had no recent discussions with the chairman of British Gas on the subject of disconnection for debt. This no doubt reflects the fact that the number of British Gas customers who are disconnected for debt is lower than at any time since records were first kept in 1977.
    Mr. French: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Gas and discusses the subject, will he try to discover why some people receive letters threatening disconnection for non-payment as much as seven days or more after they have made payment? Will he inquire of the chairman whether British Gas's accounts system could be tightened to prevent such aggravation to members of the public?
    Mr. Wakeham: Certainly, I shall discuss that point with the chairman of British Gas. Although the number of disconnections has fallen dramatically from almost 61,000 in the year to December 1987 to just over 19,000 in the year ending December 1990, there is a code of practice on disconnections and I want it to be adhered to.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Gas showrooms all over the place are being closed, including those in Clay Cross and Staveley in my constituency. Is there any evidence that indebtedness increases because people have difficulty paying bills which previously they could pay through gas showrooms?
    Mr. Wakeham: No. Showrooms are, of course, a matter for British Gas. There is no evidence of additional payment difficulties—indeed, the number of people with difficulties seems to have fallen. That is partly due to the fact that, in the five years since privatisation, gas prices

    765
    have fallen by 14 per cent. whereas, during the last five years of the Labour Government, they increased by 11 per cent.

    Domestic Energy Prices
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the real price of energy supplied to domestic households during the last five years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The price of fuel, light and power supplied to domestic households is now estimated to be 6 per cent. lower in real terms than it was five years ago.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not that reply an absolute vindication of our policy of privatisation, linked to the operation of the regulators? Is it not good news that, under the new proposal before the House, the work of the regulators is soon to be extended further?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. Privatisation of the industry has brought with it assurances of higher standards of service. For the first time, domestic and smaller industrial customers are protected from unjustified price increases.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Do those figures include the rapid escalation in standing charges, which are, in fact, the industry's poll tax on its consumers? Do those figures include the threefold increase in service charges applied by British Gas, or is this just another way of massaging the figures, as the Government always do?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. I can confirm that the figures which I gave include all charges to domestic customers. Over the past seven years, domestic prices have fallen by 2 per cent. in real terms, whereas under the last Labour Government domestic prices increased by a staggering 2 per cent. in cash terms every six weeks.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The question refers to the real price of energy. That must include environmental considerations such as the disposal of nuclear waste. Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in congratulating scientists at Culham who, through an EC experimental station there, have made a breakthrough with fusion?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. We should take pride in the success of the experiment. However, I should strike a note of caution. There is still a long way to go before fusion power surmounts the engineering and commercial challenges ahead.
    Mr. Morgan: Is not it true that the Government and the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) have been using statistics in a phoney manner which surpasses all understanding, so that a 38 per cent. increase in electricity prices in the past four years somehow becomes a 6 per cent. drop in so-called "real terms"? "Real terms" must be set against the fact that the price of the crude fuels that are being bought, such as coal, oil or gas, has remained stable. In any common-sense meaning of "real terms", a 38 per cent. increase in cash terms is a 38 per cent. increase in real terms as well.
    Did not the hon. Member for Gravesham get it right when he said, "Is it not good news"? Indeed, it is not—
    766
    [Interruption.] That is what the hon. Gentleman said. Have not the privatised electricity companies got such a one-sided bargain out of the Government that it has meant the creation not of privatised companies but of pound note machines?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is a matter of record that, over the past seven years of Conservative Government, the electricity prices charged to domestic customers have fallen by 2 per cent., whereas under the Labour Government they rose by 22 per cent. in real terms. It is not speculation but fact that Labour Governments are bad news for electricity customers.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Does my hon. Friend expect the real price of energy to domestic households to rise if an energy tax is introduced? What would be the effect of such a tax on British industry, exports and jobs?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. My hon. Friend makes the fair point that we must be very cautious before we assent to a carbon tax which could increase the price of domestic energy. If that were done unilaterally ahead of the rest of the world, it could put British industry at a severe disadvantage. Therefore, although we are interested in continuing the debate in a European context, we shall not make any premature decisions.

    Coal Imports
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the total amounts of coal imports and the countries from which the coal was exported in the last year.
    Mr. Wakeham: Coal imports in the year to September 1991 were 19·6 million tonnes. The principal sources were the USA and Australia.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that every 1 million tonne of coal imported is roughly equivalent to the closure of a pit of average size and probably results in the redundancies of about 1,000 men, between 67 and 80 per cent. of whom are thrown on to unemployment benefits and other systems of benefit? That means that there is an increase in the amount that the state has to pay for people thrown out of work. Every 1 million tonnes of imported coal is equivalent to £40 million on the balance of payments. If one considers the issue from either angle it must be economic lunacy to continue the import programme.
    Mr. Wakeham: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The best protection for the British Coal industry is for it to produce reliable supplies that are competitive on the world market. I want to achieve the largest competitive coal industry. To consider only the balance of payments effect of imported coal is to consider merely one part of the issue. The buying of more high-cost British coal would increase the cost of electricity which would be bad for competiveness, for the consumer and for the balance of payments.
    Mr. Eadie: Did the right hon. Gentleman read a report in the Sunday Post two or three weeks ago which stated that Colombian imported coal was being subsidised by the drug barons? Is he going to examine the question of

    767
    imported coal in a broader sense, as there have been complaints about unfair competition and we are doing British coal miners out of jobs by importing foreign coal?
    Mr. Wakeham: The question of unfair imports of coal is a matter for the European Commission to investigate. It is for the Commission to consider British Coal's complaints. The hon. Gentleman must keep these matters in perspective. Colombian coal is a relatively small amount of the total coal used in this country. The most important task for British Coal is to be competitive.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is significant that the Opposition refuse to speak for consumers? Do not coal imports help those, such as old-age pensioners, who consume coal and are not they good for employment in energy-intensive industries? They are objectives that most people would share.
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A low and competitive price of coal used in power generation will reduce the price of electricity. That is the most important issue that the coal industry must face.

    Coal Privatisation
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he is taking to prepare the coal industry for privatisation.
    Mr. Wakeham: Decisions about the form and timing of the privatisation of British Coal will be taken after the election.
    Mr. Strang: Is not it clear from the Rothschilds studies that the re-election of a Conservative Government would sound the death knell of this country's coal industry? Does not the Secretary of State recognise that to close more than two thirds of the pits to facilitate privatization—as envisaged by Rothschilds—would mean subjecting electricity supplies and prices in the long run to the vagaries of international markets, do enormous and permanent damage to our balance of payments, wipe out billions of pounds of productive investment and mean the loss of thousands of jobs? Is not that a policy of economic sabotage and one more reason why the country needs a Labour Government?
    Mr. Wakeham: The privatisation of coal in Britain will not close one pit and Opposition Members had better face that fact. The real question that must be faced is how the coal industry can best become competitive, because, whether it is in public or private ownership, it will not be able to sell coal to the generators if it does not. I am optimistic about the coal industry's ability to adjust itself to the market that exists and to be a thriving and growing industry.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the initiative of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and its decision to instruct its bankers to prepare a bid for the British coal industry is the mark of a forward-looking trade union? Will my right hon. Friend's Department co-operate fully with the president of the UDM, Roy Lynk, and his bankers in preparing that bid?
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, Sir. I have already written to Mr. Roy Lynk inviting him to come to see me with his advisers
    768
    so that I may give him all the information that I can. I am anxious that the UDM should play a part in the eventual privatisation of British Coal because I believe that that union and its members recognise that coal has a future, but only if it can be operated on a profitable and economic basis.
    Mr. Dobson: Why will not the Minister publish the secret reports that he is receiving on the future of the coal industry from Tory merchant bankers Rothschilds, whose privatisation unit is headed by the Tory candidate for Hampstead and Highgate? Are not the 60,000 miners and their families and those living in the coalfield communities, whose lives, livelihoods and communities are at stake, entitled to know? Is the right hon. Gentleman ashamed of what is in the reports? Is he frightened of them? If not, why cannot he come clean? Or will we have to rely on my getting the reports in plain brown envelopes a week or two after he has received them?
    Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman gets something in a plain brown envelope, we can rely on him to issue a press release putting the worst possible complexion on the matter from the point of view of British coal. Those who seek to speak for British coal must recognise that they do the industry great damage by their Jeremiah, sour remarks. The advice that I am receiving from Rothchilds about the size of the coal industry is neither accepted or rejected by me. The size of the industry will be determined by the facts and will depend on the contracts that British Coal can obtain in the renegotiation of contracts with the generators which is due to start in April 1993.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to encourage not just buy-outs by the UDM or by management, but employee buy-outs in the coal industry, as the long-term commitment of the work force is crucial for employment and for the industry's prosperity?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree very much with my hon. Friend, but I believe that we should address the problems in the proper way. The first step is to determine the best size for the coal industry and that will depend on the market that the industry can obtain in sales to generators. After that, questions of privatisation will be determined—after the next general election.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what views his Department has on the limitation on use of natural gas for the generation of electricity.
    Mr. Moynihan: My Department sees no general case for restricting the use of natural gas for electricity generation. Gas generation offers efficient primary energy conversion and significant environmental benefits and can lead to lower energy prices to final users.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that his answer shows why the Government need to be voted out of office? Is not it totally wrong to leave to the private sector, market forces and short-term profit motives matters connected with the use of energy which are so crucial to the nation's future? Should not the Government be making policy on energy supplies, which are essential to both domestic and industrial consumers?
    Mr. Moynihan: No, Sir. My answer shows exactly why this Government will continue in office throughout the 1990s. The hon. Gentleman should know that to achieve lower prices and efficiency the gas market should be determined by prices in the marketplace and not by bureaucratic intervention.
    Mr. Hannam: Does not the attitude of the Opposition show that they are not concerned with the care of the environment? Will my hon. Friend confirm that a combined cycle gas generating station produces half the amount of carbon dioxide that a coal-fired power station produces and none of the sulphur dioxide that causes acid rain?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend is correct and that is why gas is excellent for the environment.
    Mr. Doran: I am pleased that the Minister is still wearing his Kincardine and Deeside by-election tie. At least some Tories got something out of it.
    The Minister will be aware that there is a price for gas over and above the economic. Has he had an opportunity to study the findings of Sheriff Principal Ireland in the fatal accident inquiry into the death of Timothy Williams on the Ocean Odyssey? In view of the sheriff's expression of regret that the terms of the inquiry were not wide enough to take into account all the evidence of the risks involved in deep sea drilling, what steps will the Minister take to examine the matter further? In the light of the sheriff principal's report, is the Minister satisfied that deep drilling in the North sea is safe? Will he confirm whether, in the award of licences to explore in the North sea, he takes into account the safety record of the oil companies involved?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have just received that important and significant report. I give him an undertaking that I will reply to the important issues that he has raised in the House this afternoon.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on the progress of the ministerial committee on energy efficiency.
    Mr. Wakeham: Good progress has been made by the ministerial group during the past year. The group's annual report, published on 16 October, outlines the main initiatives being taken forward by the Government to promote energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy. Copies of the report were placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the resources available to promote energy efficiency are adequate to do the job?
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, Sir. The autumn statement confirmed that the Energy Efficiency Office budget for 1992–93 is £59 million, which is a 40 per cent. increase in resources for EEO programmes. Further increases are planned—to £70 million in 1993–94 and to £75 million in 1994–95.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that there was a great pall of smoke over my constituency yesterday which came from a tyre fire? Is he aware that that is one of the great
    770
    unused sources of energy? There is a pilot programme in Birmingham to develop tyre incineration as an energy source. Will the Secretary of State introduce a full-scale national programme to use the 1 million surplus tyres that are created every year?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that part of our research programme includes research into the use of tyres in that way. I will send him the details.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent document that I received this morning entitled "Making a Corporate Commitment"—on energy management—in which my right hon. Friend points out that the public sector could, if my arithmetic is correct, yield a saving of £560 million. He also suggests, properly, that all sectors should set performance improvement targets and he suggests a list of ministerial responsibilities. In setting a lead from the top, which is correct and proper, will that list include the Lord President of the Council and the House?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the Lord President of the Council and his Department will be playing their part in trying to reduce energy bills. The Government have set a target of saving 15 per cent. of their energy bill over five years and 1990–91 forms the base year. We believe that the amount that can be saved is enormous. About 20 per cent. of all the energy that we use in this country could be saved with the best forms of energy efficiency.
    Mr. Dobson: What progress have the Government made towards their 15 per cent. savings target? Did not the consumption of energy of the Secretary of State's Department increase by 60 per cent. last year? Is not it true that half the other Government Departments also increased their energy consumption, that the Department of the Environment got rid of its only post of energy manager and that half of Government Departments do not meet the Government's target of investing £1 in energy saving for every £10 spent on energy?
    Mr. Wakeham: The one thing that one can rely upon is that the hon. Gentleman would not give up a point by being told the facts. He makes the point about the Department of Energy's bill and claims that it shows a 63 per cent. increase. He does not compare like with like. My Department has had its own energy bill only since it moved into its present headquarters in August 1989. Consequently, the hon. Gentleman is comparing the energy used in a 12-month period with the energy that was used in a seven-month period. If that is a sample of his research and logic, I wonder about the rest of it.
    Frankly, I am not satisfied with the progress that the Government have been making over the years. That is why we set the targets. Also, 1990–91 forms the base year, so the first year under the new targets has not yet ended. All the reports that I have received show that we are making very good progress.
    Mr. Michael Morris: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the forward-looking report and, perhaps more importantly, on the financial commitment that goes with it? Is he aware that in the recent issue of Building there is a comment to the effect that house builders are resisting improving insulation standards in new homes? Should not there be some further consultation to ensure that they take on board the clear message?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend may know that, last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I launched a new campaign—energy in the home—to improve understanding of global warming and energy use and to encourage families to adopt energy efficiency measures. It is one of five recent initiatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) referred to one initiative—"Making a Corporate Commitment". Tomorrow, with the regional electricity companies, we will launch an energy labelling initiative so that those who buy refrigerators will see what is being used. There are many more, but I will not mention them all today.

    Offshore Oil and Gas
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many contracts for the construction of offshore oil and gas structures and vessels were awarded to United Kingdom fabrication yards and shipyards in each of the past four years.
    Mr. Moynihan: United Kingdom yards were awarded 55, 50, 51 and 71 contracts for the construction of structures or vessels for offshore production in the years 1987 to 1990.
    Dr. Godman: Naturally, I am extremely pleased with the orders that were won in recent months by Scott Lithgow and other yards, but may I point out to the Minister that there is a massive skills shortage in the industry? Will he impress on his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Employment and the Scottish Office the need to encourage and finance relevant skills training courses that are run in technical colleges and other training places? The James Watt college in Greenock and other colleges are providing important training in, for instance, coded welding skills. They are precisely the skills that are in demand and are in short supply. Encouragement must be given to our colleges and other training centres in Scotland, and indeed south of the border.
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be pleased to learn that addressing skill shortages is a major priority for all involved in offshore oil and gas, and particularly for those in the yards. However, the hon. Gentleman will realise that part of the success of Scott Lithgow in recent months and the support that it has had through intensive marketing efforts by Trafalgar House, building up its work force quite rapidly to 300 men, has been because of the quality of the men and because we have been addressing skill shortages and enhancing the ability of that yard to win important contracts.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that following the passage of the Associated British Ports Act 1990, it is now possible for the South Humberside Engineering and Fabrication Services company, which is based in my constituency and which I visited only last week, to build a bridge that will join that company to the docks, thus enabling it to export the offshore vessels that it has been manufacturing for several years? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to advise the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that even if there is a skills shortage in Scotland, there is certainly not one in south Humberside and that any company that requires the type of vessel that is associated with the offshore oil and gas industry will find them available in south Humberside?
    Mr. Moynihan: The yard to which my hon. Friend refers has in recent months demonstrated its productivity. its advanced capabilities, its excellence in terms of safety, its reliability and, above all, its technological edge. That is what we need if we are to have a package that will beat other countries' export potential in that market and if we are to keep the United Kingdom right at the forefront of export orders for United Kingdom oil and gas activity.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given the importance of those orders to the fabrication yards and the communities in which they are based, has the Minister given any consideration to the position of the suppliers of the raw materials that are used in those yards? Is he aware, for example, that since the closure of part of the Lanarkshire steel mills, there has been a delay in delivering steel to the Ardersier yard, which I know that he has visited several times? Indeed, Ministers seem to be some of my constituency's main tourists. Does he agree that there is a cause for some concern and will he look into that matter in conjuction with the Department of Trade and Industry?
    Mr. Moynihan: I hear what the hon. Lady says. It is always a pleasure to visit her constituency, not least because that gives me the opportunity to see why the value of the contracts that were won by United Kingdom yards last year amounted to £759 million, which is 36 per cent. up on the previous year's figure and five times the 1987 value.

    Mining (South Wales)
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to meet British Coal South Wales in the near future to discuss the future of coal mining in south Wales.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Murphy: The Minister is no doubt aware that a fortnight ago the Penallta colliery in the Rhymney valley closed, meaning that there are now only three pits in the whole of south Wales. Bearing in mind the increasing use of heavily subsidised imports and the impending privatisation of the coal industry, what guarantee is the Minister prepared to give the House and the people of Wales about the future of the Welsh coal industry?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The future size and success of the Welsh coal industry depend on its ability to control costs and to continue to improve its productivity. If it can do that, it will win a large part of the market to supply the British electricity generating stations when the present contracts expire in 1993.
    Mr. Barron: The Rothschild report, which is currently with the Department of Energy and which was paid for by the Government and produced by discussion with working groups in the Department of Energy and British Coal, envisages the end of deep mining in the south Wales coal field by 1993–94. Even if the Minister and the Secretary of State do not want to say whether they have accepted or rejected that report, if they truly believe in the market will they now reject it so that the British coal industry can continue to work towards improving its productivity as it has during the past six years?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers was advice to my right hon. Friend. We have already made it clear that no decisions on the way to privatise the British coal industry will be taken until after the next general election.

    Energy Research
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's expenditure on (a) renewable energy research and (b) fossil fuel energy research in 1990–91; and what is the equivalent figure for 1978–79.
    Mr. Moynihan: Expenditure in 1990–91 on renewable energy research was £20·8 million, and on coal research £11·4 million. The equivalent figures for 1978–79 were £3·6 million and £1·2 million respectively.
    Mr. Corbyn: Given that the Government have now launched a campaign to try to offset the effects of global warming by the use of non-fossil fuels and renewable energy sources, does the Minister accept that there should be a substantial increase in research into renewable energy sources, of which this country has many? Secondly, will he give us——
    Mr. Speaker: One question, please.
    Mr. Corbyn: This is part of the same question, Mr. Speaker. While the Minister is replying to the earlier part of my question, will he give the House the figures for the amount of money that is spent on nuclear research, which takes up 75 per cent. of his Department's research budget, is a deeply pollutive form of energy generation and which, frankly, is something which he should be more keen on phasing out, so that he can transfer those resources and invest them in research on renewable energy sources for the future?
    Mr. Moynihan: I reject the hon. Gentleman's comment about nuclear power. There is absolutely no reason why expenditure on renewables research and development should bear any proportional relationship to nuclear expenditure. Each energy technology requires a different level of investment to carry out the necessary R and D and to develop it for commercial use. However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking this question, because it has provided the House with an opportunity to learn that we have record levels of R and D expenditure on renewables.

    Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress of the home energy efficiency scheme.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Initial experience in operating the home energy efficiency scheme has confirmed that it meets a real need and is being well received. More than 95,000 insulation jobs were carried out under the scheme between 1 April and 30 September.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. How much more is being spent in the current financial year on the scheme? Are the Government on track for the target of implementing 200,000 schemes during the current year?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This year, some £26 million has been allocated to the scheme and we are on target to do 200,000 insulation jobs. I am pleased to say that as a result of the autumn statement, the budget for the home energy efficiency scheme will increase by 50 per cent. next year.

  THE ARTS

    Women Employees
    Mrs. Heal: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many women are employed in senior positions within the Office of Arts and Libraries.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): Four of the 15 staff employed in grades 2 to 7 in the Office of Arts and Libraries are women.
    Mrs. Heal: What action does the Minister propose to take to improve the percentage of women in senior positions within his Department? Does not he feel that the Office of Arts and Libraries should set an example to the other arts bodies such as the Arts Council, only three of the 12 members of which are women, and the regional arts boards, all of which are directed by men? Does not he feel that he should take more positive action than making optimistic speeches, if women are to improve their representation in the arts?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Lady is not right in saying that it is simply a question of making optimistic speeches. As she will know, I am also responsible, as the Minister for the Civil Service, for ensuring that there are proper opportunities for women and that women are encouraged to take them throughout the civil service. We issued a report on the matter just a few weeks ago at the same time as Oppportunity 2000 was launched. As more than 25 per cent. of the senior staff in my office are women, we are showing something of a lead to the rest of the civil service. I am delighted that that is so and I wish to continue it. Two thirds of my private office staff are women, the hon. Lady will be pleased to know, and two thirds of the support staff are women.
    Mr. Evennett: While I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, will he confirm that we should encourage more women into senior positions, but that they must be appointed on the basis of their ability, not just on the basis of their sex?
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister for the Arts should be a woman.
    Mr. Renton: Yes, of course it must be on the basis of equality of talent for the jobs available. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) says that the Minister for the Arts should be a woman. I wonder what his hon. Friend on the Front Bench thinks about that.
    Mr. Fisher: The Minister's figures are at odds with the claims made in his policy document for the Government generally and, indeed, with the Prime Minister's remarks last week. Is not the Minister ashamed of the appalling record of the Office of Arts and Libraries in that respect? Does he personally believe that the skills and talents of women in the arts and media are undervalued and under-promoted? What does he intend to do about it? Is it not the case that the attempts made through his document,

    775
    and the Prime Minister's speech last week, cover up the Government's lack of policies and are about as effective as lipstick on the face of a gorilla?
    Mr. Renton: I fear that if Eve were to offer the hon. Gentleman a golden apple in the Garden of Eden he would immediately start to look for a maggot in it. The Office of Arts and Libraries has a good record in that field. It is not for me to tell the arts performing companies precisely how many women should be artistic or general directors. The hon. Gentleman will know—if he travels round the country as I do—the degree to which women hold top jobs in artistic companies and I am delighted that they are doing so.

    Tourism
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to the extent visitors to Britain are attracted by the arts.
    Mr. Renton: In a sample poll of visitors to museums and galleries nationwide taken in 1990, 22 per cent. were from overseas. That figure rises to 44 per cent. in London. In addition, around 32 per cent. of overseas visitors to London in 1990–91 cited a trip to the theatre as their main reason for coming.
    Mr. Jessel: As spending by overseas visitors on hotels, restaurants, shopping, travelling and the arts generates employment, income and a tax yield to the Government, does that not abundantly justify the excellent settlement obtained by my right hon. Friend in the negotiations for the autumn statement, and is it not time that the Opposition showed a bit more enthusiasm?
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind support for the good settlement that I was able to obtain for the performing and visual arts last week. It is satisfactory. In the broad strategy discussions that I have had with the Arts Council, it was my wish that a good proportion of the money should assist touring round the country and should help the new regional arts boards. In that way, we shall be helping the best to get the most. Given that the shadow Minister for the Arts came to see me in the spring to say what difficulties he thought the performing companies were in, I agree that it would be nice if the Opposition were to welcome this generous settlement.
    Mr. Sheldon: Although the growth in that traffic and the need to maintain an increase in the numbers of people coming to this country to enjoy the arts is not the main purpose of the Minister's job, it has the most attractions for the Treasury. Given that fact, will he continue to press the Government and the Treasury for extra money to meet the demand for help for overseas visitors who come here and the demand for increasing availability of the various facilities that he tries to obtain?
    Mr. Renton: I am not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman's remark about attraction to the Treasury was a promise or a threat, but I agree that the invisible earnings brought to this country by overseas tourists are an important factor. There is a tourism co-ordination committee which is headed by the Secretary of State for Employment. I attended one of its meetings last week. One of the matters that I stressed to the national tourist boards
    776
    was that there is a great deal to be done to ensure that arts programmes—what is happening in local galleries and museums—are more widely known to overseas tourists through the tourist boards.

    Public Libraries
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about the future of the public library service; and what steps he is taking to assist its development.
    Mr. Renton: I have recently ordered a review of the public library service in order to set out options on how it may operate into the next century. That will be a major follow-up to the last Government review, "The Libraries' Choice", which set the way for change in the 1980s, and will be completed by 1993.
    Mr. Mitchell: In paying tribute to the six public libraries in my constituency, especially Arnold library where I hold one of my regular monthly surgeries——
    Mr. Tony Banks: Only one a month?
    Mr. Mitchell: Just one of my monthly surgeries. May I say that my right hon. Friend's review will be a great success if it succeeds in spreading library services ever wider to a larger number of people in a modern and effective manner?
    Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. The important thing is for libraries to look ahead over the next five to 10 years and to decide what nature of library services will be required, how local authorities can ensure that libraries are built in the most suitable places and what they can do to get the balance right between the lending of books and of tapes and records. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend regularly holds an advice surgery in a library, and I am sure that it is extremely well attended.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that during the past decade changes in relation to the library service have been almost entirely negative and that it is far more difficult for people on shift work or with small children to obtain access to libraries? There are far fewer library budgets capable of replacing and expanding the numbers of books. Far from the libraries needing to look forward to changes, they need some straightforward financial support and an understanding of the role of women librarians who form the majority of library workers at the lower echelons of the service if not in the Minister's Department.
    Mr. Renton: The Library Association has made it abundantly plain that the problem for libraries over the next few years is not money but choice. It is making the service available to the average family which may not necessarily have the library habit. Parents and children must be attracted to libraries. At the heart of the review that I have asked to be undertaken is how to make certain that the libraries continue to provide the service that the community needs.

    Arts Provision, Wales
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next proposes to visit Wales to discuss provision for the arts.
    Mr. Renton: I visited south Wales on 3 and 4 October and hope to visit north and central Wales when convenient opportunities arise.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he could enjoy the superlative Welsh National Opera without going to Wales, but that if he visits north Wales he will find nowhere for that wonderful company to perform? Will he discuss with the Secretary of State for Wales the possibility of a scheme to provide a home for the Welsh National Opera in north Wales?
    Mr. Renton: This is ground upon which an Englishman almost fears to tread. A few days ago in Cardiff I saw an excellent performance of Rigoletto by the Welsh National Opera. It was extremely enjoyable. Cardiff bay development corporation has future plans to build premises for the Welsh National Opera at Cardiff Bay. Welsh men may have to decide among themselves whether they want an opera centre in Cardiff and in north Wales as well. If they do I shall be delighted to attend performances at both.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Political Advisers
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what plans the Government have to expand the numbers of political advisers employed in the civil service.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): The Government have no plans to increase the total number of special advisers. The appointment of a special adviser is a matter for each Minister in consultation with the Prime Minister as necessary.
    Mr. Shaw: Has my right hon. Friend seen press reports that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are proposing that Governments should set up within each Department a large cabinet——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. What has this to do with Government responsibility?
    Mr. Shaw: They propose that the Government should set up in each Department cabinets with large numbers of staff to monitor and control the civil service. Has my right hon. Friend any idea of the sort of people who would be chosen to fill those posts?
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend asks an extremely important question. I saw the comment by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the setting up of special kitchen cabinets under a possible Labour Government. As the hon. Gentleman's hobbies are listed in Dod's as "eating, cooking and wine" I can see his interest in kitchen cabinets. It would be helpful to know who the Opposition would appoint to such kitchen cabinets. For example, would Derek Hatton be special adviser to the Department of the Environment and would Bruce Kent get a job with the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Rees: The Minister answered the question about special advisers. What is the difference between a special adviser and a political adviser? What part does the Civil Service Commission play in determining their salary levels? Who are these special advisers and which part of the documents are they allowed to see? Should not the House be given more details about them under any Government?
    Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already answered that question, and the right hon. Gentleman will find it in Hansard last week. In that answer, my right hon. Friend lists the names of all 39 specialist advisers, all but five of whom are political advisers, with those five being special advisers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should wait a minute. Those five special advisers offer specific technical advice on subjects such as economics on which they are expert.
    As the right hon. Gentleman will know from his wide experience, over the years the Labour party has tended to bring many so-called special advisers into local government. I hope that it would not dream of doing so in Whitehall.

    Opportunity 2000
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the implications of Opportunity 2000 on the recruitment and promotion policies of the civil service.
    Mr. Renton: My Department has joined Opportunity 2000 as the umbrella organisation for the whole civil service. We have had a specific programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women since 1984. Considerable progress has been made, and further impetus will be given next year when I launch a new programme for action.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend make a start by reading the recruitment literature of the civil service and then reading a sample of the recruitment brochures of large private companies? He could then compare the women-friendliness of the two products. I think that he may realise that there is a substantial difference between the two, and that considerable improvement could be made in civil service literature in the hope that more women would be encouraged to make an initial application to enter the civil service.
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend is making a serious point. I shall certainly suggest to my advisers in the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service—and through them to the Departments concerned—that they look at the recruitment literature of senior companies in the private sector to determine whether that is more attractive than the civil service literature. We emphasise in much of our literature that it is now easier for women to take career breaks, and that when they return from them they can have further management training.
    I am delighted to tell the House—and this is a most significant statistic—that women are now doing very much better in the fast stream competition. The proportion of women recommended for appointment under the fast stream in 1984 was 28 per cent., but in 1991 the figure will be more than 40 per cent. Those women will be the high fliers in the civil service in years to come.
    Dr. Marek: About 10 minutes ago, the Minister said that two thirds of the staff in his office were women. He must know that well over two thirds of women in the civil service are stuck in the lowest paid grades, with no chance of moving elsewhere. Is not that partly because of the Government's appalling record on childcare? The Minister chooses not to say anything about that. If the public who

    779
    listen to his words are to regard them as anything more than sheer waffle, what tangible targets has he set himself in that area?
    Mr. Renton: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are not moving forward. I have just quoted statistics showing that many more women are succeeding in the fast stream competition. More than 40 per cent. of those recommended for appointment in the fast stream are now women, compared with less than 30 per cent. 10 years ago. Those women will be the high fliers, the grades 1, 2 and 3, in future years.
    On the question of childcare, the hon. Gentleman must know that we now have 85 holiday play schemes and 19 pre-school nurseries, six of them in partnership with other employers. The civil service is rightly moving forward on all those fronts. Of course, there is more to be done, but we are making progress.

    Racial Discrimination
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on his proposals to counter racial discrimination in the civil service.
    Mr. Renton: We shall continue to implement the programme for action on race that was introduced last year. Good progress is being made in a wide range of areas, including selection, promotion and training to make staff aware of their responsibilities. A report will be published in December and copies will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend knows that I recently wrote to him about this matter. Will he reassure the House that it is his policy to encourage an increase in the number of ethnic minority civil servants, that they will be welcome within the civil service, and that equal opportunity will be extended to them?
    Mr. Renton: Welcome? Yes. Equal opportunity extended to them? Yes, certainly. I am not one who believes in positive discrimination in this or in other fields, but certainly I very much hope to see the number from the ethnic minority who are employed not only in my Departments but the civil service generally continue—I stress the word continue—to increase over the years ahead.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I may say to the Minister that the best way of judging how far he is succeeding is for him to tell the House the name of the most senior black civil servant within the civil service and that of the most senior woman civil servant. Then we can decide whether or not the Minister is just flannelling us or giving us something of substance. Who is the most senior black civil servant? How far up the grade?
    Mr. Renton: I really do not think that is a helpful approach, although I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that my own political adviser is drawn from the ethnic minority. I am delighted to have him, and he is a very helpful member of my staff. It is the wish of us all to see that the proportion of the ethnic minorities increases. I do not think that it is high enough. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, it was only recently that we started to ask staff to tell us their ethnic origin. In the early days, a great many
    780
    did not wish to answer that question. A higher proportion are now doing so as they become more convinced of our determination to give equality of opportunity.

    Working Conditions, London
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service unions to discuss working conditions in London.
    Mr. Renton: I meet civil service trade union representatives from time to time to discuss a variety of issues.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the greatest grievance of civil servants working in London is that the London weighting allowance has been frozen since 1988? With a retail prices index last year of 13·9 per cent., they have now fallen 23 per cent. behind. Whereas people in the private sector are getting £3,000 or £4,000 London weighting, civil servants have been granted neither an increase nor a referral to arbitration. Will the Minister right that injustice in the very near future?
    Mr. Renton: No, I do not believe that there is an injustice in that situation. There is no general retention or recruitment problem in London at present. It is true that the London weighting mechanism has been ruled out for the time being, but it could be ruled in again. Meanwhile, London pay issues are being addressed by London spine points and, where appropriate, local pay additions—and they are meeting all the necessary requirements.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten me as to whether the civil service unions have had anything to do with removing a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen from the foyer facing Parliament square and relegating it to the back staircase, where it is hardly——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that is an appropriate question, but I will allow the hon. Lady to go on.
    Mrs. Gorman: Can my right hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that he will look into that matter?
    Mr. Renton: I am not sure whether I should look into it wearing my hat as Minister of State with responsibilities for the civil service or as Minister for the Arts. Either way, I will gladly look into that matter.
    Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may point out that the question my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was based on total misinformation.
    Mr. Speaker: I just did not regard the hon. Lady's question as being particularly appropriate for the Minister when answering questions on the civil service, though it might have been more appropriate for the Minister for the Arts. Anyway, the hon. Lady asked it.

  BILLS PRESENTED

    PRISON SECURITY
    Mr. Secretary Baker, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Hunt, the Attorney-General and Mrs. Angela Rumbold, presented a Bill to make provision for an offence of prison mutiny and for a new offence and new

    781
    penalties in connection with escapes from prison: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 12 November and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

    TRANSPORT AND WORKS
    Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Wakeham, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, presented a Bill to provide for the making of orders relating to, or to matters ancillary to, the construction, operation or use of railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems, other guided transport systems and inland waterways, and orders relating to, or to matters ancillary to, works interfering with rights of navigation; to make further provision in relation to railways. tramways, trolley vehicle systems and other guided transport systems; to amend certain enactments relating to harbours; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 12 November and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the five motions on the Order Paper relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees onStatutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Scottish Seed Potato Development Council (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Bank Accounts) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Bank Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Banks) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 4 Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1559) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance Bill
  [FIRST DAY]
  Order. for Second Reading read.
  3.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I hope that the House will not lose sight of the fact that a debate on what Labour has claimed to be a deeply controversial and retrograde step has managed to attract only 20 Labour Members. If anything can be said to justify our belief that the Bill to abolish the poll tax is deeply unpopular with Labour, it is the fact that Labour Members are not even prepared to come here and discuss it today, and to listen to what we have to say.
  The Bill will abolish the poll tax and replace it with——
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman would do better to go off, as he did last week, and whip in a few more hon. Members from the Corridors of the House so that they can hear what I have to say.
  The Bill will abolish the poll tax and replace it with the council tax. The council tax is a fair and straightforward method of raising local government revenue. It is based on the market value of property; it takes account of the number of people in households; it provides generous rebates for those on low incomes; it offers special protection for students, student nurses, those on youth training schemes and apprentices. The tax requires no register, and the discount and rebate provisions are simple and straightforward.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he constantly refers to the poll tax, while all his predecessors—and every other Minister—have used a different phrase? While he is at it, will he apologise, on behalf of the Government, for the poll tax and the devastation that it has caused throughout the country? As a Back Bencher, the right hon. Gentleman spoke against the poll tax, but what about the Government whom he represents? They voted for it, including the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Heseltine: The only apology that is required is one from the Labour party, which is frustrating our attempts to get rid of the poll tax. [Interruption.] The longer that Labour Members keep up this unnecessary barracking, the longer it will take to get rid of the poll tax. We will not tolerate that. The poll tax is going, and nothing that Opposition Members can do will deter us from doing what we intend to do.
  Part 1 of the Bill provides for authorities to levy and collect council tax to replace community charges. Let me describe the main provisions. Clause 3 defines the dwellings on which the tax will be levied. They include most domestic properties, including caravans and houseboats. Clause 4 allows certain dwellings to be exempt. We have already announced that student hostels and halls of residence will be exempt, as will households
  784
  containing only students. Other dwellings, including those classes of empty dwellings whose owners currently pay no standard community charge, will also be exempt.
  Clause 5 sets out the value bands for England and Wales, and the tax rates associated with them.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the overwhelming support on this side of the House that has been expressed for the council tax—as opposed to Labour's so-called "fair rates". Some hon. Members who represent constituencies containing high-value properties, however, feel that a fourth set of bands should be provided for properties in London and the south-east, and in other areas containing properties of a similar value. It is felt that that would be equitable. The Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association has prepared a new set of hands. Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider inserting that proposal in the Bill?
  Mr. Heseltine: I welcome my right hon. Friend's support. I appreciate that few right hon. and hon. Members know more than he does about the ramifications of these complex matters. I do not think, however, that my right hon. Friend is giving himself full credit. In response to the pressures brought to bear on the Government by him, and by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—especially those representing constituencies in the south-east—we have already introduced a new band, band H. My right hon. Friend will also be aware that we propose a limit representing a factor of one to three between the top and the lower bands to protect those in the circumstances to which he has drawn our attention.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the question of regional banding? Is he aware that, in East Anglia, 44 per cent. of homes are in bands A and B; in the north-west 56 per cent.; in the north, 65 per cent.; in the west midlands, 51 per cent.; and in the London borough of Barnet, 1 per cent?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend draws attention to one of the local authorities that contains a significantly higher concentration of high-value properties. There is a relationship in our proposals between the level of tax paid to the council and the circumstances of the household, including the value of their property. It so happens that my hon. Friend represents a part of the country in which that applies particularly. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that the politics of envy, which so characterise the Labour party, have been specifically excluded from our fair proposals. We have limited the range of difference between what people pay by a factor of one to three. That was done deliberately in order to respond to such feelings as my hon. Friend holds.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend referred to the circumstances of the household. May I draw once more to his attention the fact that in my part of the world, and in other rural areas, many people live in houses that are far bigger than they normally would live in because they are in tied occupations. They may be estate workers, forestry workers or clergymen. The value of their houses bears no relationship to their incomes. Could not there be a special category for people who live in tied houses?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes a most important point. When she studies the admittedly complex arrangements in the Bill, she will find that many of her concerns have already been addressed. My hon. Friend was right to raise that point. I am glad to be able to confirm that we have taken that point into account.
  Dr. Michael Clark: I know that my right hon. Friend takes great pride in presenting to the House the council tax, which he considers to be fair. However, does he accept that by category school teachers, civil servants, policemen, nurses and others receive the same salary, by and large, regardless of where they live and that those who live in the south-east have less disposable income due to large mortgages brought about by the high price of housing? Why, therefore, should those people be penalised a second time by having to pay a council tax that is based on house prices?
  Mr. Heseltine: When my hon. Friend studies the legislation and examines the reports of the deliberations in Committee, he will recognise, when all these things are added to the considerable additional resources provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for lowering the overall contribution by local citizens and when he considers the figures for the various bands and the various evaluations of property, that we have taken the necessary steps in our system to protect people who fall into one category or another. Of course there are differences in income and variations between one part of the country and another. If, however, my hon. Friend looks at the exemplifications we have produced, he will recognise that we have met his concern. It is also the case, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) a few moments ago, that in many of the valuations we take account of the fact that they are tied in one way or another to a specific occupation.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept that the Secretary of State has rejected, as have the Government, our proposals for a local income tax, but will he explain how it is more fair for people to pay for local government services on the basis of the value of their property, which may bear no relationship to their incomes, than on the basis of the income that they receive in the year in question? To take a constituency such as mine that contains very few people on high incomes but where property values are very high, how can there be any argument but that a local income tax is fairer for places such as inner London, including Bermondsey, than the council tax?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is right. His party came to us and fairly put to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities the argument for a local income tax. We had to ask whether we thought that it would be in the widest interests of the country that the income tax rates of those who will pay towards local government services should be in the hands of the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman must address that question. Does he believe that allowing Labour local authorities to push up income tax even faster than the Labour party would if it ever took office would serve the interests of this country?
  We were not trying to create a local income tax. We were considering a tax that was based on two factors—the number of people living in the property, and its value.
  786
  Those were the ingredients that we had in mind when designing the council tax. When one considers the revenue that will be raised by the council tax and the differences between the bandings, it is apparent that we have found a system of damping the process that is broadly fair across the country.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: I am delighted to hear the enthusiasm with which my right hon. Friend is announcing the end of the poll tax. Bearing in mind that it was half ended by adding 2·5 per cent. to VAT, why on earth are we going through all the pain and problems that this wretched tax will engender? Why not solve the whole problem by adding a further 2·5 per cent. to VAT?
  Mr. Heseltine: There were many ways in which we could have made progress, but we determined that that was not one that we wished to adopt, because the inevitable conclusion on my hon. Friend's proposals—I know how strongly he feels about this point—is that every authority's spending is fixed precisely. Authorities have no capacity to raise additional revenue, and, to the most minute detail, central Government fix their expenditure. That would not be the right way to progress.
  The second argument that I must put to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) is that societies that are broadly equivalent to ours have some form of property—based tax. We have introduced a property—based tax that, by and large, reflects the number of people living in a property. That is a sensible and practical way forward that maintains the width of the tax base, which has desirable qualities.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I am going to test the right hon. Gentleman's memory. In that period when he was swinging the Mace around his head—when he was in opposition—does he remember saying that there should be less central control? He is now proposing more central control. Why?
  Mr. Heseltine: I remember the occasion vividly. Labour Members were standing singing "The Red Flag". If the hon. Gentleman wants to know why they were singing it, let me point out that it was because they had cheated to get a piece of nationalisation legislation through the House. At least I apologised to the House, which they never did. They went on to lose general election after general election as a consequence, and that was a very good thing.
  [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It would he a good idea if we returned to the debate.
  Mr. Heseltine: I have explained to you, Mr. Speaker, and it is manifestly true, that the Labour party will do all in its power to keep the poll tax on the statute book. Even now, it is seeking to delay the proceedings of the House with irrelevant interruptions. Interruptions from this side of the House are constructive; interruptions from the other side are destructive.
  I wish to proceed with my analysis of clause 5, which sets out the value bands for England, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson)—at least he understood what I was talking about. As the House knows, there are eight bands. The tax rates are arranged so that a property in the highest band pays three times as much as a property in the lowest. This limited range of tax bills ensures that the high-value properties do

  787
  not face excessive tax bills and it damps the effect of regional variations in house prices. They ensure that regional bands—which would bring many anomalies—are not therefore necessary.
  Clause 6 sets out those who will be liable to pay the tax. The principles are based on common sense. In owner-occupied property. it will be the owner. In rented property, it will be the tenant. In other occupied property, it will be the resident. In unoccupied property, it will be the owner. Where two or more people fall into the liable category, they will be jointly liable. Spouses or partners will also be jointly liable for the household bill.
  Clause 11 provides for discounts of 25 per cent. where there is one adult resident and 50 per cent. where there is none. It also provides that certain groups of people, who are described in schedule 1, are not counted when assessing the number of residents. Therefore, a single parent whose student daughter lives with her will still receive a 25 per cent. discount. The discount is set at 25 per cent. because the basic bill is half the property and half the personal element. It assumes two people, so that where there is only one adult resident he or she gets a discount equivalent to half the personal element, or 25 per cent.
  Clause 13 provides for reductions in council tax and will enable a scheme of transitional relief during the change to the new tax to ensure that no household faces an excessive year-on-year increase in its bill.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: This point is crucial. As my right hon. Friend knows, most of the students of Leeds live in my constituency. There is some confusion as to whether they will get only a percentage discount or whether they will be exempt across the board. Will my right hon. Friend say whether, unlike under the old rating system, students will not pay a rateable tax and that universities will not pay for the buildings even if the students are exempt?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have exempted students from payment of this tax. Their presence in a house does not give rise to a liability. If my hon. Friend studies the Bill with care—I know that he will—he will discover the way in which we have ensured that that happens.
  Mr. Chris Butler: My right hon. Friend issued illustrative figures showing what the charges are likely to be on the basis of this year's community charge. As he presumably knows how capping will work, will he publish illustrative figures showing what the maximum charges are likely to be when the council tax is implemented?
  Mr. Heseltine: As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken the existing budgets of local authorities and, on the assumption that we have moved through the transitional period, we have extrapolated what the equivalent figures would be under the council tax based on the best information available to us. We cannot look forward to budgets in two years' time which local authorities have not yet prepared and extrapolate on the basis of such hypotheses. That is not possible. The fact that one cannot do that shows why the Labour party attempted to follow the same methodology as we followed, although it left out a significant number of the costs involved.
  Mr. James Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position of students? His Department's press release states:
  "Students, student nurses, apprentices and those on YT schemes will also be eligible for discounts. Student halls of residence and other dwellings where all the adult residents are students will be exempt from council tax."
  Will some students be exempt and will others be eligible only for discounts and therefore have to pay a proportion of the bill? How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that disparity?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is broadly right. On the last part of his question, he must take into account that, in the normal course of events, student nurses would be eligible for rebates whereas students would not. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the detailed drafting of the Bill, he will find that the Government's broad intentions have been carried out.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way.
  Clause 13 provides for reductions in council tax and will enable a scheme of transitional help during the change to the new tax.
  Clause 15 provides for valuation tribunals to hear appeals in connection with the council tax. These tribunals will adjudicate on issues of property banding and liability for the tax.
  Chapter II of part I concerns valuation lists. Such lists, which will show property details only, will be compiled for each authority. The allocation of properties to bands is now being carried out under the auspices of the Inland Revenue Valuation Office.
  Clause 24 provides for the alteration of lists. We intend to provide that a dwelling may be rebanded upwards only when it changes hands and then only if a material increase in its value results from work done to the house. However, we shall provide that a property may be rebanded at any time if there has been a material reduction in its value, whether caused by partial demolition, a change in the nature of the locality or adaptation of the dwelling to make it suitable for a disabled person. There is provision for appeals on these matters.
  Chapter III of part I is technical and deals with the setting of the council tax each year from April 1993. Chapter IV of part I deals with the issue of precepts by major precepting authorities such as county councils and local precepting authorities such as parishes.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: How will my right hon. Friend ensure that the revenue support grant received by councils in the south-east will not be reduced as our constituents already pay more for the housing in which they live?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I shall deal with that specifically.
  Part II of the Bill contains similar provisions for Scotland. Part III abolishes the community charge from 1 April 1993. Part IV contains a number of miscellaneous but important provisions. Clause 101 amends social security legislation to provide for council tax benefit. The relevant legislation is being consolidated this Session and the references are to the consolidation Acts. They were

  789
  introduced in another place a week ago. The rebate system will provide rebates of up to 100 per cent. There is no minimum contribution to the council tax.
  Those are the main provisions of the Bill. The schedules provide more detail on the groups who will qualify for discounts, on the billing——
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way as I have tried hard without success to get an answer from his colleague in Scotland. As I understand it, there is now no dispute about the fact that the 20 per cent. rule is indefensible and must go in April 1993. Why can it not go in April 1992?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer. As we have said many times, the 20 per cent. that is collected from people on low incomes is covered in the additional payments that they receive. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the matter, not in two bites—one this year and one next year—but in the introduction of the new system.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me but I must get on.
  I have covered the main provisions of the Bill. The schedules provide more detail on those groups who will qualify for discounts, on the billing and recovery procedures, on rebates, non-domestic rating, grants and funds. The council tax is, therefore, based on straightforward common-sense principles. It will provide a fair and stable basis for local government finance. It avoids the obvious faults of the old rating system.
  Under the rating system, the valuation based on notional rateable values was difficult to understand. The council tax uses market values which everyone understands and for which there is plenty of evidence. Under the rating system, small improvements to properties led to higher bills. Under the council tax, small improvements will have no effect on the bands and larger ones will be taken into account only when a property changes hands.
  Under the rates, each property had an exact valuation, and there was a large range of bills, from the lowest to the highest. The council tax limits the range, protecting households from disproportionately high bills. The rates took no account of the number of people in a household. The council tax will ensure that single adult households pay less. It will also maintain accountability. Thirty-eight million of the 42 million adults in Great Britain—that is, more than 90 per cent.—will be directly taken into account by the council tax. Many of the remainder will be eligible for discount even if they were counted provisionally.
  Property is a sensible basis for a local tax—I think that even the Labour party would agree with that—but property does not pay tax. It is people who have to pay tax, and the council tax recognises the fact that, although there is not a perfect correlation between people's circumstances and the value of the property in which they live, there is a relationship.
  In place of our straightforward banding system, the Labur party would introduce individual valuations of properties, and it is interesting to consider how it would do that. We know about generalisations of rental values, but
  790
  will they be arrived at on the basis of the old rating system, or will the Opposition use capital values, which they would argue are easier to understand, or rebuilding costs, or repair costs? Which of those factors will account for what proportion of the valuation process? We have seen no evidence to suggest that the Labour party has done any work whatever on the subject, and the reason for that is perfectly clear: the Opposition do not want to have to answer any of the specific questions that anybody responsible for preparing the legislation would have to answer.
  We are left with the concept of fair rates, from a party whose leader, as we have said many times, said as recently
  as September 1980—[Laughter]
  "Rates are the most unjust of all taxes, which take most from those who can least afford it." Those were the words used by the leader of the Labour party to describe the basis of the system to which his party now wishes to return.
  It is worth asking how quickly the Opposition think they can go back. Opposition Members have made it absolutely clear that they would like to return to the system as quickly as they possibly can. In an interview on "Frost on Sunday" on 27 October, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said——
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Was that 1991 or 1980?
  Mr. Heseltine: On 27 October 1991, the hon. Member for Dagenham said of the community charge:
  "We would … repeal it in almost all circumstances because we still believe, even if there were an election in June"
  June 1992, that is—
  "we would still believe that the quickest and most sure way of getting rid of the poll tax by the following 1 April would be to pick up our fair rates proposals."
  When asked on "Any Questions" on 5 October how the Labour party would move forward, the shadow Chief Secretary had this to say:
  "There is absolutely no question that if the Government have got the council tax in place … we would replace it with our system of fair rates, which is infinitely superior."
  But the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said just 12 days later that Labour would
  "amend the council tax to bring it in line with what we want to do."
  Not wanting to be left behind, the hon. Member for Dagenham said, on 27 October, "We would repeal it." So Labour Members do not actually know what they are going to do, and they do not have the valuations on the basis of which to do it. That did not stop the hon. Member for Brightside saying, on 17 October:
  "The full scale revaluation for the eventual introduction of fair rates might take two or three years."
  Now let us put the pieces of the jigsaw into place. Let us start with the unhappy assumption that the Labour party does, indeed, win an election in June 1992. The Labour Government start the process on day one and work all through the long recess. According to the hon. Member for Brightside, three years later, in June 1995, they will have come up with the revaluation. They introduce the legislation in November 1995.
  Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing out of order.
  Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you ascertain from the Secretary of State whether he has finished talking about the Bill which is supposed to be having its Second Reading? If he has, we may as well go and get a cup of tea and stop listening to the appalling waffle and rhetoric——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not out of order.
  Mr. Evans: He is not talking about the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: He is introducing the Bill in his own way.
  Mr. Heseltine: I believe that it is completely legitimate for me to discuss on Second Reading the amendments that the Opposition claim that they want to make to the Bill.
  Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend has been most generous in giving way and I am grateful to him for giving way once more. As there is support for the replacement of the community charge with the new council tax, will he explain to many people who would like to see it operating from this coming May why there are difficulties in achieving that? It is necessary to have the answer to that on the record.
  Mr. Heseltine: Because—in spite of the obstruction of the Labour party—one must legislate to take the proposals through the House and conduct a revaluation process, and the local authorities must introduce the software to send out the bills. There is no quicker way of achieving what we intend to achieve than the way we are proposing now.
  Mr. David Blunkett: If that is so, why did not the Secretary of State take up our offer on 11 and 12 June when he introduced the paving Bill and offered to abolish the poll tax by 1 April 1992?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman refused to come and talk to me when I asked him to in January of this year. Labour's proposals are founded on nothing but their desire to obscure the issue and not to reveal their proposals.
  According to the hon. Member for Dagenham, there will be a valuation in three years. There will be legislation in November 1995 and Royal Assent in 1996. If we are lucky, and with a fair wind. Labour's new proposals would be introduced in 1997, but the hon. Member for Brightside still thinks that he could have achieved it in 1992. Labour has no conceivable or practical alternative other than to allow us to put our proposals on the statute book. The Opposition know that they would seek to make only some minor changes to what we have designed and carried out.
  There are a number of aspects to the Bill which the House will want to consider. The first is that part of the legislation that introduces the consequential and procedural implementations for capping. The House and a wider electorate will want to understand Labour's views on capping. I cannot fully comprehend exactly where the Labour party is on capping. There have been many Opposition views about what they would do.
  At first there was an outcry and the Labour party was against capping. That was until the hon. Member for Dagenham appeared on the "Today" programme—I think that was the programme—and said that he was against capping except in extremis. We have tried on many occasions in this House to explore what in extremis means and where it would apply. Would it apply in high-spending
  792
  Labour local authorities? If so, how high spending? Would there be capping in Kirklees, Barnsley, Greenwich, Lambeth and Haringey, or would it only apply in extremis? Is the real distinction that one would not actually have it anywhere except in some academic concept designed by the hon. Gentleman?
  The fact of the matter is that, as we all know, unless one has capping, the one thing that one can be sure about today is that the £140 that was put in by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, in practice, be consumed by Labour authorities pushing up their expenditure. We having made adjustments to bring down the level of contribution of local people to 15 per cent., and having committed ourselves to doing so, I see no argument for local authorities under Labour control then pushing up expenditure on the assumption that the local people will not have to pay it.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I realise that it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman, as a millionaire, to understand the problems of Labour local authorities in, for example, my part of east London. However, is he aware that the so-called high-spending authorities are those that provide nursery education and home helps? The top 20 are all Labour authorities. Why does not he rely on the judgment of the electorate in those local authority areas to decide whether a local authority is efficient, high spending or low spending? Trust the people.
  Mr. Heseltine: I remember what the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the area around it was like in 1979. It was a desert of dereliction which had been ignored by the Labour party in power. The area has now been transformed into one of the most successful urban renewal areas anywhere in the world because of what our party is doing.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has helpfully brought me on to the issue of the cuts—the suggestion that, over the course of the decade, there is a pattern of cuts in local authorities. Consumption—expenditure—in local government in the recent decade has risen by 20 per cent. in real terms. That is the fact of the matter. That is why, if we look at local authorities service by service, we find in, for example, education that pupil-teacher ratios have improved from 19:1 to 17:1. There were certainly no cuts there. That is why we discover that one in four of our 18-year-olds are now going on to higher education, and soon it will be one in three. There were no cuts there. We find that standards in education are rising, so there were no cuts there. If we look at services on a service-by-service basis, we see that there are 40,000 extra people in social services, 18,000 extra people in housing, 2,500 extra people in planning, and 15,000 extra people in the police force. All those figures represent increases over the decade.
  There is no issue about cuts in those services; it is simply that, as a Government, we have had to constrain local authorities' appetites so that they do not get out of control. Even then, without capping, one finds that they often run seriously ahead of the rate of budgets which are acceptable in the national interest.
  Mr. John Battle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: My right hon. Friend illustrates a point that is well met in my constituency. On various occasions, Birmingham council has increased either its rates or its community charge from 30 per cent. to 42 per cent. In particular, I refer my right hon. Friend to the elements of capping. Is he prepared to give the community charge payers and future council tax payers of Birmingham an assurance that, other than the section that would come from the council's ability or inability to raise that tax, he will cap any excess expenditure over and above inflation? Can he give them that guarantee?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is as concerned as I am about the levels of increase in local government expenditure, but I ask him to bear with us until we publish the details of our capping proposals, which we expect to do relatively shortly.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: I should be grateful if I could make progress.
  The next aspect of this legislation that will be of concern to the House is that which deprives councillors of the right to vote if they have not paid their community charge or council tax. That issue has been seriously ventilated in this House and before a wider audience. What I found most extraordinary about our debate on this subject last week was that, when I asked the hon. Member for Dagenham whether he would oppose the legislative proposal to take the right to vote away from councillors who had not paid, he was on his feet as quick as lightning saying, "No, we will not oppose it".
  Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question today: by what conceivable justification could the Labour party tolerate non-paying councillors standing and campaigning in its name and how could it tolerate having Members of Parliament who do not pay their council tax, yet the moment the Tories do something about it the Labour party climbs on the bandwagon as though it has always supported our action? I find that extraordinary. It gives the clearest possible indication of the Labour party's rule—that it leaves the difficult decisions to us and hides behind the responsibility that we deploy.
  Opposition Members never protest within their own party. They campaign on behalf of their non-paying councillors and their non-paying Members of Parliament. They welcome them into their deliberative process and tolerate them until we do something about it and then they capitulate, like the windbags that they are.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose——
  Mr. Heseltine rose——
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Heseltine: Anybody who is interested in the effect that the lack of control and the lack of capping would have—that is what the Labour party has threatened our entire community with if it was returned to power—must be interested to learn that the Opposition have ambitions to extend the scope of municipal activity into yet a further area of extravagance. Doubtless the hon. Member for Dagenham will want the House to read today's interesting interview in the Financial Times. When Andrew Adonis and Ian Hargreaves asked the hon. Gentleman why he
  794
  now feels that he can take a relaxed view of local government, its councillors and the Labour party, when compared to previous years, he said:
  "Local government today is very much more aware of its responsibilities in restraining expenditure than a decade ago. They all understand very clearly that the sky is not going to be the limit."
  That will be a reassurance to all those who pay the community charge and who will pay the council tax.
  Perhaps I can ask the hon. Gentleman which Government, which party, brought about the discipline. Who made local government realise all that? Who finished the job that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) had to begin in 1977, with the International Monetary Fund at his back? Who had to take that on? Who came to the local government scene determined to change its attitudes? And which party, through its council work, the activities of its Members of Parliament and in the press and the media campaigned, in partnership with its friends in the trade unions, to perpetuate that attitude of irresponsibility? It was the Labour party.
  Anybody who thinks that that game is over should return to that article in the Financial Times. When talking about the benefits of competition and about how this Government are always seeking to extend competition in the private sector, the hon. Member for Dagenham said:
  "Ministers are fond of saying there should be no `no-go' areas for the private sector. I would reverse that and say that in principle, there should be no 'no-go' areas for the public sector either."
  —[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Yes, ah. Not only is the cap coming off, not only are the unions to get their pay-off, but the local authorities will be enabled to indulge in municipal enterprise—what a contradiction in terms—in any area without let or hindrance.
  Just to help the hon. Member for Dagenham to argue his case, I refer him to the Evening Standard of 8 November, from which we discover that Lambeth is in the dark and £11 million in the red. So great is the confidence in that bulwark of municipal enterprise that London Electricity wants cash up front before it will fit any more street lamps in Lambeth. No constituent in the country is safe from the marauding instincts of the Lambeth direct labour organisation which will compete in every constituency in every county of the land, given the restraints which the hon. Gentleman intends to remove.
  Last of all I want to come to the Bill. I was not referring to this excellent piece of legislation introduced in my name and that of my right hon. Friends. I was referring to the piece of legislation produced by the Labour party to get rid of the poll tax. Within it we have one interesting question. It has been at the forefront of the Labour party's campaign that in order to collect the council tax we shall need a register. We have pointed out to the Labour party that there are no powers in our legislation to give local authorities the right to form a register. That power does not exist. But the argument goes on, "Ah, but you will need so much information about individuals that local authorities will need a register."
  Of course, local authorities have a great deal of information about people. That is perfectly true. I dare say that that information may be relevant. That is likely. Before Labour Members get carried away with mirth at the curious concept that local authorities may take a little trouble to find out whether people who claim discounts are entitled to them, I draw my right hon. and hon. Friend's

  795
  attention to the Bill produced by the hon. Member for Brightside. No one would expect the hon. Member for Dagenham to get as far as producing a Bill, but the hon. Member for Brightside brings an integrity to the Opposition Benches for which I commend him.
  Clause 10 of the Bill of the hon. Member for Brightside enables the Secretary of State, after consulting various people,
  "to provide for rebates of, and special help with, fair rates up to the full amount that would otherwise be payable by persons, including the following:
  (a) single retired people who live alone;"
  How will councils know who they are? Who will find them out? Will there be a list, a register, a snoopers' charter? Where will the information come from?
  Mr. Blunkett: It is on record.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that it is on record. If it is on record, a register already exists. We go on. Pensioner couples, persons and families on low incomes and persons with disabilities will also be eligible for discounts. All those people will be eligible for discounts, regardless of their income. The richest single retired people who live alone? The millionaire's widow? Eligible, eligible, eligible?
  The revelation is totally clear. Opposition Members have made it clear by their own admission that one does not need a register. They say that they can achieve many of these things without a register. We have made exactly the same point. It is not necessary to have a register, so local authorities will not have the power to create a register.
  Our tax, the new council tax, will replace the community charge by April 1993. We shall see it on the statute book at the earliest possible opportunity. It will be fair and it will be welcomed. It will be cheap to administer and easier to collect. I commend it to the House.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Bryan Could: I propose to introduce a novel element into the debate by speaking about the Bill. When the Secretary of State could bring himself to talk about his own legislation, we heard from him in effect an admission that the Government who brought us the poll tax are now bringing us a new poll tax. Just when we thought it was safe to dip a toe into the poll tax water, we are faced with a poll tax mark II. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman did not want to talk about the Bill. All the familiar features, the problems and the objectionable unfairnesses of the poll tax are there, but this time combined with the further complications of a totally new and untried property tax. In other words, it is the poll tax crossed with a capital value tax—a roof tax crossed with a head tax—a cross-bred monster which gives us the worst of all worlds.
  The Secretary of State seems to think that we should be so grateful that the Government have promised that the poll tax will go that we should not look too closely at what will replace it. The reverse is true. The poll tax disaster should surely put us on our guard. We must ensure that that terrible mistake is not repeated. The British people will not forgive a Government or a Parliament that make another comparable mistake.
  As the Local Government Chronicle put it in its leading article of 1 November:
  796
  "To introduce poll tax is a mistake, to bring in council tax is a disaster."
  The omens are far from promising. The new tax is bred out of panic coupled with cowardice. All its problems arise directly from the political situation from which it springs, from the urgent need felt by the Government to distance themselves from the poll tax and the equal need to placate those internal supporters of the poll tax who will choke over any support for a property tax.
  The first motivating factor was the overriding need to be seen to get rid of the poll tax before the next general election. No matter that the poll tax bills will still arrive, bigger and nastier than ever next year and probably the year afterwards. All that matters to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister is that they should be able to face the electorate with the commitment to replace the poll tax enshrined in legislation. The nature of the replacement and whether it would work hardly matter. As so often with the Government, the illusion and not the reality is what really counts.
  That is why haste is everything. The Prime Minister may have complained that under former management the poll tax was bounced through, but he will gladly ram through the new poll tax. The years taken to prepare the poll tax look like a model of wise and thoughtful government by comparison with the pretence at consultation and the shockingly truncated parliamentary timetable with which we are now confronted.
  The unseemly haste is dictated not merely by the Government's electoral timetable, but by the fear that if the measure is given proper time for debate there will also be time for the real, but as yet nascent, concerns of Tory Back Benchers and their constituents to grow and mature. A Government seeking to minimise awkward questions will try to railroad the the Bill through, hoping that by the time that Back Benchers have woken up to what is happening and their constituents have understood the dangers it will again be too late.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile this carefully rehearsed diatribe with his oft-stated desire to abolish the poll tax as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Gould: Because our course for abolishing the poll tax provides a guarantee that it can be done, because we shall pick up an existing system that we know will work.
  Mr. Robin Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: I shall make some progress first and give way again in a moment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I usually do.
  It is not merely we parliamentarians who are the victims of that haste; local government is again caught up in a hopeless struggle against the odds. The poll tax has been a nightmare which shows no sign of ending. Non-collection will total £1·5 billion by the end of this year and 7·5 million summonses will have been issued. The courts and the police will be unable to cope.
  Against that background, local authorities are now required to prepare for a totally new tax—requiring a new valuation, a new banding system, new discounts and new registers. As Mr. Ron Lord, Wakefield's assistant chief financial officer, points out in the Municipal Journal, they could at least introduce the poll tax

  797
  "against a background of a stable rating system which managers were able to put on automatic pilot while diverting their attention to the multitude of practical problems that were to arise with the new system. There is no such luxury available with the implementation of council tax."
  Mr. Squire: As I expected, the hon. Gentleman responded to the last intervention by saying that a Labour Government would simply reintroduce rates. He knows that that would not only cause a major upheaval in local government but would be followed shortly afterwards by other proposals. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Labour proposal would cause a double upheaval and a return to a system which the Opposition Front Bench has criticised many times.
  Mr. Gould: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman, who usually follows these matters quite closely. He will know that we propose for the sake of speed and practicality to use an existing valuation register, which everyone agrees exists and can be used. To the great relief of local government, we would then abolish the 20 per cent. contribution rule and extend the rebate system to help those special groups which might otherwise be disadvantaged. We would then be able to do what Conservatives should have done from the outset—pick up and operate a tried and trusted system and concentrate on dealing over time and in proper order with imperfections that had developed. That is what we propose to do, and in his heart of hearts the hon. Gentleman and many other Conservative Members know that that is the right course.
  No wonder that independent experts and local authority treasurers are in despair about the timetable that is being forced upon them. As Mr. Lord warns, there is no room for mistakes or changes. It will have to be right first time. Most experts agree that it cannot be done and that the poll tax will live on until 1994.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No. The hon. Gentleman is having a good try. I shall give way when I am ready.
  I appeal to the Secretary of State, his Ministers and the House not to inflict chaos yet again on local government. Please do not posture and pretend that these problems do not exist. We have been warned in the most solemn terms, and a Government who were responsible for the poll tax should surely this time show some humility, some willingness to listen and learn.
  Of course the Government could have avoided these difficulties. They could have done what we suggested. They could have accepted our offer of co-operation on a short Bill to return to the rating system as a first step towards a more general reform. But, again, the politics got in the way. No doubt it was hard enough to accept the volte face involved in embracing an element of property tax. A return to the reviled rates would presumably have been too much to take.
  All the denunciations of a property tax could just about be accommodated, but how were the Government to overcome the whole rationale of the ill-fated poll tax experiment, the supposed unacceptability of the rates? The country is asked to pay the price of the Government's overriding concern that they should not lose face.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No. I shall continue with my speech and will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene later if he wishes to do so.
  That overriding concern is why we have to have not just a property tax but a new and different property tax that is fraught with novel and unpredictable difficulties. That is why we have to have a new basis for valuation, a capital values tax. How is a totally new, totally comprehensive valuation of capital values—something that has never before been done in England and Wales—to be carried out within the dangerously tight timetable dictated by the Government's electoral concerns? That is where the banding proposal comes in, offering as it does, by virtue of its crudity, a short cut to a new register which poses the most horrific problems on the way.
  Those problems were foreshadowed by the confusion that attended the production of the Government's banding proposals. No work was done. Figures were plucked out of the air. Guesses were made and 14, nine and seven bands were variously decided upon and then rejected. By some arbitrary and misleading reading of the entrails, it was apparently finally decided that eight bands should be the basis.
  Banding is by necessity crude and regressive. Properties that are worth less than the mid point in the band must be overvalued, whereas those above the mid point are necessarily undervalued. We understand that no individual valuations will be done and that leaves unanswered questions about how individual properties—for example, those that have been adapted for disabled people—will be assessed. We heard today from RADAR that it remains far from convinced that it can rely on the Minister's assurances that benefits available under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 will be restored.
  The same panic-stricken drive for speed dictates that the valuation must be done on the cheap. There will be subcontracting to local estate agents, who will tender for cut-price job lots of up to 20,000 houses at a time. What confidence can the individual householder have in such a process? Surely it is storing up horrendous problems for the future. We can expect hundreds of thousands of appeals from irate householders, just at the time, in early 1993, when the new tax is supposed to be implemented.
  Sir Peter Emery rose——
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is insistent, so it had better be good.
  Sir Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and refer him to a part of his speech when I tried to gain his attention. He passed over—I might suggest even glibly—the fact that 1·5 million people have not paid their community charge. Will he, from that Dispatch Box, condemn that non-payment? Otherwise, he will be encouraging it.
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely false point, because we have repeatedly condemned nonpayment. He cannot even get the facts right. That was why—and I confess it to him quite freely——
  Sir Peter Emery: I was right.
  Mr. Gould: When the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will understand my reluctance to give way to him. I somehow had the feeling that he was not properly

  799
  following the argument. As a consequence, he misunderstood—[Interruption.] I am happy to repeat the facts. By the end of the year, there will be a backlog of uncollected poll tax amounting to £1·5 billion. En case anyone rushes to say that that is the fault of local authorities, the point that I made, and which the hon. Gentleman failed to understand, was that by that point local authorities will have had to issue 7·5 million summonses—the biggest debt collection exercise in the history of the world.
  Mr. Keith Mans rose——
  Mr. Gould: I regret that I cannot give way. I am not encouraged to do so when interventions are based on such inaccuracies.
  The real problem arises because of what the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has now left the Chamber, revealingly described last week as dampened banding—the artificial compression of the true range of property values into the eight bands defined by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is that, together with the insistence on one national register for England, which causes so much distortion.
  The need for a different range of property values in Scotland and Wales has been properly recognised, which makes it all the more baffling that, given that the most extreme variations in property values occur within England, the Government have blindly insisted on only one set of bands for England as a whole. The consequences are horrific. As the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said during last week's debate—and I am sorry that he, too, has left the Chamber:
  "But the largest differences are not between Scotland, England and Wales but between the north and south of England, where the disparities in property prices are tremendous. Only 1 per cent. of houses in greater London are in the bottom band, whereas in the north 47 per cent. of houses are in the bottom band. In greater London, 31 per cent. of houses are in the top three bands, whereas in the north only 4 per cent. are in the top three bands. Those are not anomalies—they are great chasms."—[Official Report, 1 November 1991: Vol. 198, c. 142.]
  I can only agree.
  The consequences for many people will be that the new tax will be a form of property poll tax—a virtually flat-rate tax. Worse than that, for those in areas with high property values the flat-rate tax will be at or near the highest level, even though they live in ordinary, average houses. Because the dampening or flattening of the bands has the effect of reducing the bills for those at the top of the scale, the necessary consequence is that the bills for those lower down the scale will be higher than they should be.
  How did the Government get into that position? It is bad enough to have a crude and regressive banding system in the first place, but why have a system that is deliberately distorted in that way? The answer again lies in politics and the tangle into which the Government have got in trying to extricate themselves from the poll tax mess. The poll tax was, and is, hated by the majority of people. It benefited a wealthy minority, who found that its deliberate unfairness meant that their bills were reduced. The majority of those beneficiaries were Tory supporters. Not surprisingly, they are reluctant to give up their windfall. The Secretary of State decided that they had to be protected—that it was politically too dangerous to create yet another set of losers.
  800
  The new tax, like the poll tax before it, is deliberately skewed to protect the better off and to excuse them from paying their fair share. That is why the bands are dampened—to enshrine the political principle of a poll tax, the principle of unfairness which so justifiably outraged the whole people.
  I know that this is a bit too complicated for the Secretary of State—details and sums were never his strong point. In the debate on the Loyal Address last Wednesday, he revealed that he had not yet got to first base, when he asserted:
  "If one does not raise more money from the top bands, one does not actually help the people in the lower bands."—[Official Report, 6 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 533.]
  That could be dismissed as a piece of charming naivete if it were not for the fact that this is the man who proposes to inflict that unfair system on the British people, and the man who will himself benefit—in the sense that his bill as a millionaire in the heart of London will be lower than that of most other bills in the country. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that he did not understand, and perhaps still does not understand, the central feature of his own proposals? I believe that his own preferred phrase is, "Get off your butt."
  The unfairness was not the only concession made to the devotees of the poll tax. A Government and a Secretary of State who belatedly tried to make a virtue of recognising and acting upon the obvious defects of the poll tax have simply lacked the political will and courage to make a decisive break.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No, I am dealing with the Secretary of State. When I have finished, I may give way.
  As a result, we have a continuing head tax element, which adds to the complexities and difficulties of the new tax. That is the price which had to be paid to placate the remaining Thatcherites—the sop to Cerberus. Unfortunately, it was a very large and costly sop.
  It is that notion of single person discounts that defies what should be the basic principle of any such tax in modern Britain—that it should reflect the ability to pay. Discounts for single-person households will offer reduced bills to 7 million taxpayers, or 33 per cent. of the total, but they will be wholly untargeted and unrelated to the income of the householders.
  A millionaire living alone in a luxury penthouse will, as a result, have 25 per cent. knocked off his bill, while a family man struggling on a low income will not. The family man's bill will have to be higher than it would otherwise be to make up for the discount offered to the millionaire. Where is the fairness in that?
  The position becomes even more complicated when account is taken of the status discounts. Those discounts are, in the case of people such as students, extremely welcome, but they immediately give rise to other anomalies. The Secretary of State was uncharacteristically uncertain when he attempted to draw distinctions between questions of exemption and eligibility for rebates and discounts.
  The complications become nightmarish when one realises that the liability in each case is to be calculated on a daily basis, so that individual liability could change from day to day not only a result of the individual moving his or her address—which, as the Audit Commission

  801
  discovered, occurs on a massive scale—or status, but as a consequence of a move or change in status by others as well.
  How are local authorities to keep track of all those moves and changes of status within households, and of the knock-on consequences for individuals who do not themselves change their address or status, but whose status is changed by the moves of others? The only answer is that they will have to keep a record of who lives where. That is the considered view of the local authority associations and of all those who have looked at the problem.
  It does not matter much whether local authorities are or are not required by statute to keep something called a register. The practical needs of the situation will require them to have a point of reference and a database. If they do not keep a register themselves, they will no doubt make use of the one register that does exist—the electoral register, thereby prolonging and exacerbating that threat to civil rights already posed by the poll tax, which has induced hundreds of thousands of people to trade away their votes.
  Few local authorities will be much comforted by the distinction attempted by the Secretary of State for Scotland last Wednesday:
  "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."—[Official Report, 6 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 540.]
  If he expects, on the basis of such unconvincing casuistry and gobbledegook that local authorities will say, "That's all right then," I fear that he will be sadly disappointed.
  Dr. Hampson: That particular point is referred to in Labour's fair rates document, which makes it crystal clear that the only people in the Chamber calling for a register are Labour Members. That document calls for the computerisation of the Inland Revenue to be the basis of the calculation for liability of widowers, pensioners, the disabled, and other groups. The only people arguing for a register are Opposition Members. No register will be needed if people have to claim.
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman has totally misinterpreted, to put it kindly, or has misreported what is in our document. The only proposals that we made in respect of the categories that he mentioned are for a long-overdue extension of the existing rebate scheme.
  Again, the Local Government Chronicle gets it right. It said in the same leading article that I quoted earlier:
  "If the single person discount remains a feature of the tax, they will have to create a register—a point that Michael Heseltine will eventually have to acknowledge. The discount—the achilles heel of the system—would be better abandoned now rather than later."
  I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment heeds that advice, although on past form I am not optimistic.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Department of Social Security's internal working party's papers make it clear that local authorities will have to keep a register if they are to apply fairly the benefits that the Secretary of State did not spend much time talking about in his roustabout Second Reading speech.
  Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is right, and his advice coincides exactly with that of all the professional bodies.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: There is nothing inherently terrible about keeping registers. The problem with the Government's system is that the information that is required to gain benefits and discounts is so detailed and personal that it will be a terrible invasion of the individual's privacy.
  Mr. Gould: I continue to believe that it is the civil rights implications of keeping a register of where people live that is the most worrying feature—of not only the poll tax but the proposed council tax.
  The poll tax legacy continues to do its damage. The rules establishing joint and several liability are another survivor of the poll tax, causing as they do such difficulty, incomprehension and bitterness within families. The new tax will be costly to administer and complicated to collect. The collection level will be low and the collection costs will be high. The load lifted for those at the top of the scale and for the single millionaire will mean an extra burden borne by those less able to pay. For all those reasons, council tax bills will—on the Government's own figures—be much higher than they should be.
  Other aspects of the Bill arouse almost equal concern, but I will mention them only briefly. The uniform business rate is to remain nationalised, narrowing local government's tax base and cranking up the gearing effect to an alarming extent. The grant system is to be calculated on the same distorted valuation base that will so unfairly penalise those districts that have high property values but low average incomes. The 20 per cent. contribution rule is to be done away with, but, the abandoning of the principle having been conceded, it is nevertheless to be retained for the remaining lifetime of the poll tax.
  Why is the chance not being taken to abolish the rule—if not immediately, at least from 1 April 1992?. Why is the misery to be prolonged for millions of people? Why is the Audit Commission's advice to be ignored, and why is local government to be forced to go through the costly and futile business of trying to squeeze blood out of millions of stones?
  This is an ill-starred Bill, conceived in haste out of the disaster of the poll tax and fathered by a Secretary of State who is more interested in gimmickry than in good government. It is a sort of poll-tax zombie which will stalk the land long after the poll tax has supposedly been laid to rest. There is only one chance for us to ensure that the worst mistakes of the poll tax are not repeated and magnified: we can take advantage of that chance if the House, for once, does its job properly, standing up for the constituents whom we represent and insisting that good government must not be prostituted to short-term electoral considerations. We, the Opposition, will do our duty; I appeal to Conservative Members to do theirs.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: I am delighted that I have been called before any other Conservative Back Bencher. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, Conservative Members who opposed the community charge at the time of its introduction have had a difficult few years. To the dismay of the then Ministers, my voting record in this regard was—probably—rather similar to that of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr.

  803
  Gould). My reaction to today's news is, however, very different from his. I unreservedly welcome the Bill, for it is transparently obvious not only that the new system will be fairer than the present one, but that it will be delivered more quickly than could any of the options suggested by the hon. Member for Dagenham.
  I feel—not least because of the experience of the past few years—that I should explain why I believe that the present tax should go. Some of my hon. Friends may regret the current lack of consensus, but there has always been a lack of consensus in regard to this tax. I remember saying in the House that it would be repealed by the first non-Conservative Government—or, quite probably, by a future Conservative Government. That is one of several predictions that I have made which are now proving correct.
  Mr. John Maxton: Did the hon. Gentleman vote against the Scottish legislation?
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman—who has questioned me from a sedentary position—will be delighted to learn that I did not support the Scottish legislation at any stage.
  Mr. Maxton: Unlike his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Squire: I suspect that I had better not reply to any more sedentary interruptions, or my hon. Friend the Whip will become increasingly upset with me—as will you, Madam Deputy Speaker; that is even more important.
  One reason for the change is the difficulty of collecting the current tax, especially in the inner cities. Just as important is the fact that the tax is not perceived to be fair by a significant number of people, particularly those whose circumstances place them just above the rebate level. It must therefore be reformed. My right hon. Friend—whose speech has greatly heartened his Back Benchers—was right to present this Bill, and to stress the importance of passing it quickly. I am sure that it will be possible for us to debate the issues in depth, while also ensuring that the measure is sent on its way and the new tax is in place on 1 April 1993.
  Having made my views on the community charge clear, let me add that I believe that there should be no question of an amnesty for non-payers. That would constitute an affront not only to hon. Members, but to the many law-abiding people all over the country who have met their responsibilities, and who rightly expect local authorities to continue to chase those who are not doing so.
  Let me make a small suggestion, which I am sure can be tackled in Committee. I feel that local authorities should be expected to exercise some judgment with regard to very small sums that are outstanding—whether the tax concerned is the community charge or the old rating system—if it would clearly be unproductive and expensive to pursue them. There should, I think, be provision for authorities to write off such debts.
  The main point about the new tax is the fact that it is property-based. Many of us consider that an advantage, and I hope that it will be given at least a qualified welcome on both sides of the House. The Labour party has been on an odyssey of a journey, with some 70 stops to date and more to come—especially after the speech made recently by the hon. Member for Dagenham. That applies not least to the question of valuation.
  I am a reasonable person. I do not happen to believe that, come next spring or summer, when the valuations will all be in, the hon. Member for Dagenham—were he to
  804
  become Secretary of State for the Environment, which I do not think he will—would ditch those valuations and return to the rates, and then to some four-part valuation system. That would not make sense. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has already implied that there is a faint possibility of Labour's adopting the valuations. The stronger that possibility becomes, the more chance there is of a consensus. On issues such as this, consensus is desirable, and I feel that adopting professional valuations would be a good idea.
  Let me tackle the question of regional banding head-on. As a London Member, I might be expected to think, instinctively and understandably, that regional banding makes sense. I have examined the matter in some detail, and I believe that regional banding would require justification; its adoption would certainly produce many more anomalies than would otherwise arise.
  Let me give an example, however. Even if we agreed on the London boundaries—taking, presumably, the old GLC area—there would still be a major impact on Essex, Kent, Surrey, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, all of which contain properties whose value has some correlation with that of properties immediately inside the GLC boundary. If those areas are included, what will be the position in the outer parts of the west midlands, for instance, or in the more prosperous parts of the Bristol area? Once we start, we find that no natural regional boundary can be drawn.
  Apart from the practical problem, we encounter a moral principle here. Are we trying to suggest that, although this is to be a property tax, we should ignore property values and endeavour to ensure that people receive the same bills regardless of what their homes are worth? I do not think that that is a terribly moral argument. Surely someone whose property is worth three times as much as another property should be expected to pay more than the owner of that property, especially now that the property-tax element is so much smaller than it was under the old system.
  Mr. Gould: I was confident that the hon. Gentleman would give way to me: we seem to have established the practice.
  I have listened with considerable interest to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. Does he not accept that the problem arises—a problem that both he and I, as well as some of his hon. Friends, wish to address—not just as a result of a national banding system for the whole of England, but because the system is dampened, according to the Secretary of State? That is what forces people living in some parts of London to be crowded into the top two or three bands, and thus to pay what is virtually a flat-rate tax at the top level. There is little differentiation between those living in properties of average value and those living in much more expensive properties. That is what is worrying people in London, and it is a function of dampening rather than of the banding principle.
  Mr. Squire: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Had there been major steps in the bands—eight times, or whatever figure the hon. Gentleman might care to suggest—I should have sympathised with his point. Although the system that is to be introduced distinguishes between properties of considerably different values, it does not do so in such a way that one ends up with some of the anomalies that we found with the old rating system.

  805
  For example, a widow who had lived in a large property for 40 years might not want to move from that property for the last 10 years of her life. Under the old system, her rates bill was unlimited. The banding system ensures, above all, that the highest rate is related to the lowest rate. That being so, we are being fair to people who are in such a position and to people in general. We shall ensure that there is an upper limit and that what they pay will not go above it.
  Mr. Cormack: Both my hon. Friend and I have taken the same line on the poll tax, from Scotland onwards. My hon. Friend's reference to a widow who had lived for 40 years in her home provoked me to intervene and to say that perhaps in Committee we ought to consider length of occupation of a property. A problem faced by some people is that they bought their house when it was not very dear. Now, however, having lived there for many years, they find that it is worth a very great deal of money. Their income, though, has not kept pace with property prices. I hope that that point can be addressed in Committee.
  Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point that ought to be considered by the Committee. I am sure, however, that Ministers will be anxious not to create too many complexities within the system.
  As for the single-person discount, if my earlier comments on valuation hold true, it is possible that the single-person discount will be one of the major differences between the two parties. I have always believed that the biggest, perhaps the only major drawback of the old rating system was the way in which single people inevitably lost out by comparison with two, three, four or more wage earners in similar if not adjacent properties. If the rates were to be reintroduced without such a charge, in whatever valuation form, the new system would stumble and fall at that hurdle. I believe that 25 per cent. is about right, though it would be foolish to suggest that 25 per cent. is the uniquely correct figure. Nevertheless, there is some correlation between the full charge, the 25 per cent. and the 50 per cent. off an empty property.
  It is important to understand why. I do not know how many properties throughout the country contain only one person, but I am told that it is as high as 33 per cent. If we introduced a property tax that did not recognise the special position of the single person, which applies in one out of three homes, there would be a legitimate outcry. People would say, "We expected this system to be fairer. The only bit that we liked about the current system was that it recognised the single person, whereas the rates did not. In return for losing that—and we understand why—we expect our position to be recognised in the replacement system.- They would be right to say that. I urge the Opposition to consider the impact of not recognising the position of people living alone, which would be the consequence of their proposals.
  I welcome the abolition of the 20 per cent. rule. I do not intend to say too much about it. I suspect that it is welcomed in all parts of the House. That experiment began before the introduction of the community charge, although most people outside the House do not remember it. It led to an inordinate amount of local authority administration and attracted a limited amount of income compared with the expense of administering it.
  806
  I welcome also my right hon. Friend's treatment of students. I have two in my household. It is difficult for some of us to get used to the concept that students will be invisible. Even if they are invisible, they will certainly still be heard. Nevertheless, the principle of making students invisible is absolutely right. It is an improvement on the present position, as is the treatment of home improvements. When a property is improved, I understand that its valuation will reflect the improvement only on the sale of the property. That will provide a direct incentive to people to improve their property. Under the old rating system, property improvements led to a higher valuation and higher rates.
  I reject the need for a personal register. There will be a 100 per cent. property register, but as 50 per cent. of those on the register will not be eligible for one or other of the discounts available, it is iniquitous to suggest that we also need a full-blown 100 per cent. personal register. I confidently expect that to be one of the gains of changing the system.
  Like every Conservative Member—I understand that Opposition Members now agree with us—I welcome the proposal that councillors should be unable to vote on setting the local charge if they have not paid their community charge or council tax. That change is overdue. I understand that about 250 councillors throughout the country still refuse to pay. They are joined by six Members of Parliament—not, as some of my hon. Friends might think, by just two Members of Parliament.
  A small point that is relevant to hon. Members in all parts of the House that continues regardless of the underlying system is the way in which standing spending assessments operate. Almost as I say it, I can feel those who sit on the Treasury Bench stiffening. The concept of how we distribute grants is one that never goes away. We are correctly changing the underlying basis of local government, but many local authorities, and the Members of Parliament who represent those areas, are convinced beyond argument that the present system does not fairly reflect their needs and the pressures upon them compared with the way in which it reflects the needs of and pressures on other authorities. There is no easy answer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—in his second coming, so to speak—is more aware of the problem than others may be. I urge my right hon. Friend and the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities constantly to keep in mind the deep dissatisfaction about aspects of the standard spending assessments and to remember that even small improvements can bring benefits out of all proportion to those who feel discriminated against.
  I am conscious that I have been on my feet for some time. I do not wish to prevent others from speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When I was trying to make an equivalent speech against the community charge, Madam Deputy Speaker, the response from my hon. Friends was very different. It is strange how things change.
  In his most seductive way the hon. Member for Dagenham sought to sell to us a return to the rates. It is important to underline why that is a foolish proposal. In an interjection I referred to the fact that any change is time consuming for local authorities. It involves additional work which they would rather avoid.

  807
  We must recognise the consequences of reverting to the rates system, the first of which is that the residents of properties in England and Wales that have been constructed since 1973 will feel unfairly treated.
  The issue of single-adult households has returned, which cannot be to the advantage of the Labour party. Labour's proposal is merely a staging post for a further change, about which, blessedly, we were given limited information today. Labour proposes a return to the rates despite the fact that if I were to go through past copies of Hansard I suspect that I would find that the majority, if not all, of the shadow Cabinet had criticised the rates system without qualification. That does not seem to be much of a recommendation for the system.
  If Labour's policy to return to the rates is looking a little shaky, its policy on expenditure is simply incredible. The cumulative impact of its proposals will be that local authorities will not be capped, there will be no compulsory competitive tendering and no Audit Commission. However one seeks to describe it, that must mean higher local authority spending. Labour wants no limit on bills for higher value properties and no transitional relief—all in all, a series of inadequate proposals.
  This is a good day for those who have taken a long interest in local government finance and are looking forward to having a tax in place that will be seen to be fair and that will cause few of the problems that we have experienced in the past. I give it my unreserved support and look forward to the Bill emerging from Committee.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). We went in the same Lobby when we were going through the tedium of trying to defeat the poll tax. Sadly, not enough Conservative Members shared the hon. Gentleman's view.
  I must part company with the hon. Member for Hornchurch now, because we are discussing poll tax mark II. I cannot describe the council tax as any thing other than a mish-mash of poll tax mark I. The poll tax will stay with us as long as people are still being dragged through the courts. I make no excuse for people who can pay but will not pay: I have no truck with such people, nor have my colleagues. I always took the view that whatever the origins of the tax, council services must be paid for. I came to this place to provide services to people who needed them. It did not seem fair not to pay the tax and then ask why home helps were not being paid. I hope that that point is out of the way; I do not want to hear more about it for the rest of the debate.
  That does not alter the fact that many millions of people are still suffering. The tragedy is that, like mark I, poll tax mark II will be bulldozed through the House. Mark I was ill thought out; it was the then Prime Minister's prejudice being translated into legislation. Events are being repeated today to help the Tories' electoral chances. The baloney about the new Prime Minister having a different view because he is a different Prime Minister and altogether more wholesome than the previous one does not wash with me or with people outside.
  The Bill has nothing to do with efficiency in local government. In the past 12 years, more than 100 measures designed to make the delivery of local government services more difficult have been passed. As my hon. Friend the
  808
  Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) pointed out, it has nothing to do with fairness but everything to do with political expediency.
  The motive for this change came during the Conservative party leadership campaign last November. The Bill is typical of the nervousness and panic of Conservative Members who have marginal seats in the north-west. It is the same as all the lunatic policies that they have slavishly followed. They voted in the Lobby night after night, but when they returned to their constituencies they found that the legislation militated against the interests of their constituents, so they turned tail, chased the new leadership, panicked about small houses in Ribble Valley and elsewhere in the north-west and here we have poll tax mark II.
  I hope that some Conservative Members will reflect on and recall what happened last year and when we originally debated the poll tax. They should also speak to the hon. Member for Hornchurch, who argued strongly against the poll tax. They should recall what happened, because we shall be in the same position in a few months' time. In the 1987 election campaign, I concentrated on the poll tax.
  Mr. Tim Janman: Are not the hon. Gentleman and his party panicking? After Labour's pathetic swing in the Langbaurgh by-election, its only way of opposing the Bill is to sloganise and to keep shouting "poll tax mark II" when it is nothing of the sort.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman's constituency will be a Labour gain at the next election. What the country and this party needed last Thursday was not three by-elections but a general election. We did not get the general election because of panic here and in No. 10.
  In the 1987 general election campaign, I ignored the literature from headquarters and concentrated specifically on the poll tax. I am glad that I did so, because my electors probably know a little more about the darn thing than most. That will be reflected in the election result in a few months' time.
  Before Conservative Members allow history to repeat itself, I want them to find a little humility, which would help. I want them to consider the damage that has been done to people because those Members did not think and trooped through the Lobby blindfolded. I want Conservative Members to think of the human resources in town halls which were wasted by devotion to an inordinate amount of administration over the past few years and which could have gone into the delivery of services—[Interruption.] I was about to say that that happened in Tory as well as Labour town halls, but contributions like that make one doubt the case.
  Conservative Members should consider the wastage of resources—the waste of money and of the time of civil servants and the effort that was demanded of the judicial system. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) recited the numbers of people who had to go through the courts. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who intervened earlier and has now left his place, believes that all the people who have gone through the courts already will not pay this time. I do not agree.
  Most of the people who have gone through the courts, most of those who have chosen to pay the poll tax rather than eat and most of those who are still in debt because of the poll tax are decent, honest, honourable people who were caught up by legislation introduced by selfish people.

  809
  I should like Conservative Members to show a little humility before the debate finishes. I should like a Minister to say to those people, "We are sorry. We made a mistake. We recognise that you are paying for it." But to believe that that will happen is to live in cloud cuckoo land.
  During the past few months, one of the most effective images on our television screens of victims of the infamous poll tax was the very sick lady who, with the help of ambulance people, bravely went to court to say why she could not pay her poll tax. She did not have the resources to pay it. She was in court with a car battery keeping her vital medical equipment going. That is what the Government put people through with poll tax mark I, and it will happen again.
  More often than I care to remember, Conservative Members shout across the Chamber, "You are throwing money at problems. You cannot do that." I cannot think of any problem which has arisen during the time I have been involved in local government and in the House that has had as much money thrown at it as the Government have thrown at the poll tax—about £50 billion just to reduce the bills before the local elections a year or so ago.
  The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of the 2·5 per cent. additional VAT. That is not for a week or a month but for ever. Through VAT, people will be paying for ever for the poll tax mistake. At the next election, the Government will not be allowed to get away with it.
  What will poll tax mark II provide? The prospects are not good, and I want to put five questions to Conservative Members. First, will the council tax be fair? My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham demolished that argument. It will be manifestly unfair and as unfair as poll tax mark I. Secondly, will there be less to pay? Judging by the predictions on almost every aspect of financial life, we have to say with regret that the council tax predictions will be as out of sync as all the others, and people will not pay less.
  Thirdly, will the council tax provide more accountability? Under the Government's policy, accountability has been eroded in every aspect of human life. Current levels of Government grant and capping powers make it unlikely that the council tax bills will offer any more public choice than was offered under the original poll tax. I cannot say hand on heart that I am confident that there will be more accountability with this tax.
  Fourthly, what about collection costs? One of the problems with the collection of the poll tax was the ridiculous 20 per cent. rule. From the beginning, it was argued in this place that that was a ludicrous concept, and events have proved us right. Like every Opposition Member, I am pleased to see it go. None the less, I am sure that the cost of collecting the council tax will be far higher than the cost of collecting any popular tax should be. The council tax will not pass that fourth test.
  Fifthly, will a register be necessary? We have gone over that argument in detail today and, no doubt, we will do so in future. I intended quoting the comments last Wednesday by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I was beaten to the punch by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Quote them again.
  Mr. Lewis: I will not do so. No doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be bored by some of the contributions that we are likely to make during the next two days, and I do not want to bore you further.
  Like all the professional bodies with an interest in this matter and which have reported ad infinitum on it, I am certain that, of necessity, there will be a register. I do not know whether it will be the list proposed by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the register about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham spoke.
  I hope that Conservative Members find a little humility, that they are prepared to reflect on the mistakes of the past, that they will listen carefully to the debate over the next two days and that one or two will have the courage to vote in the right Lobby tomorrow night.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am sure that the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) is right when he says that we should look into the entrails of the community charge to see whether any lessons might be drawn from it. Whatever else I might disagree with him about, he is right on that point.
  The hon. Member for Worsley is wrong about one aspect, although if I were in his position I would probably say the same as he did. He is wrong to present this tax as community charge mark II. In a sense, Labour Members have to say that because, if it is not community charge mark II, they have all sorts of problems. One could probably speak all evening and on into the early hours of the morning about ways of proving that it really is community charge mark I.
  The hon. Member for Worsley paid a generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) for his able and sterling work over the years in being a thorn in the flesh of Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch said that climates change and that one man's villain can be translated, within weeks, into someone else's hero.
  I put it rhetorically to the hon. Member for Worsley that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch believes that it is community charge mark II, he is precisely the sort of person who is likely to vote against it. The hon. Member for Worsley might conceivably have doubts about me, but I shall say nothing more about that.
  Mr. Lewis rose——
  Mr. Nicholls: I thought that I would give the hon. Member for Worsley something on which he could feast and that I could record his comments for posterity. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch is not a man to take anything other than an independent view. He does not think that this is community charge mark II, and I suggest to the hon. Member for Worsley that my hon. Friend is probably correct.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and I worked on the Select Committee on the Environment and I also have great regard for his work. However, even he knows that the run-up to a general election might colour one or two attitudes.
  Mr. Nicholls: If there is a man in the Conservative party who can take a fearless and independent view it is my hon.

  811
  Friend the Member for Hornchurch. Lest my praise embarrasses him as much as I hope that it embarrassed the hon. Member for Worsley a moment ago, I shall move on.
  One cannot consider the council tax or the community charge in isolation from the old rating system. For a moment—but only a moment—I was almost overwhelmed by a sense of nostalgia when I heard the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) talk longingly and lovingly about the good old days when we had the good old rates system. When one hears such nonsense one has to pinch oneself to remind oneself who is in the real world. One dislikes—although frankly, not very much—treading on private internal grief, but we should bear it in mind that during the past four years the Labour party has had not one or two but 72 changes of heart about local government finance.
  I should say to the hon. Member for Dagenham—if pressing commitments had not taken him elsewhere—that if it is so easy to return to the old rating system, it should not take 72 volte faces to do so. The hon. Member for Dagenham found that his route back to the obvious was blindingly tortuous. The reason was summed up in a phrase that was so pithy that one wonders whether he wrote it himself. The phrase was used by the Leader of the Opposition in 1980. He said that the rates were
  "the most unjust of all taxes."
  As a taxpayer I consider all rates unjust unless someone else is paying them. However, one must grant the Leader of the Opposition that he was probably right—rates probably were the unfairest of all taxes. The hon. Member for Dagenham said with his typically Antipodean casuistry that there may be imperfections in the system but they could be dealt with by the 72 steps, so that one ends up where one did not want to start.
  If one can say that a tax is not merely unpopular but that it is the most unfair of all taxes, that tax is not riddled with imperfection—it is a tax that is intellectually dead from the neck up. It is a tax that must go. The Labour party cannot have it both ways. It was sad to hear the hilarity with which the Opposition greeted the quotation earlier in the debate. The point was made that the Leader of the Opposition made that statement 10 years ago and the Opposition started to laugh. What are 10 years? When talking about the Leader of the Opposition changing his policy, what are 10 minutes? The Opposition laughed at the idea that one should quote what the Leader of the Opposition said 10 years ago. They might have said, "Good gracious me, times change", and they did. The principles of the Leader of the Opposition may be as changeable as the weather in Britain or in New Zealand, but the Opposition knew how they felt about the rates then and they know how they feel about them now. It is not up to me to pass judgment on which view is correct, but it is clear that the two are fundamentally irreconcilable.
  One thrust of the speech made by the hon. Member for Worsley which I back to the hilt was that he wished to look into the entrails of the community charge to discover what lessons might be learnt. That is a constructive viewpoint. When talking to people at the height of the debate on the community charge, I was struck time and again by the fact that their conversation always started with the words, "I agree with the principle of the community charge, but …" Those people once presented a very lengthy petition to me. They agreed that everyone should pay something, but that phrase was followed by many "buts".
  We all have a list of things that we believe to be wrong with the community charge, but I believe that the principle
  812
  was right. Everyone should pay something. Very few hon. Members—if they think for a moment before denying this proposition—would disagree with that idea. But, they ask, "What is 'something'?" and "Surely not everyone can pay?" In other words, one should take what seems to be a good idea and see how it works in practice.
  During the consultation period and when the legislation was being passed, it was obvious—if not then, at least when the community charge was being put into practice—that the principle with which everyone agreed was being compromised because there were some ideas that people would not tolerate. The first was the amount, which many people felt was too high. Once that decision had been made, other ideas came thick and fast. Another such idea was that a 20 per cent. contribution was wrong. For what it is worth, I think that it probably was wrong that a member of the working poor had to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge. The principle that everyone should pay something was a good one, but 20 per cent. was too much. What about students? What about those with second homes?
  Such problems were not foreseeable—that would have been asking too much. When the community charge was being put into practice it was relatively easy to see that there were particular issues which, if they were not dealt with, would so change the quality of the argument that in the end people would not merely preface their objections to the charge by pointing out that they were in favour of the principle, but would be so angered by the objections, or qualifications, that they would forget that they were originally in favour of the charge.
  A Government or an Opposition who do not have the confidence to admit, "Sometimes we get it wrong" do not have the confidence or ability to say, "We can say that because most of the time we get it right." The Government said ultimately, "We should have listened." I have no doubt that if experience and the representations made to Members of Parliament and thus to Ministers had been taken into account, some aspects of the community charge could have been changed to ensure that it would be with us today. Although it would not have been the flagship, it would not have been the potential Titanic. The moral is that we should have listened earlier to save the community charge. We did not, but, in time, we listened.
  One of my most amusing experiences—if one's sense of humour can stretch to it—is that 14 or 15 months ago—it seems so long ago—I wrote for Ministers at the Department of the Environment a carefully reasoned and extremely well-thought-out brief on how to save the community charge. I know that it was carefully reasoned and extremely well-thought-out, because I wrote it. In the light of experience, I put together detailed proposals of ways in which the principle of the community charge could be retained, although certainly not in a form acceptable to the Opposition. It was a good submission, but I should be breaching confidence if I revealed the exact nature of it.
  However, three months later I found my own submission on my desk at the Department of the Environment. I was the Under-Secretary of State with the responsibility of replying to myself. That will give you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a flavour of what the reply would have been had I sent it, but in the end I decided not to write the letter. Suffice it to say that if some aspects of the community charge had been dealt with in time, it could have been saved.

  813
  Despite my brief acquaintance with local government finance during my time at the Department of the Environment, I could see what is obvious to many hon. Members: some aspects should have been dealt with. I see none of the potential difficulties with the council tax. I have no doubt that the council tax preserves the one essence of the community charge which almost everyone favoured—the basic proposition, subject to proper caveat and qualification, that everyone should pay something. It will never be everyone, only most people. If people cannot afford to pay, they should not have to pay. That principle is included in the council tax, and I welcome that.
  Clearly there will be problems with banding. Some of my constituents will be winners and some will be losers in the transition from the community charge to the council tax. There is no doubt that nobody would gain from a return to the rating system. Certainly, if we went back to the rates, people in my constituency would be at risk in a way in which they could not conceivably be at risk from the council tax or the community charge.
  Although I am confident that nothing in the council tax begins to give rise to the sort of unresolved difficulties that existed with the community charge, there is, nevertheless, a point to be made. I should like to think that, if during the passage of the Bill or once the tax has been implemented we find that it has certain adverse effects—which may be obvious only in the light of experience—the Government will say, "Fine. This is a well-reasoned case and we will listen to it." The fact that the Government can come to the House seeking to repeal their own legislation and put the council tax in its place shows that they are prepared to listen to such reasoned argument. There is nothing contradictory or humiliating in saying, "We think that we have the policy right, but we are told—and not just by mavericks or people trying to rock the boat—that its implementation is not going as well as we had hoped." Sometimes what the House hears from the electorate and what Ministers hear from Members of Parliament is worth taking on board—although, frankly, a lot of the time it is not. When it is, we ought at least to entertain it. I should like to think that, if, in due course, it appears that there are lessons to be learnt concerning the council tax, the Government will be prepared to listen to the arguments.
  Will that make the council tax a popular tax? You bet it will not. There is no such thing as a popular tax—nor should there be. The only popular tax is a tax which somebody else pays but which benefits oneself. Will the tax be too high? Many will say so. Everybody knows what the correct rate of taxation is: it is the rate that bites on someone earning slightly more than oneself. In the end, however, in a British way—grumblingly, grudgingly and sometimes with tongue in cheek—people recognise that our basic tax system is usually fair. In the context of local government finance, the council tax brings us as close as we shall ever get to the unattainable and there will come a time when people will say, "This tax is about as fair as it can be."
  My final point relates to the fact that the Government are again to have capping powers, and I am extremely pleased to see that that is so. I have always been of the view that the Government's capping powers should have been far more rigorous than they were initially and that they should be severe enough also to catch recalcitrant
  814
  Conservative councils—or those who pass themselves off as such. I have no objections to, or difficulties with, capping. I say that for two reasons—the first constitutional and the other more pragmatic.
  The pragmatic reason is that I do not see how Members of Parliament can stand by and watch people in an area having their money squandered. We all have examples of money being squandered: often, one man's squandering is another man's investment. Can we really stand idly by for example, and watch Derbyshire county council spend thousands of pounds on a party to celebrate the release of Nelson Mandela? Can we stand idly by knowing that, with taxpayers' money, Hackney council provided assistance to the "International Lesbian and Gay People of Colour Conference"? Somewhat later, Hackney's lesbian and gay men's sub-committee issued a report—it is dated 7 June 1990, should anyone wish to look it up—estimating that the council's lesbian and gay men's unit would cost £55,807. How on earth can such expenditure be justified?
  Mr. Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the amounts involved? Are not they peanuts by comparison with the budgets concerned? Are not such issues matters for local electorates? Are not such activities inconsequential compared with those of councils such as Tory Westminster, which sold cemeteries worth millions of pounds for 5p each? Was not that a chronic waste of money—and a waste about which the Government did nothing?
  Mr. Nicholls: Peanuts can bring forth monkeys, but I would not describe the sums as peanuts. At least one Labour Member was prepared to go to prison rather than pay a sum substantially less significant. We cannot stand by and watch sums of money squandered in that way.
  My constitutional point is at least as embarrassing for the Liberal party—represented in the Chamber at the moment by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) alone—as for the Labour party. Local government and national Government are not equal partners in government. Local government is the creature of national Government: it is set up in statute by central Government and central Government regulate and control it. It is unrealistic to expect national Government to say to local government that the two are equal partners in determining the fiscal policy of the nation. Central Government must make those decisions and, if they get them wrong, they have to face the consequences at a general election and are replaced.
  To some extent, the Liberal Democrats want to dine a la carte and take the easiest bits of each party's policies. I find it astonishing that their policy—unless their position has changed in recent minutes—is that they will have no truck whatever with capping. In a recent local government debate, I asked the—temporary—hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) whether the Liberal party really opposed the principle of capping. So anxious and eager was he to get the message over that he was like a whippet on steroids bounding up and down. He said, "There is no question whatever about it: we are thoroughly against capping."
  In considering the present local government reforms, the council tax and the possibility of a return to the rates, people should ask themselves which party is prepared to

  815
  say, "Central Government take responsibility. They will take the credit and the blame and they are not prepared to stand by and see councils fleecing their own electorates."
  Over the years, the Liberal party has produced many sound ideas and some original ideas—although the sound ideas are never original and the original ideas are never sound—and I find it remarkable that the Liberal Democrats should not be able to see that capping is an absolutely essential safeguard. I suppose that the difficulty is that the Liberal Democrats, who have made it clear that the price that they will demand to keep a Labour Government in office is proportional representation, want to ally themselves with the party that never stops, and, when it comes to local government spending, we know which that party is.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I shall deal in due course with the points raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in the latter part of his speech. I note in passing, however, that, when it comes to squandering the nation's money, I cannot think of a better example than the enormous amounts squandered by the Government in setting up the machinery for the administration of the poll tax, which is now to be totally unwound. I am sure that, if those on the Treasury Bench had been in local government, they would soon be facing surcharges for the abuse of public funds.
  The Second Reading of a Bill usually deals with the principles that underlie it. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear that the Government believe that the fairest and best means of raising local government finance is through a property tax. That principle is also supported by the official Opposition, and that explains the difficulty that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) experienced in the debate. We may have had from him an attempt at Opposition fury, but, on occasion, he experienced pretty heavy weather in trying to make distinctions between his party and the Government on an issue on which, in essence, they agree. Both parties accept the central principle—no matter how it is dressed up—that local government finance should be based on a property tax.
  A review of debates over the past two or three years reveals another unusual aspect. Not only are the two major parties united in favouring a property tax; in the past, they were united in fiercely opposing such a tax. It is to their obvious embarrassment that they are again together.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House must be embarrassed about some of the comments that they have made in the past. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) once described the rates as
  "an irrational, inefficient, highly resented form of taxation. If a thing does not make sense—and the rating system makes no sense whatever—the right thing to do is to abolish it."
  I shall not dwell on the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in 1980, as they have also been referred to. In 1990, however, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said:
  "What isn't right is the disparity between someone living alone, living next to three or four earners."
  816
  That disparity lies at the heart of our opposition to a property tax. The disparity is acknowledged in the Bill with an attempt at a discount scheme, but that disparity has not been overcome.
  Although the Labour party opposes the discount scheme, it does not attempt to address the unfairness inherent in a property tax. The poll tax was introduced because rates as a property tax were seen to be becoming increasingly unfair and undefendable. Not unnaturally, Ministers have savaged the workings of a property tax ever since rates were abolished. In March 1990, the Secretary of State for Wales vehemently denounced rates and said:
  "If there is one thing which unites Conservatives everywhere it is our deep and abiding abhorrence of the rating system. It is no wonder we hate it so. It is at the heart such a socialist system. How much more abominable than a tax on widows? But that is what the rating system is."
  I submit that that is what the council tax is as well, 25 per cent. discount notwithstanding. Everything the Labour party said about the unfairness of rates was right and everything that the Conservative party said about the unfairness of rates is right. Property taxes cannot be fair because property cannot be an absolute guide to people's income or wealth. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) made that point eloquently when she intervened during the Secretary of State's speech.
  People acquire their homes at different times and in different circumstances. A family home in an up-and-coming area like the south-east or London can rise rapidly in value. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has already said that people in central London on relatively low incomes may live in high-value houses. The income of inhabitants does not change in the same proportion if they start off in equal housing. The housing may rise in value, but people's relative incomes may not necessarily rise by the same amount.
  Many people have exercised their right to buy homes that they previously tenanted from local authorities. They bought them at a substantial discount. Under the council tax they will be charged according to the full capital value of those homes. An identical range of people might live on a newly built Barratt estate. Those people may have roughly the same income and circumstances and they may all be able to bear the same burden. However, there are few communities like that.
  In many streets, although the houses may appear similar to the estate agent who drives along valuing them, they are often far from uniform. Some may have been divided into flats while others may have been newly modernised or renovated. Some may need modernising. Some may be long-standing family homes, while others may be just a step on the housing ladder. They are all vulnerable to property prices and the need for valuation regardless of individual circumstances. However, all the inhabitants will be expected to pay roughly the same regardless of their income.
  The Government acknowledge that a property tax is essentially unfair and not linked to income and that is why the Bill includes banding and discounts and why student halls of residents are rightly excluded. However, those exemptions and discounts merely reinforce the fundamental flaw at the centre of the council tax. A property tax is essentially unfair unless so many qualifications are built into it that it becomes complicated and expensive to administer.

  817
  We have already heard the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) suggest that there should be a further element which would take into account the length of time that someone has lived in a house. That only underlines how complicated property taxes can be in an effort to make them fair. In his reference to the poll tax, the hon. Member for Teignbridge referred to the many things that had to be built on to it and the many anomalies that had to be addressed. Many of those anomalies were identified by my colleagues at the very outset of the poll tax escapade. Experience has shown that anomalies arose and had to be addressed and that caused massive administrative complications.
  Mr. Nicholls: I actually said that there were relatively few anomalies and that if they had been addressed the tax would have found favour. However, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a system of local income tax would not create economic ghettos and areas in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the local Labour authority would have carte blanche without capping—something which he will not allow and which will have to be dealt with through exemptions?
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a system of local government finance would be without a method of equalisation. Every system of local government finance has possessed such a system.
  We believe that the council tax is already hovering between being unfair and being unworkable. The concession on students and the way in which the Secretary of State for the Environment struggled to answer my question underline that point. Institutions do not provide enough student accommodation. Some students have no choice but to live out. Some students will be completely exempt from the tax and some will qualify for discounts. Others will have to pay a proportion of the tax, and in London and Aberdeen that proportion could well be high. If it has been conceded that students should not pay the tax, the Government should accept the logic and exempt students altogether.
  Dr. Hampson: It seems that virtually all students will be exempt. The only category in which that will not apply is when a student is living with or married to someone who is not a student. In that case, there will be a bill for the property and the non-student will have to pay while the other person contributes 25 per cent.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman accepts my point that there will be a distinction between students. I can think of another example. A student who is forced to live out may be lodging with the old lady who seems to feature regularly in local government finance debates. In that case, the discount provision will apply, but the student will still have to pay some proportion when other students pay nothing. It would be welcome to hear that all students are to be exempt.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I had hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment had dealt with that point very effectively. The student living in lodgings is invisible in terms of qualifying for the council tax and does not add one jot to the amount that the widow or anyone else would have to pay. They are disregarded.
  Mr. Wallace: If that means that all students are exempt, it would have been better if the Department of the Environment press releases had stated that expressly. I suspect that that is not so, and we can probe it in more detail in Standing Committee.
  The 25 per cent. discount is another concession that exposes flaws in the tax. It is an attempt to meet what the Secretary of State for Wales described as the widow factor. However, it does not go far enough. A widow in a modest terrace house on a low income, with—for the sake of argument—a council tax of £200, will be liable for £150. In a modernised house next door, a two-earning couple will be liable to only £100 each. A single merchant banker in the next house might qualify for his discount on a salary that could be far higher than any other salary in the street.
  We cannot support the Bill because it bears no relation to people's income. It will penalise people on low incomes who do not qualify for discounts, and through the banding system it tends to benefit the rich. If we listen on the one hand to the Secretary of State for the Environment and on the other hand to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, it seems that the DOE has something like Dr. Doolittle's "Push-me—pull-you." The Secretary of State is anxious to concentrate on rebates to do something for those who will by hit be the property tax, but the Minister has scorned property taxes and is determined to weight the tax in favour of the better-off. That internal contradiction means that the council tax will not survive. As a result, the Bill will not be the last word on local government finance. It will be an interim attempt to be seen to be doing something to replace the discredited poll tax.
  The real tragedy is that there is an alternative which, unlike the poll tax or any property tax, has been tried and tested in many countries in Europe and in America. It is fair and easy to administer. We have supported that alternative—a local income tax—since our submission to the Layfield inquiry into local government finance in 1976. That inquiry, the most authoritative ever carried out, favoured a local income tax. The details of our proposals have been well documented.
  We accepted the Secretary of State's invitation to engage in the consultation process which he initiated. Not only can we point to the success of such a tax abroad, but at no stage in recent negotiations or since have we been told that a local income tax would not work. It is important that that point is understood. It would appear that the objection to local income tax is political rather than practical.
  Having listened to Government spokesmen, it appears that their political objections are twofold. First, they wish to be seen to be reducing personal taxation. It does not matter whether the overall burden of tax increases, as long as they are seen to be reducing personal taxation. Secondly, and perhaps most important, they have claimed that they do not want to hand over control of an income tax to what they perceive to be extremist Labour local authorities.
  The lack of accountability was the reason which drove the Government to introduce the poll tax. The poll tax has wasted £14 billion of taxpayers' money, led to cuts in services and jobs, caused great hardship for thousands of people, and has led to a general breakdown in law and order. It is now being replaced by a highly complicated tax that will take two years to value and will be a burden to those on low incomes in high-cost areas.

  819
  That is happening because the Government will not make local councils representative of and accountable to their electorates. A fair voting system, which we would also like to see in local government, would mean that it would be unlikely that there would ever be extremist Labour councils. There would be no reason to have introduced the poll tax and no reason for another arbitrary and unfair property tax. Capping would be done by the electorate, which, in a democracy, is where power should lie. The electorate would determine whether the local authority was getting out of hand and penalise accordingly.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has told the House that, if we had proportional representation for councils, we would not have extreme Labour councils and that, somehow, the more widespread distribution of seats would stop that happening. If that is the case, when Brent council was at its most extreme, when it was spending enormous sums of ratepayers' money and destroying services, why, at every turn, did the hon. Gentleman's party support the Labour party through thick and thin? It would not have made any difference in that borough. We would still have had an extremist council—not Labour, but Labour and Liberal combined.
  Mr. Wallace: If one had properly representative councils—for example, in Liverpool, where the minority within the Labour group managed to take control and impose extremist policies—that would not be possible. In any event, the views of the electorate would be much more fairly represented at the next local elections. I have no detail of what individual Liberal Democrat councillors in Brent did, but, i it was perceived by the electorate to have been wrong, they would have undoubtedly paid the political consequences at the following election. That is where the real power of capping should be—with people in the electorate, not with the heavy hand of central Government. We could then allow local communities to decide more of their own priorities and allow councils to justify to the electorate the cost of the various policies that they put into practice. We should put the concept of community back into local government. Fair votes, a reformed structure and a local income tax will provide representative and accountable councils with sufficient finance, raised fairly and efficiently, to meet the community's needs.
  We are faced with a Government who are determined to get the Bill on to the statute book before an election. I do not believe that the tax will ever be implemented. Nevertheless, in Committee we will consider the Bill seriously to try to highlight anomalies and alleviate some of the flaws in the detail. The Government are making a mistake unduly to curtail debate. If they had faith in their own proposals, they would be happy to see them discussed in detail.
  During consideration of the Local Government Finance Bill, 218 Government amendments were tabled in Committee and 135 were tabled on Report. In the House of Lords, 196 Government amendments were tabled in Committee, and 286 were tabled on Report. It was clear that the Government were not able to get their legislation right at the first attempt. That will be the case in respect of this legislation, and a host of anomalies will come to light.
  820
  Guillotining the Bill at this early stage shows that Ministers are frightened to come to grips with the legislation and face scrutiny of the details of their own Bill.
  We all want the poll tax to be abolished as soon as possible. A large number of people seem to share the Prime Minister's belief that the poll tax is already abolished. Collection, particularly in areas such as Strathclyde, is becoming ever more difficult. Cuts in services and jobs will follow. The anger of those who pay the poll tax will mount as they find out the additional amount that they must pay because their local authorities are unable to collect outstanding poll tax. A member of one local authority in England—I will not name it for obvious reasons—told me that the police in that area have said that following up poll tax debts and warrants is not a high priority. When that matter was put to the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, we were told that it was for the local authority to sort out the matter with the local police force.
  Local Government is in a state of low morale and near collapse because of the poll tax. Thousands are still facing the burden of a 20 per cent. contribution, even though it is costing up to two and a half times more to collect than the revenue raised. If the Government increased funding to local authorities in need and abolished the 20 per cent. contribution, they would take the sting out of what remains of the poll tax and we might then be able to have a proper debate on what should replace it.
  The council tax could be the shortest-lived tax in recent history—even shorter than the poll tax. We will campaign for its abolition and vote against it, because it is a property tax, and property taxes have been shown to be unfair and expensive to administer. Our relief at the abolition of the poll tax does not mean that we will accept its cobbled-together, ill-thought-out and deeply flawed replacement. Only a local income tax is a practical, efficient, simple, easily introduced and, above all, fair means of raising local revenue. Some time in the next six months Ministers will have to justify to the electorate why they forced the untried poll tax and now the council tax on to the British people and, above all, why they have rejected a local income tax which not only meets every sound principle of local finance but has been proved to work in many other countries.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has described the proposed council tax and any property-based tax as difficult and expensive to administer. That is rather rich, coming from a party that is putting forward a local income tax. I am reassured by the fact that the Liberal Democrats stick to the idea of a local income tax, because a local income tax is everything that we would expect from that party. It sounds absolutely marvellous. It sounds like the simple solution for which everyone has been looking. However, it does not stand up to examination. That is true of much of what the hon. Gentleman's party says. The Liberal Democrats think that they can get away with skating over the surface of problems.
  The hon. Gentleman thinks that the council tax, or any other property tax, is difficult and expensive to administer. How does he square that with a proposal that would have everybody inside a council area paying a lump sum to the council and later receiving a rebate because they had paid

  821
  too much? That is in the hon. Gentleman's party's proposal. It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. If he was putting forward a serious proposal, he would have explained it. The hon. Gentleman has sat down now—he has had his chance. He should have explained his proposal when he was on his feet. If his proposal is not expensive and difficult to administer, I should like to know what is.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman needs to ask why, in all our discussions with Ministers and Secretaries of State—the Scottish National party also put forward a local income tax—it was never argued that what we were proposing was impractical or difficult to administer. The objections have been narrow political ones, never ones of practicability. We still await practical objections from Ministers who examined our proposal.
  Mr. Hughes: I had always thought that Orkney and Shetland was a fairly realistic constituency, but I now recognise that the hon. Gentleman lives in a dream world. He need only examine the speeches made by my right hon. and hon. Friends either from the Front Bench or at venues outside the House to know that they have specifically described the Liberal party's proposals as difficult, complex and unworkable.
  My second objection to the Liberal party's scheme is that people would vote with their feet. If people in a particular area were to be charged a substantial amount in income tax, does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that young, mobile and professional people would choose to live in that place? My understanding of the Liberal party's proposals is that, on current spending, the London borough of Camden would have to levy a local income tax in excess of the standard rate of income tax—somewhere near 30p in the pound. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that, on that basis, anyone who could move would keep a house in the London borough of Camden or anywhere else where they would have to pay so much? I repeat that that is a typical Liberal party solution. It sounds good when it is discussed for five seconds, but it starts to fall to pieces when it is discussed for half a minute or longer.
  In one sense, today's debate is a repeat of last week's debate on the Queen's Speech. I find it odd in the extreme that the Labour party should have taken up a whole precious day's debate in our response to the Gracious Speech to discuss the council tax when Opposition Members must have known—everybody else knew this, including the newspapers—that we were due to have a two-day debate on that subject this week. Looking at the Labour Benches, it seems that they have shot their own fox. Labour Members have not turned up and I understand that they did not turn up for the other debate.
  Mr. McCartney: What about Conservative Members?
  Mr. Hughes: We do not necessarily have to come along on such occasions. Although it does not do so with much conviction, the Labour party says that it is angry about our proposal. It says that the council tax is the poll tax mark II, but you could have fooled me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, given the heat generated from the Opposition and the number of them present.
  822
  I should like to rehearse the history of how we arrived at the council tax. It is important to remember what people objected to in the old rating system. First, people objected to the complicated system of valuations. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) spoke about reforming the rating system and about the community charge, which she ushered in, she always returned to the same basic point, asking whether people in England were to be saddled with a revaluation of their property after 17 years. She took the view strongly—and I agree with her——
  Mr. Janman: They would be saddled with it under Labour's proposals.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) is absolutely right to point out one of our basic objections to the Labour party's proposals, although I suspect that that is something that the Opposition will skate over in their normal way.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley was right in saying that the people of this country would have regarded an enormous difference in their rating bills as a result of the revaluation of their property unacceptable when that property might not have changed in any material sense. The problems of the rating system were focused when people made any minor change to their property. lf, for example, someone put in a downstairs loo, up went the rates bill. It was right to say that that system must go. Indeed, at that time there was cross-party consensus that the rating system was wrong, unfair and had to go.
  Mr. Janman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again, especially since I share an office with him. Does he agree that not only does the Labour party not want to discuss this Bill, but it does not want to discuss the bills that will land on people's mats if its system is put into practice?
  Mr. Hughes: That is absolutely right. The fact that my hon. Friend makes such a good point leads me to understand why he keeps such massive quantities of paper around his desk in our office.
  The second reason why people objected to the old rating system was that it was unfair to people living alone. Again, the Opposition parties always skate over that argument. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked with some hilarity about the mythical widow living by herself next door to several wage earners who occupied an identical house. However, we all know as Members of Parliament—and many of us were councillors before being elected to this House—that that situation did and does exist. That problem had to be addressed, and that is what the community charge did.
  The third problem with the rating system was the ability of Labour councils—or of councils in which the Labour party was kept in power by the Liberal party—to overspend and to hide the results from the voters. Because of the way in which council rents were collected, many people did not realise that they were paying rates to the local authority. When I was a Conservative candidate in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, people there thought that it was marvellous that the local Labour council had frozen the rents for several years. However, because of the way in which they were billed, they did not necessarily realise that their rates bill had overtaken their

  823
  rent bill. They were paying far more in rates than in rent, but the Labour party hid that from people, pretending that the rates somehow did not apply to them——
  Mr. Blunkett: To clarify that point—we might as well have a sensible debate if we are to have one at all on this Bill——
  Mr. Janman: Sit down then.
  Mr. Blunkett: That is about the level of debate that we have come to expect from Conservative Members, and especially from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) will explain how the tenants in Tower Hamlets did not understand that their rates had increased despite the fact that they had to be billed each year for the rates increase when he believes that they understood that their rents had not increased because they had been frozen. If they were billed for rates and rents combined and their rates had increased, their bills must have increased even if their rent had been frozen. Therefore, because of the frozen rents, they should have known that their rates had increased. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how the tenants, whom he believes were so ignorant that they did not understand that their rates had increased, managed to miss that fact when their hills as a whole had increased.
  Mr. Hughes: It is not I who believe that council tenants are ignorant. Indeed, at that time my wife and my in-laws were council tenants in that borough and I am certainly not saying that they were ignorant. I am saying that the billing system and the fact that it was not possible to prosecute tenants for non-payment of the rates either led them to believe in some cases that paying the rates was something that they could get out of or they were persuaded by the Labour council that it was the Government's fault. The fact is that the Labour party managed to hide behind the old system and anyone who is a former leader of a Labour council, such as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), knows that that is true.
  Fourthly, it is clear that the tax base of the rating system was too narrow. Given that very few people believed that they were responsible for the rates, something had to be done about the system. Again, that was a matter of consensus.
  Given that there were all those objections to the rating system, why did people object so strongly—as clearly they did—to the community charge or poll tax? I put it down to two things. The first is the size of the bills. It is inevitable that people's view of a tax is directly linked to the size of the bill that they have to pay. The figures that were projected by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) were not exactly those on the bills with which we ended up. That was one of the major factors that contributed to people losing confidence in that system—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend goes from strength to strength and from interesting statement to interesting statement, but we shall leave that for another debate on another day.
  Secondly, and probably more importantly, people of different wealth, at least as judged by the size of their home, appeared to pay exactly the same. We had stories about people living in a small rented flat paying the same as someone in the stock broker belt up the road. On the
  824
  face of it, that appeared to be true but everyone in the House knows that in reality the tax paid by the individuals in the two examples that I cited could differ by a ratio of as much as 25:1. However, principally for the reason that I gave, the poll tax did not match up to the British sense of fair play, which runs deep in our society, so the poll tax, rightly, had to go.
  The Labour party has blamed the poll tax for almost all ills. First, it has blamed the poll tax for most of what has happened in local government for the past few years. It did so to hide its embarrassment about Labour's record in local government. Let us take Birmingham as an example of a Labour authority. We are told that there are many services which it would fund if it were not for the poll tax. Such services, perhaps more nursery education, housing and so on, could have been funded if the authority had not paid for 149 trips to 31 countries in the past year or so. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) if he is prepared to speak on his feet. Opposition Members may think that that was a good use of public money. They may think that the councillor and top officials who went to Italy to see the preparations for England's match in the world cup was a good use of chargepayers' money. I do not. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central would like to justify it.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of those trips may well have brought some of the inward investment which Department of Trade and Industry Ministers have been asking to attract for a considerable period? If the hon. Gentleman criticises areas such as Birmingham, he could also criticise areas such as Sheffield, which ran the world student games. We went and looked at some of the best sports facilities in the world and now the Ponds Forge swimming complex in Sheffield is bringing a tremendous amount of activity to Sheffield and a tremendous amount of kudos to British sport. In 1993 we will stage the European swimming championships. That is the vision of Labour authorities. It is unfortunate that the Conservative party is so negative.
  Mr. Hughes: Nevertheless, I wonder whether the advantages to Sheffield will amount to enough to justify the £1·5 million spent on renovating 700 flats to house the athletes and the £250,000 spent on attracting the student games in the first place.
  Mr. Caborn: It brought investment.
  Mr. Hughes: That may be true. That is a judgment which Labour councils have to make. They must face the chargepayers with that. However, it is doubtful that they will be able to do so logically.
  Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the money spent by Sheffield city council on renovating those flats for the athletes could have been better spent on renovating other flats for people really in need of housing? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Hughes: Opposition Members are asking from a sedentary position who is in those flats now. The interesting question is whether the council would have renovated the flats otherwise. We see Labour spending priorities here.
  Perhaps international relations are catching in the west midlands. Coventry is twinned with so many places that its council has had to set up a department of international

  825
  relations. Will Opposition Members tell me that that is peanuts, to use their word in earlier interventions? Will they tell us that the department was set up without full backup? If Opposition Members are so confident that that was money well spent, can they tell me what the bill was?
  The Labour party has blamed the community charge for many things, including the inability of Labour councils to spend money in priority areas. The Labour party's own priorities have led to that. It also sought to divert the debate from the level of spending that its policies entail. That is why we hear repeatedly from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) the assertion that it would be easy to implement Labour's plans. Labour Members want to make people assume that it would be easy and cheap to introduce another system and that the billions of pounds which need to be raised can be raised easily.
  Any system of raising local government finance is subject to councils' spending plans. Councils must take responsibility for what happens in their area. The hon. Member for Dagenham would not give way when I sought to intervene in his speech. He compared what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would pay in Westminster—£273 on current estimates—with the average bill in Middlesbrough of £447. He described the system as surcharge that families would have to pay for the continued life of a Tory Government. High bills are a surcharge not for the continued life of the Tory Government but for having a Labour council. Rotten services and high bills: that is the double surcharge that people pay. It is not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to apologise for paying a lower bill than people in other parts of the country. It is for the Labour party to look at who is controlling those councils.
  The Labour party pretends that the council tax is unduly complex and difficult to administer but that Labour's scheme is simple and easy. Any suggestion that a change in the system of raising local taxation can be simple and easy lacks credibility. If the Labour party really believes that its system will be simple, it must come forward with the figures. I notice that it is reluctant to come up with specific figures to show what its spending plans would mean. It said that it would produce such figures during the Queen's Speech debate. It has not done so. I know that the Labour party does not like to get into specifics, but it will have to learn that between now and election day it will have to come up with specifics if it is to be taken seriously.
  The new tax combines the ease of collection and the property base of the rating system with a new simplified system of valuations which people will see as fair, reasonable and just. People will accept that the broad value of the property should be used rather than the specific valuation, based on a notional rented value, to which the Labour party wants to return.
  The Labour party is floundering in this broad debate because it knows that the council tax is widely regarded as fair and reasonable.
  Mr. Maxton: Did the hon. Gentleman vote for the poll tax?
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman has not been following my speech, I am happy to start again for his benefit. If he had followed it, he would understand.
  826
  The Labour party must take on board the important point that any change in the system of local taxation means that some people will pay less and some will pay more. But the Labour party wants to sell its scheme as one which has only winners. Such a scheme does not exist. If it laid out the details, people would know that that was the case. They will understand that that is the case even though the Labour party hopes to hide it from them. That simply is not possible and the Labour party knows it.
  Regional banding has been raised by some of my parliamentary neighbours. I fundamentally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) that a regional banding system would not be practicable. There are areas in Britain where property prices are akin to those in London. Therefore, a regional system of banding would create more difficulties than it would solve.
  I hope that the Ministers who wind up the debate tonight or open it tomorrow will take into account the fact that some councillors in London are worried that, because of the value of properties in the city, some money will flow out of London as a result of the grant settlement. When the grant for the coming year is announced, and also for the first year of the council tax, we want the Government to ensure that money does not flow out of London and that the £200 million that has been suggested by the London Boroughs Association is taken into account and kept within boroughs for them to use.
  It has been suggested that introducing the council tax is so difficult that authorities will not be able to do it in time. That is an attack on the local authorities concerned by the Labour party which does not do them justice. We should take fully into account the fact that it will be difficult for local authorities to implement the council tax but also that it would be difficult to implement any change. We should understand that. Rather than listen to the words of the Labour party, saying that it would be impossible to introduce the council tax by 1993, I would prefer to take the word of the Audit Commission. Although in paragraph 13 of its response to the Government it said that the
  "government's proposed timetable is extremely tight",
  it recommends an April 1993 introduction and believes that that will be possible.
  I urge the Labour party to take a more positive attitude towards helping local authorities with the obvious difficulties that they will face.
  As regards the London boroughs grant scheme in clause 103 of the Bill, I welcome the reserve scheme—as Conservative-controlled boroughs will certainly welcome it. Year after year there have been difficulties with the grant scheme. The problem has been that Labour adventurism has put worthwhile and important projects in danger, while Labour and Liberal members seek to blackmail morally Conservative Members on the scheme to agree an excessive level of funding. Some areas which should not be are funded by the grants scheme.
  I welcome the reserve scheme in the Bill, but I ask my hon. Friends to consider one change. It is not adequate for one of the criteria for the grants scheme to be that any scheme funded by it should apply to two or more boroughs. That definitely leads to abuse. Some schemes are deliberately pushed across to a neighbouring borough, whether it needs the scheme or not, so that they qualify for funding, unless someone notices and pounces on it. I suggest that either four or six should be the minimum number before a scheme receives funding.

  827
  If my reading of schedule 3 of the Bill is correct, I think that the penalty for wrongful claim of discount, would be a £50 fine. If people wrongfully claim a discount, a relatively substantial amount is involved and the penalty should more equally fit the crime. There should be a range of penalties to fit the intent of the person who makes a wrongful claim, which is undoubtedly theft. People should understand that it is not merely a technical matter but theft from neighbours and local friends.
  Lastly, I welcome clauses 104 to 110 which restrict voting for non-payers. In one way or another, most members of the Labour party have at least gone along with the tactics of non-payers. They have made a mistake as they have underestimated the feelings of the people that they represent. The law breaking involved makes most people utterly sick and they have no respect for those who urge non-payment or who tacitly go along with it.
  Most people will welcome those clauses and I look forward to hearing what the Labour party has to say.
  Finally—I am sure that Opposition Members will be delighted to hear that I have only one more thing to say. In the debate on the Queen's Speech the hon. Member for Dagenham was looking for support from Conservatives to ensure that the Bill receives proper scrutiny. I can give him and his hon. Friends one assurance: I want the Bill to receive proper scrutiny in Committee because that will reveal the hollowness of the Labour party's opposition. It will reveal the holes and the threadbare nature of the Opposition's proposal. I want to ensure that the Bill gets proper scrutiny because by so doing we shall dish the Labour party's proposals.
  6.35 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has uttered more "finallys" than Frank Sinatra.
  Since it seems to be fashionable to quote party leaders tonight, Conservative Members may find it useful to hear the Prime Minister's words. On 1 July 1988, when speaking on the poll tax at the annual conference of the Association of District Councils, he said:
  "Once implemented and through the transition, I believe the new system will prove enduring and a vast improvement on the status quo."
  A year ago, on 24 November, when he was the victor in the coup within the Conservative party, he said in the Daily Mail:
  "I'll tell you about the poll tax. We were bounced into it quickly because there was such a fuss about rates in Scotland and we were bounced without thinking because of the political fuss."
  That is what we have for a Prime Minister—someone who gets bounced into something without thinking, who imposes it on Scotland a year ahead of the rest of Britain and then, still unthinking, imposes it on the rest of the United Kingdom.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State for the Environment gave up listening to the debate a few hours ago. Perhaps when he reads it tomorrow he will recall that the poll tax was imposed in Scotland against our will. He did not oppose it. He became conscious of the poll tax and its defects only when it became applicable to England and Wales.
  Now the Government are trying to impose the council tax against our will. How many Kincardines does it take
  828
  to tell them? When are they going to listen? Do they have to lose every seat in Scotland before they start to pay attention to the views of the electorate in Scotland?
  I notice that some of the more right-wing Conservative Members have already given up on Scotland and could not care less if they never won another seat there because they hope to gain permanent government of England. However, if they will not listen to the people of Scotland perhaps they will listen to the people of Langbaurgh, because it is clear from last week that they have not restored their support there. With all the promises of a change from poll tax to council tax, there was hardly an overwhelming response in support of the Conservatives.
  The estimated cost of collecting the new council tax would be £185 million, we have been told, but I am not clear exactly who estimated that. Could it possibly have been the same people who assured us that the poll tax would be only slightly dearer to collect than the rates, when the Government were told by every authority in the land—by all those people with expertise in such matters—that it would be far dearer to collect and so it proved? It has cost hundreds of millions of pounds. The money that the Government have wasted in setting up and collecting the poll tax makes the Western Isles council look like models of sound financial management.
  As regards valuation bands, while the Government have decided on eight bands for different parts of the United Kingdom, so far in the debate there has been no discussion of the fact that in Scotland properties in band A will be worth up to £27,000. That may not seem a substantial sum—to people paying yuppie prices in London it will seem like nothing at all—but in the remoter areas of Scotland, including the isles, some properties can be worth considerably less than £27,000, perhaps about £20,000 or even less. Thus a gross unfairness is being perpetrated against people who live in rural properties which are so much less valuable. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will take account of that fact. They should take account of that possible injustice. It seems that caravans and boats will be included in band A if they are worth less than £27,000. Some of the boats moored in Loch Lomond are not worth tuppence, and it is remarkable that the Government propose to levy any tax at all on them.
  Conservative Members have spent more time criticising the old rating system and Labour local authorities than they have spent debating the Bill. There were some advantages in the rating system. A council could decide how much it needed and add together the total value of its domestic properties and calculate the rate poundage. That meant that householders paid exactly their fair proportion. The problem with bands is that people who fall on the wrong side of a band will pay far more than someone whose house is worth very little less. The Government do not seem to have addressed that problem. Under rate poundage, the amount that people paid was in direct proportion to the value of their house and that could allow for fine differences in house values. Under the council tax, a person who falls into another band by only a few pounds will end up paying much more money. That is bound to cause resentment.
  Another flaw in the system is the Government's plan to use estate agents to carry out a massive valuation. A few years ago, when I wanted to sell my flat, I decided to ask three estate agents in the neighbourhood to value it in order to get a good idea of the price it would fetch.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alan Stewart): The hon. Lady will be aware that in Scotland the valuation will be carried out by assessors.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I am speaking not only about Scotland. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I am making the general point about estate agents being brought in. The Minister says that assessors will be used in Scotland. Why not use assessors throughout the United Kingdom? [Interruption.] The three estate agents that I called in arrived at three different valuations for the flat in the same week. How do the Government propose to solve that problem?
  Mr. Wallace: There are different bands.
  Mrs. Fyfe: That is not the point. One estate agent might place a property in band B while another could put it in band C. How is the owner supposed to know the true valuation of his house? Have the Government addressed that question?
  Dr. Hampson: They must be pretty crummy estate agents if there is a difference of £40,000 in their valuations. The hon. Lady does not seem to understand what is proposed, which is that houses will not have a specific valuation. There is no question of people feeling that they are on the edge and should be in another band. They will be in a broad category and will not have a precise value.
  Mrs. Fyfe: One can be in a broad category and still fall into a different band because of a few pounds. The hon. Gentleman says that they must be pretty crummy estate agents. We know that there are many crummy estate agents. That is why we objected to the whole idea in the first place. Will there be quality control of estate agents and, if so, may we have more details? Will they have to pass a test of competence in valuation?
  There are only eight bands, and those on the top band will pay three times the amount paid by those on the lowest band. However, their incomes may be considerably more than three times the incomes of those on the lowest band. Conservative Members have expended a great deal of energy on attacking us for daring to propose a national minimum wage of 3·40 per hour. Many people whose houses are likely to fall into band H should be in bands—if we must have bands—well beyond that. Their incomes may not be merely three times £3·40 an hour but perhaps 30 times that amount, or more. That is another fundamental objection to banding. At the top end some wealthy people will pay nothing like their fair share of the council tax. It is only a slight move from the basic injustice of the poll tax, which was that, with few exceptions, the duke and the dustman paid the same amount.
  Some hon. Members have talked about single people and widows. I am a widow, but on my salary I do not think that it would be right for me to receive special treatment. It should be a case of paying according to ability to pay. Not all widows or single people are poor. Wealthy single people should pay their fair share and there is no reason for any discount. Obviously for people who are poor it is an entirely different matter.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Lady says that people should pay according to their ability. May we sign her up for local income tax?
  Mrs. Fyfe: No. Tory Members dodged the problem of a local income tax, which is the difficulty of collecting it. A company with branches across the United Kingdom would be expected to collect different local income taxes for people in towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom. Why should that firm bother? What is in it for the company? If such firms are paid to carry out the job, how could we be sure that they were doing it correctly? The money may be paid to central Government, but I would not trust this Government to dispense it fairly to local authorities. It is a fair idea in principle, but it is not practical.
  Unlike Conservative Members, I do not intend to filibuster. It has been said that there will be no need for a register for the council tax. Thousands of people evaded being registered because they could not afford to pay the poll tax and came off the electoral roll. They deprived themselves of the right to vote because of a tax that they could not afford. Will the Government spend some money on advertising to tell people that they should have no fears about this tax? If the Government are sure that it is a fair tax, they should be prepared to encourage people to get back on the electoral roll. Of course it is still an unfair tax, and many people will still feel that they cannot afford what is proposed and will deprive themselves of the right to vote.
  As I have said, there has been deliberate filibustering and time wasting. The Government hope to get the Bill through by Christmas, but Conservative Members have wasted time by criticising Labour local authorities or quoting what people have said about Labour's proposals, instead of discussing their Bill. If they carry on in the same way in Committee, I hope that the Chairman will make vigorous efforts to stop them. If the Government hope to succeed in their aim of getting the Bill through in a few weeks, they had better make sure that the debate is about the Bill and is not time-wasting nonsense.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: One of the main reasons for the Bill is that the rates system that existed for many decades was totally discredited in the 1970s and early 1980s. I speak from a certain amount of experience, having been a deputy leader of a district council. I saw what went on across the country, particularly in areas controlled by the Labour party and especially in inner-city areas. A remark by the former Labour leader of Liverpool city council makes the point much better than I could. He said:
  "Frankly, we have put the interests of the providers of the service, the workforce, above the interests of the tenants."
  That sums up a great deal of what went wrong with the old rating system. The Labour party turned a system of a consensus into a system of overtaxation for a minority of people within a borough. As a result, the system became untenable.
  All that contributed greatly to a lack of good services in our inner-city areas, where there was a lack of accountability, too much bureaucracy, too many new departments being set up to do questionable things, and a low collection rate for both rates and rent. It is sometimes forgotten that in Labour boroughs not only has the community charge not been collected over the past two years, but the rates were not collected over many decades. That is one of the problems in many large cities such as Liverpool.

  831
  Fewer and fewer good services were being provided in those Labour boroughs. It is interesting to note that in Liverpool, the only time in living memory that the rubbish has been collected on time has been during the past four months, when the city council decided to put out the refuse collection to tender. Previously, it had been costing that council £16 million to collect the rubbish. The council's direct labour force decided that it could do the job for £8 million. In fact, the contract went to a private contractor for £4 million. The rubbish in that city is being collected much more efficiently for £4 million than it ever was for £16 million under the direct labour force. That is just one example of what happened in inner-city areas controlled by the Labour party, and continued for years, if not decades. It is one reason why the old rating system became discredited and had to be changed.
  Mr. John Maxton: If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the old rating system was untenable and unworkable, can he explain why his Government, as late as October 1983—only 15 months before they introduced the idea of a poll tax—said in a White Paper that rates were a fair system of local taxation and would be the local tax system in place for the foreseeable future? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was the blind panic in the Tory party over revaluation in Scotland in 1985 that led to the end of the old rating system, and that it had nothing to do with what the Government thought about the system in England and Wales?
  Mr. Mans: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that if the old rating system was fair at all, it was fair in those areas controlled by the Conservative party, where there were not excessive increases in rates. The hon. Gentleman knows that for a number of decades the Tory party has been committed to producing a better system for financing local government. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on an important point: one reason why the rating system became discredited was the difficulty of carrying out a revaluation exercise. I must point out that that exercise was skipped over again and again by the Labour party when it was in government. It refused to carry out a revaluation because it understood that there would be difficulties with the electorate when it was put into practice. In many ways, it was unfortunate that the old rating system became discredited and we had to come up with a new system.
  All that I want to say about the community charge is that while I do not fully agree that the principle was wrong, its implementation undoubtedly caused a number of complications.
  Mr. McCartney: Excuses.
  Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman may think that they are excuses, but the way that the implementation of the community charge was used by Labour councils to increase considerably the amount of money that individuals had to pay to their local authorities meant that the system had to be modified, if not changed. One of the most disreputable actions during the past few years was that of a number of councils—notably Labour, and especially Labour county councils such as Lancashire—which deliberately increased the amount of the community charge for those on slender means. They hoped that they could push them into believing that the Labour party had
  832
  the right solution in wanting to return to the old rating system and that it was the fault of the Conservative Government that they had to pay considerably more to local councils.
  Dr. Hampson: I accept everything that my hon. Friend has said about Labour councils, but is it not about time that some of us stopped saying, rather defensively, that the principle of the community charge was correct—that principle being that everybody should pay the same amount? We acknowledged that that was wrong when we started to introduce rebate scheme after rebate scheme and reduction scheme after reduction scheme, which meant that the majority of people were not paying the same amount.
  Dr. Mans: I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The main point is that simply because of the size of the charge and because a number of councils increased it—and not just Labour, in this case—well above that originally intended, it appeared to be most unequal. In that respect, I agree that because of the number of rebates that had to be introduced it became clear that the system needed to be changed. The new tax at least takes into account our experience of the community charge and, indeed, our experience of the old rating system—which, despite all its faults, was a simple tax, whereas the community charge was a complicated tax. I agree with my hon. Friend that the community charge became increasingly difficult to operate properly.
  Although it is a pity that, once again, we are having to change the system of local government finance, I am having great difficulty coming to terms with the Labour party's idea that the best way forward for the 1990s is to return to the discredited system of the 1970s and 1980s. I cannot imagine many people, including many Labour supporters, going along with a system that goes back to the sort of inequalities that I have mentioned. We must learn from the experience of the past few years—both in trying a system that should have been fairer and from a system that clearly was not fair—to produce a system that takes the best of both previous systems and is also simpler.
  In debating the new tax, both now and in Committee, we must look closely at some of the major problems with the community charge and try to iron them out before the Bill becomes law. The problems that need to be sorted out now, rather than later, are those associated with people who move around a great deal. Perhaps they work abroad, are in the armed services or the merchant marine, or are fishermen. People in my constituency have found themselves in difficulty both with the old rating system and, more specifically, the community charge. I hope that we will consider those whose occupations mean that they do not stay in one place for very long or move around at regular intervals, and ensure that they are not penalised as against those who stay in one place for a long time.
  One lesson that has been learnt during the past few years is that people expect the Government to protect them against high-spending local councils. It is therefore important that there are stringent capping mechanisms, not only for this April, but for the next few years under the new council tax system. Ultimately, people at local level still believe that the Government have an obligation to stop high-spending councils taxing them too heavily. Unlike Labour, we understand the need to prevent over-taxation and over-spending by local councils, using

  833
  the capping mechanisms in the Bill. We understand also the need to give some kind of rebate to people living on their own. Again, that was a particular inequality with the old rating system. Many widows living in the houses that they occupied when their spouses were alive ended up paying the same amount to the local council, despite the fact that they were living on reduced incomes. I am pleased that the Bill recognises and deals with that particular problem.
  Most important of all, we have devised a simpler and fairer system of raising local finance. I believe that we must give councils some method of raising finance locally, and that the council tax will provide the fairest method of doing so.
  7 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: At the end of yesterday's Remembrance Day parade in Neath, I enjoyed the hospitality of the Royal British Legion. One of the ex-service men present asked me about the council tax, and I sought his own view. He was quite blunt. He said, "The Government are on the fiddle again." I have to agree with him.
  Although the Bill says that it will abolish the community charge—more accurately the poll tax—it will be with us until at least 1993, and even then there is some doubt about whether the Government will be able to introduce their new tax, assuming of course that they are re-elected.
  Over the past 18 months, there has been an incredible waste of literally billions of pounds, which have been poured down the drain as a result of the poll tax. The Local Government Information Unit calculates on current figures that the cost to the country will be £19 billion by the end of the year 1992–93. The LGIU estimates that every week the extra cost of continuing the poll tax amounts to £170 million. Every week, money is being poured down the drain.
  Imagine what could be done with £19 billion, which is being wasted with such reckless abandon. Imagine what could be done in terms of investing in new housing, schools and hospitals, and in industry and jobs that could put the country back to work and prepare it for the threat of 1992 and economic integration with Europe.
  We have seen under the poll tax, and will see under the council tax, the rich freeloading off the rest. There is the classic example of the Duke of Westminster, whose old rates bill was £10,400. His inititial poll tax bill fell to £400—the same as his chauffeur, butler or gardener. With the £140 rebate announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment earlier this year, presumably the Duke of Westminster's poll tax bill is now just below £300. Under the council tax, he may have to pay between £500 and £600. How can that collapse in the Duke of Westminster's payment, from more than £10,000 to £500 or £600, be justified?
  Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he retains a home in Wandsworth—the home of many champagne socialists—for which he pays nothing?
  Mr. Hain: I am happy to confirm that I continue to retain a home in Putney in addition to my main residence in Neath. I am happy to confirm also that I continue to pay
  834
  community charge in Putney, in addition to the full charge that I pay in Neath—though what that has to do with the debate, nobody knows.
  I spoke of the monumental waste that has occurred under the poll tax, and I shall now refer to its monumental incompetence. There are £1·5 billion in uncollected arrears, requiring 7·5 million summonses by the end of the year. With crime soaring and the courts clogged up with criminal cases as a consequence of the Government's incompetence in other areas of their policy responsibilities, it is an incredible diversion of resources and effort to allow the courts to be clogged up with poll tax cases. Instead of concentrating on the real criminals, the Government are prosecuting people as a result of their own incompetence and failure to deliver a proper local authority finance system.
  Over the years, the Conservatives have claimed to be the party combating waste and inefficiency, but the Government were responsible for the most wasteful and inefficient system of local tax collection possible to devise. If the Government intend to abolish the 20 per cent. rule in respect of the council tax, why not abolish it now in respect of the community charge? Such a measure could be introduced immediately as part of the Bill and would relieve a great deal of repression and injustice for some of the poorest members of our communities. It would also relieve local authorities, for whom the expense of collecting the tiny revenue that they enjoy under the 20 per cent. rule exceeds the income that it produces. The Audit Commission estimated that for every £15 spent by local authorities collecting the poll tax under the 20 per cent. rule, they receive only £6 in return.
  Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman urges the Government to introduce the council tax even more quickly, yet the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) accused the Government of being too hasty. Which does the hon. Gentleman want?
  Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman did not listen. I said that if there is to be any consistency in the Government's actions, they should abolish the 20 per cent. rule in respect of the poll tax immediately. That could be done today or tomorrow, if the Secretary of State were willing.
  The legacy of the poll tax still hangs over, for example, the constituents whom I represent and affects them in a punitive and discriminatory fashion. The latest twist in this sorry saga is that the poorest and often oldest members of that community pay the same as those of us who have a decent income. One of my constituents is a retired person on income support who has a home overlooking the Gnoll, which is the home of Neath rugby club. He wrote to me asking why he had not received the full £140 reduction promised by the Government when they tried to sugar the bitter poll tax pill earlier this year.
  It transpires that, whereas a full charge payer such as myself living in the valley of Resolven was levied an average rate of £229·54 last year, this year we are paying an average of £79·17—£140 less. However, someone receiving benefits, such as the retired resident on income support who wrote to me, who was paying £65·18 last year, received only a £20 reduction this year and is now paying £45·18. In other words, he is paying just £34 less than the richest charge payer in Neath, compared with £164 less last year. How can that be just and equitable?

  835
  I want the Secretary of State for Wales to justify the way in which that discriminatory system is penalising my constituents—many of whom are least able to bear the brunt of ever-increasing costs as a result of the Government's incompetence. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout and scream, but let them come and explain to my constituents how the situation I described can be justified.
  My constituents know that if they vote Labour—as they will in their tens of thousands—and if a Labour Government are elected, as I am confident will happen next year, we will have a fair rates system that ensures that the poorest members of the community will pay no community charge at all, and that those who can afford to pay towards local government finance will be levied at a fair and just rate.
  In preparing to implement the council tax, the Government are still starving local authorities in Wales of the finance that they need. Their standard spending assessments are ridiculously out of line with local needs, and are a figment of the imagination of the Welsh Office, and of the Department of the Environment in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. David Hunt: That has nothing whatever to do with the Department of the Environment. Standard spending assessments are worked out after close consultation with the Council of Welsh Districts and the Assembly of Welsh Counties. The SSAs to which the hon. Gentleman has referred were suggested arid agreed by those bodies. He should acknowledge that, as I do, for they have done some fine work in reaching such agreements.
  Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State is right to clarify that technical issue. My point is that—as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to concede—the assessments are set following his imposition of financial disciplines and restrictions on local authorities. It is those restrictions that are causing the cuts that are being made in local services, thus placing local provision with local needs.
  On 25 July, I raised the problem of West Glamorgan county council with the Minister of State, Welsh Office, but nothing has been done. The council's net revenue budget for the current year stands at £242 million. Education accounts for £138 million of that, social services for £28 million and environment and highways for £15 million. As the Secretary of State will doubtless acknowledge, the county council is renowned for providing a better standard of nursery education than almost every other authority for 90 per cent. of three-year-olds; it is almost famed for its provision of music and drama in schools.
  Although the council has a reputation for financial prudence, the Government's financial restrictions are causing it to run into a brick wall. Moreover, next year it will need to spend an additional 6 per cent.—£11 million—just to meet the additional statutory obligations that the Government are placing on it. These are not optional spending measures proposed by a profligate council; they are obligations required by the Government, and requiring 6 per cent. real growth.
  The demographic changes resulting from the fact that school rolls are beginning to rise again, together with increased student participation in higher education, will add an extra £1·5 million to West Glamorgan's spending. National curriculum support measures will require an
  836
  extra £500,000. Local management of schools and colleges, the provision of extra computer systems, administrative support and training for staff and governors will require an additional £400,000. Special educational needs identifed by the Education Act 1981—the provision is not discretionary—will require an extra £500,000, which the county will have to find from its local charge payers.
  I am informed that the maintenance of school buildings will require an additional £1·5 million, against a maintenance backlog of £20 million. Clearly, the full demand is not being met. As for social service provision, the Children Act 1989—introduced by the present Government—requires additional support for families, which means that an additional £500,000 will he needed.
  The Government have unceremoniously dumped on local authorities such as West Glamorgan a variety of community care responsibilities, which will require an additional £750,000 or so. Mental handicap and mental illness provision will require an extra £300,000. The Government have imposed many other obligations on the council; it must, for instance, spend an extra £5 million on upgrading highways. If there is no change in the existing financial provision, West Glamorgan will be unable to meet the Government's requirements without making savage cuts.
  This year, the council has been allocated an increase of just 6 per cent. Of that, 1 per cent. has already been committed for the full-year effects of this year's pay award to staff, principally teaching staff. The Secretary of State has assumed that some 4·5 per cent. will cover price and pay rises. In other words, 5·5 per cent. of that 6 per cent. has already been swallowed up, leaving just 0·5 per cent. to cover any additional award above the 4·5 per cent. that teachers may receive.
  Against that background, how can the introduction of the council tax possibly be just? This is a charter for the rich. The banding system is deeply unfair. The Prime Minister himself told the Financial Times on 27 November 1990, "Banding does not work." I agree with that assessment.
  Dr. Hampson: The Prime Minister was referring to income banding, which was then the subject of debate. He was not talking about banding in relation to property values.
  Mr. Hain: The Prime Minister was referring to banding in the context of the circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Let us look at the way in which the Secretary of State has applied the banding system to Wales. The top band covers properties valued at £240,000 and above. I can tell the House that there are not many such properties in Neath; they can be counted on one hand. Although such properties are worth at least eight times as much as those in the lowest band, their occupants will pay only three times more than the owners of those properties. The Secretary of State, who owns a property in Westminster, will pay a little more than twice what will be paid by the average charge payer in Neath; yet his property is worth 10 times as much. How can that possibly be just? How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly defend such an inequity to my constituents?
  Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hain: No, I will not.
  The Secretary of State's salary is now about £1,200 a week, 10 times the average income of a couple of pensioners living in the average property in Neath. Many people in my constituency will feel that they are subsidising rich residents in England and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Moreover, the system centralises financial provision to such an extent that just 8 per cent. is raised locally in Wales. If my local authorities wish to raise their expenditure by 1 per cent., they must increase council tax by 12 per cent.
  Mr. Janman rose——
  Mr. Hain: I have given way plenty of times; I will not do so again.
  The council tax is hugely complicated. According to Neath borough council, it will be just as difficult to administer as the existing poll tax system. It will cause chaos: bills will arrive literally weeks before payment is due, and people will have only a few weeks in which to appeal against the bandings applied to them. This is a Heath Robinson proposal; it has simply been cobbled together.
  I sympathise with the Secretary of State for Wales. He is a decent man fallen among knaves, trying to do an honest job on behalf of the people of Wales. He is far too sensible to have thought of this proposal off his own bat. He is steamrollering it through, knowing that it is nonsense. He has been very unlucky: his first Prime Minister dumped the poll tax on him and the second has burdened him with the council tax, which will be just as unpopular as its predecessor. It is a schizophrenic tax, unable to decide whether it is a head tax or a roof tax. That is one of the reasons why I believe that the people of Wales will reject it, and vote in a Labour Government next time.
  7.18 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: When I tried to raise some of the education issues with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), he refused to let me intervene. I wished to make the simple point that the Labour party's "Fair Rates" document makes no reference to students, and to add that, in my view, our proposals offer students the best deal that they have been offered by any system of local finance.
  It does not embarrass me at all to say that I did not approve of the principle of the community charge. I opposed it from the very beginning. My opposition goes back to 1979 and to the work done in the Department of the Environment when I was in it on the production of the 1981 Green Paper. It stated clearly that a flat rate charge could not cope with the scale of local authority expenditure and that it could not do so fairly. Experience has proved that to be the case.
  When we considered the impact that such a system would have on my city of Leeds, when it was thought that it would be about £187 per head, we realised that that in itself would be disastrous. On that basis, about 80 per cent. of my constituents would have been worse off. However, the Leeds charge came out at about double that figure. It was therefore a disaster for towns in the north, particularly those that contained a high proportion of terraced property built around the turn of the century. I do not weep over its loss.
  838
  Although one can say good riddance to it, I do not wish there to be a return to the past, as the Opposition propose. The community charge system became more and more discredited. Some of my colleagues have accepted that it became discredited, but they are still trying to a certain degree to defend it. The reason that it became discredited on the scale and at the speed that it did was due to the efforts of the gentleman who introduced it, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
  Due to the way in which he handled its introduction, it did not have a cat in hell's chance of succeeding. Not only was there no capping of the excessive expenditure that Labour councils were bound to indulge in, but my right hon. Friend insisted that it should be introduced not as a phased tax but all in one year. Above all, he insisted on reducing the revenue support grant rather than increasing it, which is what all of us said was necessary to soften the blow.
  The effect of those actions devastated the tax and meant that in no circumstances could the level be low enough to make it justifiable and acceptable. What happened reflects upon the competence and judgment of my right hon. Friend, as has been demonstrated again recently.
  The Labour party document states that there should be a return to the old system and to the valuation of properties that was carried out in 1973. How can the Labour party believe that it is fair to value properties on the basis of the 1973 valuation? Do not the Opposition remember what happened in Scotland when properties there were revalued? Do they not realise what would happen to a young couple who bought a terraced cottage that had a traditionally low rateable value? Under the Labour party's proposal, that property would be revalued, which would have a devastating effect on the finances of that young couple. There would be the same backlash and bitterness as happened in Scotland.
  If the people of Leeds want a Labour Government to be returned to power, they can be sure that property in Leeds, particularly that sought by young people, will have devastatingly raised valuations. Their bills will he higher than this year's community charge bills. Under our scheme, the bill for the average property in my constituency will be approximately halved compared with what people are expected to pay under the community charge. The headline bill—in Leeds about £400 per person—will instead be about £400 per house.
  The Opposition have totally failed to grasp the banding concept. It is possible to have a relatively speedy valuation because no attempt will he made to place a specific value on every house. However, that is what the Labour party would do. After having introduced the outdated 1973 valuations, at some stage it would have a nationwide revaluation. A specific value would be placed on every house. There would be a return to all the anomalies that the old rating system caused. It would take a very long time to implement and would be very costly.
  Moreover, the Labour party's system is guaranteed to penalise property improvement. If changes were made to a house that increased its value, the valuation would be increased; hence, one would pay more tax. It would be a major disincentive to property improvement. The value of banding is that it can be done speedily and quickly. It might even be possible for Members of Parliament to walk down the street and assess the approximate value of

  839
  property in one street compared with property in another. Moreover, if the bands are sufficiently wide, they will cope with any alterations and improvements to property.
  My only hesitation is whether the two middle bands are wide enough. I argued passionately for a top higher band. But if a new kitchen were needed in an older property, it would cost about £10,000. The difference between the two bands in the middle is about £10,000. A slight extension of those bands could ease the extra cost that might be brought about by improvements.
  The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) said that there will be chaos when everyone appeals. I do not believe that that will happen. The difference between the sums of money in the different bands that people will have to pay is relatively small. It is probably not worth appealing about a difference of approximately £40. It is also conceivable that if one strays across a band because a property has been improved to the tune of approximately £10,000, one will not have to pay much extra.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman believes that because there will be broad bands whole streets will be assessed in one go, not individually. If, however, an estate agent in England says, "I think that this street of properties is worth £35,000, or £45,000 or £58,000" and it is just on the borderline between bands, who will get the benefit of the doubt? Will it be the council, on the ground that the upper band would provide it with more money, or will it be the householder?
  Dr. Hampson: I do not believe that there would be any complication. People will be told that their property comes within a certain band which ranges, say, from £52,000 to £68,000. They will not complain if they believe that their property is worth more than the band in which it has been allocated. If, however, they want to say that their property should be in the band below, it will be a simple matter of testing it on appeal. There will be a great deal of evidence, from the valuation office and market prices in the area, upon which to test it.
  Opposition Members are desperately struggling to find every conceivable thing to carp at, because they know that the scheme will be relatively speedy to introduce and that it will work effectively. Compared with anything that they have dreamed up, it is a clear-cut, simple scheme. Their solution is to return to an outdated system and then to try to improve it. The consequent revaluations would cause mayhem, chaos and huge bills for those on the receiving end. The Opposition have not found a way round that problem.
  The Labour party's document makes no reference to students. It preaches the virtues of helping all hardship cases, but the old rating system to which the Opposition wish to return would impose considerable costs on students, as it did before. University halls of residence had to pay for students. If students were in digs, they had to pay their share of the rates. Under this measure, universities will not be charged for halls of residence and students will not be liable to a council tax charge in the rent that they pay. The only problem relates to those students who are married to someone who is not a student, in which case there is a 25 per cent. discount.
  Furthermore, we have not dealt clearly enough with the position of those students who may be living in the same property as their landlord. Landlords will have a 25 per cent. discount because they take in students, but will they
  840
  pass on the full tax to the students? We must make it clear to students that they can appeal against their rent to a tribun-al so that the tribunal can decide whether the landlord is overcharging them on the council tax element.
  We must make our argument clear. Only today I received a document from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that shows that it does not understand. It fears that universities will have to pick up the tab, and it draws a sharp distinction between those who will be non-payers and those who will get 25 per cent. I should like to believe—we must make this clear—that only a very small proportion of students will contribute. The concept of the poll tax was that the more people there were in a property the more they paid, whereas under the council tax students will not add to but will deduct from the bill.
  Of the 42·5 million adults in this country, only about 3 million are from households with more than two people. I never understood why we got in the tangled bureaucratic mess of the community charge to pick up the tiny amount of 3 million out of 42·5 million people. The council tax is related to the number of people in a house, but it offers more generous treatment for people such as students, who will not add to the household bill.
  Have Ministers considered taxing people who accommodate students as a business the universal business rate rather than the property rate, and whether that might be a way of avoiding any burden falling on students? I raise that as an off-the-cuff thought.
  We must also make it crystal clear how much shopkeepers, who gave us so much flak when we introduced the business rate and the community charge, will now be paying. They will still pay the universal business rate, but what will they contribute to the new council tax? The council bill must clearly show not only the precept for each level of local government but itemise what they are paying for street cleaning, for dustbin collection, for the police and for the various local government services.
  The Labour party attacks us for not operating a fair system, yet the old rating system offered relief in the form of rebates. Labour now realises that that system of relief was not adequate. It therefore proposes a register of those who are eligible for relief. Its document says that it is against rebates.
  "for which application has to be made."
  Therefore, it proposes that as a result of computerisation at the Inland Revenue a local authority register will be established so that authorities are aware of the pensioners, those with disabilities and those on low incomes. Relief will then be offered to such people. That is a register-based system. Our system is not register based but claimant based.
  The Labour party cannot have it both ways: it attacks the system either because it expects people to claim or because it requires a register. Of course it is a claimant-based system—no one has ever hidden that fact. People who can be eligible for up to 100 per cent. will claim for it, and then, as under the old system that worked simply and cheaply, it will be on the records. That is the system, with extensions, that we are now returning to.
  The single person discount will not apply equally to the rich millionaire and to the poor elderly widow. The male millionaire will not get any rebates, whereas the single older widow will be eligible for substantial rebates, and a single unmarried mother with several children who is on

  841
  income support will pay nothing. The reality that the Opposition overlook is that the combination of the single person discount and rebates of up to 100 per cent. make the council tax far fairer than the old rates, certainly fairer than the poll tax, and much fairer than the Labour party's proposals. For the elderly, and especially for students, it is a better deal than was offered by any previous alternative system of local government finance, and it is much fairer and is a better deal than what would be imposed by the Labour party.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Although we have gone over ground that we have gone over many times in the House, the debate has been extremely interesting. I make no apology for going over some of the ground again.
  I recall the reform of local government—not local government finance—in the 1970s. By trying to reform finance without simultaneously considering local government's powers, boundaries and responsibilities we are making the same mistake as we made then.
  We have two Bills—one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. Separate Bills were introduced for the poll tax. A Scottish Bill was introduced in 1986–87 because the Government panicked about local
  authority finance for Scotland.
  We have heard much in the past weekend, if not before, about the concept of the mandate. Labour Members from Scotland—some of them at least—have raised that concept. The Liberal Democrats, particularly their leader, have suggested that the Government have no moral authority in Scotland. It is strange that that point is being made because of a shift of about 1,000 votes in a constituency. But the Government had no moral authority in Scotland in 1987. The Scottish people overwhelmingly rejected their policy.
  We must consider the mandate not in party terms but in personal terms. I sought a mandate from my constituents to oppose the poll tax and made it plain exactly what I would do.
  Mr. McCartney: Seek a fresh one.
  Mr. Douglas: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have some affection, or to any other Labour Member who can tell me what part of that mandate I have reneged on.
  Mr. McCartney: I shall contribute later. The point is clear: if the hon. Gentleman feels that he is totally committed to his mandate and that he has not changed his opinion, he should ask the electors of Dunfermline, not me.
  Mr. Douglas: I meet the electors of Dunfermline regularly, not just once a month. They can come to me at any time.
  What part of the 1987 manifesto is still in place? The commitment to Trident, which is particularly important to us in Scotland, is not. It is evident that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) does not rest his case on opposition to the poll tax. At the next election, he will seek to enhance the so-called sovereignty of Parliament. I reject the sovereignty of Parliament. We
  842
  have the poll tax because there is no such thing as the sovereignty of Parliament. There is the sovereignty of the majority party and its Whips.
  We all know that the poll tax does not have a friend in 1991, so why did that tax have so many friends in 1987 and afterwards? Conservative Members—with a few honourable exceptions—were dragooned through the Division Lobby by the Government Whips. They did not consider what was happening. We have had the example of Scotland, where we have suffered from the poll tax for a year longer than people in England and Wales, and much grief and sorrow have resulted.
  People say to me, "You did not pay the poll tax and could afford to pay it." I did not pay the poll tax. Before I took that stand, I made it plain what I was going to do. I still feel justified in taking that stance, especially as the people of Scotland, aided by the Scottish National party, were partly instrumental in ensuring the downfall of that tax.
  We have all talked about finding a fair local government taxation system. Front Benchers and Back Benchers have been going through the hoops, trying to devise a system that is fair and is always related to ability to pay. That was suggested by the Labour party in "Fair Rates" and by the Conservative party in their so-called council tax—somehow, mysteriously, the system has to be related to ability to pay.
  I cannot envisage a system related to ability to pay that does not approximate to income flows. I repeat what I have said many times: I do not know of any person who pays taxes out of anything other than income. That is why we and the Scottish National party have suggested a local income tax.
  Conservative Members have said that there would be many difficulties with such a system. It might be unfair because of different earning capacities in different areas—I think in particular of Scotland. Under the present arrangements, we would expect to raise from local income tax about 14 per cent. of local revenue. I estimate—although I would not go into the trenches on it—that that could be achieved in Scotland with a tax of 3½ip or 4p in the pound.
  People say that that would cause local authorities to be profligate. The Government castigate the Labour party for wanting to raise taxes—particularly, I suggest, income tax. The Government claim credit for tax reductions, albeit only 1 p or 2p in the pound at the standard rate. Local income tax would provide a salutary device to bring about local accountability. Why have all this paraphernalia?
  The Secretary of State for Wales is in the Chamber, so he can confirm or deny my comments. In Wales, all this administrative machinery will be erected to get 8 per cent. of the revenue. That is farcical. In England, it will result in between 15 and 20 per cent.
  Mr. David Hunt: It will be 14 per cent.
  Mr. Douglas: It will be 14 per cent. That will happen because we will not allow local authorities to administer a local income tax. One could argue that, if central Government were so magnificent at controlling finances, we could castigate local authorities for being profligate. But the Government expanded the public sector borrowing requirement overnight, going from a PSBR of

  843
  almost zero to one of £20 billion—and that is not supposed to be profligate. Why not? It is not profligate because the Conservative party wants to win the election.
  If local authorities want to raise revenue for essential services which the Government have said they must provide, it is supposed to be dastardly. If someone from Mars were considering what has happened, he would think it weird and wonderful that so-called intelligent people oppose a local income tax on other than economic grounds. The grounds are political.
  We met Ministers to discuss our proposals. I said that we could abolish the poll tax and, within three months, introduce a local income tax in Scotland. I am willing to debate that case in any forum. We would also look into a system to reform local government in Scotland and, as others have suggested, to have a much fairer electoral system.
  We are discussing a band and hope tax—properties will be banded together; the assessors, the Government hope, will get the job done by 1993; and some of the anomalies will he ironed out, for example, in relation to students. The council tax will not provide a buoyant source of local revenue and will not give direct local accountability.
  What does the council tax do in Scottish terms? I have been on demonstrations with Labour Members who are not here in the Chamber—[Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), who is here. Those Labour Members said no to warrant sales and poinding. We have not heard anything about that today from the Labour Front Bench. Schedule 8 perpetuates that system in Scotland. Surely, in this day and age, we can devise a system of getting people to pay. We need a fair tax that avoids the noisome 19th century practices of breaking down the doors of people's houses and poinding and selling their furniture. I plead with the House: if we are trying to get 8, 9 or 15 per cent. of local revenue, surely we can at least achieve a much more satisfactory system, based on ability to pay.
  The 20 per cent. rule bears heavily on some sections of the population and should be abolished forthwith. Because I was on the court of Stirling university and have had direct association with many students, I know that students are in dire circumstances now. In fairness to them, the Government should not wait until 1993. If I have understood correctly, when the Secretary of State for Social Security introduced the new measures—many of which are welcome—he suggested that, although benefits have been upgraded, they were not related to a continuation of the 20 per cent. rule. A precedent has been set. The Government should not continue the farce of believing that they can extract the 20 per cent. contribution from local electorates and poll tax payers in Scotland. They should take steps immediately which would not be very costly. The Minister may contradict me, but I believe that it would cost £120 million to write off that contribution for three years. If the Government do not do that they are behaving stupidly because it is extremely unfair to ask local authorities to pursue people who cannot pay and thus to perpetuate the system.
  We take cognisance of the Bill and, naturally, we welcome the abolition of the poll tax but we shall oppose many aspects of the council tax. I hope that I have made it plain that I am extremely proud of the stance that I took in opposing the poll tax. I am not by nature a law breaker but I am proud of the stance that I took to stand by the people who would be humiliated because they could not
  844
  pay. I have nothing to be ashamed of. I would have sought my personal mandate at any time and I made my stance clear to the electorate at large.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I believe that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is an extremely honourable man, but he is misguided in his stance on the poll tax. However, I unite with him on one issue—I also fought for a personal mandate at the previous general election. I did not support the introduction of the poll tax in Scotland and would have nothing to do with it. I said that I should oppose it consistently if the Government were misguided enough to introduce it in England.
  This evening I feel as if I have come in from the cold——
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Only two minutes ago.
  Mr. Cormack: In answer to my hon. Friend, I did hear the opening speeches. I feel that I have come in from the cold and can support the Government wholeheartedly and without any major reservation. We have at last got rid of one of the most misconceived pieces of legislation that any Government have introduced for a long time and we have now replaced it with something eminently sensible and fair. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his courage in recognising that a mistake had been made and in introducing new legislation. Some people fail to appreciate the fact that it takes great courage to say, "I was wrong" and that the higher one's position, the greater the courage that is called for. The Prime Minister has shown enormous courage which deserves to be rewarded.
  Some years ago, I introduced on three occasions a rating reform Bill and on one of those occasions I was supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who has strayed since those days. That Bill had two main objectives. The first was to remove the ridiculous anomaly whereby a householder was penalised for improving his property, and the second was to introduce a head count so that the amount paid would to some extent reflect the number of people in the household. Those of us who attended ratepayers meetings in the 1970s—and I attended many—know that two criticisms in particular were always voiced. The first was that any improvement to a property was penalised and the second was that which has been quoted so often—the fact that a single person, very often an elderly widowed lady who lived next to a family of three or four wage earners, paid the same as that family.
  It seems that the Government have tackled three issues—the two anomalies that I outlined and the manifest unfairness of the poll tax. They have introduced a new tax which we believe is infinitely preferable to the Labour party's proposals. I concede that I should have preferred to return to the rates rather than to stick with the poll tax, and I make no apology for that. I have never sought to disguise my views. However, what is now proposed is better than the Labour party's proposals, and I had hoped that we could approach the issue in a spirit of consensus. I regret that the Labour party did not accept the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to participate in the talks earlier this year.

  845
  Had it done so, we might have had an even better Bill. I believe that when the shouting has died down and the controversy of the next few days is over, the Labour party will think again and will realise that there is great merit in a mutually agreed system of local government finance. We do not want to enter another general election while people still feel uncertain.
  The new proposals are sensible and fair, but, of course, they are not perfect. No system will ever be perfect and various issues will need tidying up in Committee. However, if there is a spirit of consensus, there is more chance of sensible and suitable amendments being passed in Committee. I sincerely hope that that will be the case.
  I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) to say that I was especially concerned—and I know that he is also concerned as, I believe is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—about people who have lived in a house for a long time. The value of their property may have increased enormously but the income of the occupants may not have increased. In some cases, the occupants are not the owners but merely tenants. In Committee we should devise a mechanism to take account of that fact, because such people may not be eligible for any rebate but could still be badly hit by the new tax. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who is a sensitive man and who thinks deeply about these issues, will discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment whether something can be done to deal with the problem. In my constituency it causes heartache and anxiety.
  We are all delighted with the return of the 100 per cent. rebate and the abolition of the 20 per centers. That is a sensible move. I join all hon. Members who wish that the 20 per cent. contribution could be abolished before 1993. I hope that even now we can think again.
  Other issues have been raised by the bodies that must administer the tax. I have the honour of being a vice-president of the Association of District Councils which has submitted a paper that I know my right hon. Friends have seen. However, I draw to the House's attention two points in that paper that deserve careful consideration. The paper states:
  "The Association does not accept that the long-term health of local government can be sustained on the basis of one locally variable tax yielding only 15 per cent. on average of the spending needs of local authorities. The Association believes that the national non-domestic rate should be returned to local control".
  I understand why we introduced the uniform business rate, but, as we are reforming the structure and finance of local government, it would be wrong for us to say that we shall not consider the issue again. The points made by the ADC are worthy of careful consideration. It would not be appropriate to incorporate such reforms in the Bill, but I hope that after we have won the next general election we shall reconsider the matter seriously and do something about it.
  The other point made by the ADC is, I know, contentious and I do not suppose that I shall carry my right hon. Friend with me. The ADC's paper states:
  "The Association thoroughly opposes the principle and practice of capping local authority expenditure."
  846
  I must say that I have always felt unhappy about it myself. If we are talking about accountability, we must give local authorities greater freedom and flexibility and call them to account.
  Mr. Janman: They have abused it.
  Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend says that they abuse it, and they frequently do; I accept that. It is an entirely reasonable point to make, and I fully understand why we have indulged in capping and why it is written into the Bill. Frankly, however, capping does not sit easily with a belief in local government or the freedom of local government.
  We shall have to keep the matter carefully under review. The ADC is not a body led by the extreme left. It is a highly responsible body, which has reached a considered consensus view on the matter. I know that that view will not be entirely popular with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but I commend it to him for further consideration. I am not unrealistic enough to suppose that the argument will be accepted during the passage of the Bill, but capping is both crude and unsatisfactory and I hope that we shall not have to live with it indefinitely.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) referred to the paper circulated to a number of us by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I saw my copy this morning. If people as erudite and eminent as the vice-chancellors can be under such misapprehensions, it is important that we should clarify the matter for them. I hope that, during the debate and in personal correspondence, my right hon. Friend will be able to do that, because it seems to me that we have moved a long way, and the right way, on the position of students.
  I am glad to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate. The Bill is extremely important. I believe that it represents a milestone that we should all be glad to have reached, and I congratulate my right hon. Friends on having had the courage to introduce it. It will be widely welcomed in the country at large. It is an enormous improvement on what has gone before and an improvement, too, on the rating system that preceded that. We now have the possibility of a really sensible stable system of local government finance, and I wish the Bill well.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I shall be brief, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  The Secretary of State's speech consisted mainly of an account of the article in the Financial Times rather than an explanation of the details of the Bill. It sounded very much like the speech made by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) when he introduced the poll tax Bill—the Local Government Finance Bill 1987—on 16 December 1987. It is all on record: the right hon. Gentleman told us that the poll tax would be a fairer, simpler tax which would give rise to greater accountability. He claimed for the poll tax precisely the same advantages as the present Secretary of State now claims for the council tax. How can anyone in the House—particularly any Opposition Member—or anyone outside it believe a word that the Secretary of State says? It is clear that the present Bill will be rushed through the House because the Government decided that the poll

  847
  tax is an electoral liability which must be replaced as fast as possible. It is all part of the general style that the Conservatives have adopted in dealing with local government ever since they were elected in 1979, and even earlier than that.
  I have been going through some of the major changes in local authority structure and procedures that have taken place in recent years, all of which have been introduced by Conservative Governments. In 1963, we had the abolition of the London county council and the setting up of the GLC. In 1972, we had the creation of the metropolitan county councils which nearly mirrored the GLC. Then, in 1986, we had the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. After that, we had rate capping, to which the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) referred, and the poll tax. Now we have another proposal for further changes in local authority structures and the institution of unitary authorities outside London.
  How on earth can anyone in the country say that the Government know how to organise local government structure or finance? Theirs is a record of interference, mess and confusion. Now they come back to the House not with an apology but seeking credit for clearing up the mess that they previously created. They will get no thanks from the Opposition and no thanks from anyone in the country. We know what all this is about. It is not really about finance but about politics and the Tory party's view of politics.
  I did not hear the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) in the speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, who was referring to rate capping, but I gather that the hon. Gentleman said that local authorities abused the system. The hon. Gentleman, in his directness and honesty, sums up the Tory party. The Tories do not trust local democracy. They do not trust local electors to get rid of local authorities if they do not like them and to support them if they do. They want local authorities to reflect precisely the views of the Tory party in government. Many Conservative Members have no respect for local democracy or any other form of democracy. They merely want local authorities to do what the Tory party would have it do.
  Mr. Janman: What I actually said was that local authorities have abused the system. I was talking not about a theoretical position but about historical fact. Personally, I should like to see the implementation of a referendum system at local level on a non-party basis, because that would provide a mechanism to ensure local accountability. In the absence of that, however, we need a capping mechanism such as that proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. Banks: I still do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I am glad to hear that he agrees that there should be some local control over the local decision-making process. That seems right, but, of course, we already have such mechanisms in place: they are called local elections and local democracy. Local government has thrived in Britain and, in many ways, our system is the envy of the world. The hon. Member for Thurrock may laugh, but I repeat that we have one of the finest local government systems in the world. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. Janman: Lambeth?
  Mr. Banks: It is no good the hon. Gentleman picking an authority that he does not like and trying to use it to knock every other aspect of local democracy. What worries me is that the Government have been totally cavalier in their attitude to the whole process of local democracy and accountability—indeed, they have used parliamentary sovereignty to destroy local accountability and, in the final analysis, such actions undermine democracy.
  I had hoped that, with a gentler, kinder, more responsible and responsive Prime Minister in control, we would move away from all this, but it seems that the Government cannot get it out of their system: if they do not like what local authorities are doing—and they do not like what a lot of them are doing—they interfere. In the end, they will abolish them.
  We all know what sort of local authority the Government would like. They would like them all to be Tory authorities. The City of London, for instance, is so totally Tory that its members can say that it is non-political. What they mean is, "It is Tory right the way through." When they say, "We are going to keep politics out of the City of London and out of this local authority," what they mean is, "We are going to keep your politics out of this local authority." That is what it is all about and the Bill is just another stage in the dismantling of local accountability and local sovereignty.
  The shadow that hangs over debates such as these is the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—the Finchley whinger. It was the right hon. Lady who said that the poll tax was the Government's flagship. Like a captain, she went down—temporarily—with her flagship. Unfortunately for the Conservative party, however, she keeps bobbing up again: her head keeps appearing above the waves. We therefore now have the ridiculous image of the new Secretary of State in his new lifeboat rowing away from the disaster and cracking the right hon. Lady on the head every time she emerges and tries to get into the lifeboat with him. The Tories do not want her in the lifeboat because they know that as soon as she gets on board it will overturn. The right hon. Lady will ruin the Tories' chances at the general election—it will not now be on the poll tax but, I suspect, on Europe. The former Prime Minister sends letters to Bruce Gyngell, of TV-am, saying "Dear Bruce, I am sorry. (Sob, sob.) I never thought it would end like this." She should send a letter to every single person in the country, apologising for the poll tax. That is the kind of task that she should be given. That is the punishment that should be inflicted on her. I would like to see her chained down and made to write out by hand a letter to every poll tax payer. That would undoubtedly give her writer's cramp.
  We did not hear much about the Bill from the Secretary of State for the Environment. In his knockabout speech, he did not seem fully to understand the problems that he is going to create. The council tax is a rerun of the poll tax. Once again, it is being done in haste. When legislation is passed in haste, it is always repented at leisure. However, there is not much leisure time left to the Government betwen now and the general election.
  The Bill will throw up just as many anomalies and problems as the poll tax Bill and we have less than 17 months before the tax is due to come into operation. Unfortunately, a Labour Government will have to clear up the mess. That is what really worries me. There should be poetic justice in letting the Tories clear up their own mess,

  849
  but we cannot allow them to do that because we will then undoubtedly have poll tax mark III. That is what will happen if the Conservatives are re-elected.
  The local authorities are confused about the proposals in the Bill and that is not surprising because we will not see much of the detail until the spring of 1992. The Bill proposes that only 50 per cent. of the tax will be paid for second homes and for properties with low residence. That is grossly unfair. Why will local authorities in Wales be able to charge the full 100 per cent. for second homes while only 50 per cent. can be charged in England? Does that have something to do with the problems that second-home owners in Wales are experiencing with the Welsh Language Society? Why cannot local authorities in England charge the full 100 per cent? If people are lucky enough and rich enough to have two homes, they should be prepared to pay two taxes because they will undoubtedly require services in both the areas where their residences are located.
  The discount system and the benefits are very complex. Local authorities are not looking forward to the administrative nightmare that will be created if the Bill becomes law.
  In Newham nearly 20 per cent. of the households are occupied by single people among whom there is a high turnover rate. Experience in compiling the poll tax register bears this out. In addition, the multiple occupancy nature of many Newham properties means that discount administration will be very complex as household structures change. The council tax is based on the Tory utopia of two persons, preferably married, households. The reality in Newham, as in most other London boroughs——
  Mr. Janman: Who wrote that?
  Mr. Banks: One of the Newham officers wrote it and I want to ensure that the views of the Newham officers who have to administer the scheme are made clear in the House.
  The Newham officers also wrote:
  "Newham expects over 30 per cent. of council tax payers to be eligible for benefits. When this is combined with the 20 per cent. of single person households, high turnover and multiple occupancy, it is clear that by any stretch of the imagination, this is not a tax which will be simple and cheap to collect."
  That is another problem that we will have to face in Newham. The system of discounts and benefits will be administratively complex. The vagaries of the property bands mean that the highest council tax payers will pay only three times more than the lowest, even though their property could be worth eight times as much.
  In Newham, as little as 9 per cent. of overall income will be raised by the tax. That is the second lowest in the country. Our next door borough, Tower Hamlets, is the lowest—excluding the City of London. It is clear that a total catastrophe is to be replaced by chaos. That is what we are being asked to examine tonight.
  There will be a guillotine motion tomorrow and the Bill will be pushed through its Committee stage without the kind of detailed examination required by legislation as complex as this. One would have thought that some of the lessons and failings of the poll tax would by now have sunk into the thick skulls of Conservative Members. Obviously,
  850
  that has not happened. They are so grateful to escape from the poll tax that they will grab any pig in a poke that happens to be passing by.
  The Bill is a pig in a poke. I am only grateful for the fact that people will not have to live with it for very long. My colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench will be in government in a few months' time and they will have to restore to local authorities the accountability and control over local decision making and local resource raising that they should have and had enjoyed in the past before this interfering bunch of incompetents stumbled into Westminster. Fortunately, they are on their way out and local government can be put back on to a fit and proper basis.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Tim Janman: There are two striking features about this debate. The first is unusual in that this must be one of the few areas of our work in this place that we can debate today without the European Community poking its nose into what we should or should not be doing. The other striking feature is very common in this Parliament and that is the lack of detail and genuine, constructive criticism from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), in opposing the Second Reading, made the utterly vacuous speech that we have come to expect from him.
  The community charge is no longer a big issue. In many parts of the country, until it was announced that the community charge was to be abolished, non-payment of the charge was not particularly different from previous non-payment of domestic rates in any given locality. For the whole of the borough of Thurrock, non-payment of the community charge in March 1991 was down to 6·4 per cent.—a level at least commensurate with non-payment in the last year of the rating system and probably slightly lower than that. We must bear in mind that the system that we are leaving behind, until the announcement of its abolition, had not been the unmitigated failure in terms of its implementation and collection that some hon. Members believed it to be.
  We are considering today the council tax, a major piece of legislation to introduce a new way of raising local revenue for the financing of local government. I will be voting for the property tax tonight——
  Mr. Tony Banks: If the hon. Gentleman does that, he will be the only one because we shall be voting tomorrow night.
  Mr. Janman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will be voting for the property tax tomorrow night. The most important reason why I will do that is that the vast majority of my constituents will gain from the replacement of the community charge with the property tax.
  Before any Opposition Member pipes up with the question, "Why did you vote for the community charge in 1988?", I must explain that compared with the revaluation of rateable values which would have occurred if the community charge had not replaced the rating system, most of my constituents were gaining from the advent of the community charge. I am being consistent. I am voting for a change in the system of local government finance that will benefit my constituents compared with the other options on offer.

  851
  It does not matter what system a Government introduces, there will always he winners and losers when one system of local government finance is replaced with another. However, even those who will lose, primarily people who live on their own in properties in the higher bands—of which there are not many in my constituency—will not be losing as much as they would lose if we had a Labour Government introducing their so-called fair rating system.
  We have an opportunity with this Bill to introduce a system of local government finance that will be a middle-of-the-road option in comparison to its two forerunners. The old rating system took no account of the problem whereby one person living on his or her own would be expected to pay the same for their local government services as, say, four people all earning a wage and living in an identical house.
  It is correct to differentiate between the fundamental principle of the community charge and the exact implementation of it. Some of my hon. Friends say that that is not a fair differentiation, but it was fair. The community charge took us from one extreme, in which there was no account of the number of people living in a household, to another extreme. For example, in my constituency, due to the high overspending of my local Labour-controlled council, four adults living in a three-bedroom semi-detached house would have been paying £1,700 because of the profligacy of my local Labour council.
  Under the community charge, the straight line relationship in terms of how much a household paid and the number living in it was just that—a far too straight line. With this legislation, we are moving towards a better balance between protecting households of only one person and not overcharging households of a greater number of people.
  Given that we are replacing the community charge, we must ask whether it improved accountability. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made much of that point. There is conflicting evidence. It is true that, in almost two years since the community charge was introduced, there have been far more letters to the Thurrock Gazette about the inefficiency and wastage of my local Labour council than there were in the days of the rating system. By making everybody make some contribution, however small, the community charge concentrated people's minds on what the local council was or was not doing and on whether it was effective and efficient.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, because we must consider whether the community charge made any difference to voting patterns in local government elections and whether it made any difference to whether people fully understood their local council's revenue-raising powers and other powers. The theory of the community charge was that, with every person making some contribution, there would be a much higher turnout in local elections and a trend towards the electorate understanding that the people they put in office had revenue-raising powers and it is therefore important to examine critically their proposals. Perhaps with the exception of certain London boroughs, that has not happened.
  I have spoken to hundreds of constituents about this matter because it genuinely fascinates me. A substantial percentage of the electorate do not vote in local elections,
  852
  according to what the Labour party and Liberal Democrats are saying; they vote on the basis of the performance of the national Government. One has only to look at the correlation between local election results and the party in power and how it affects the same party at local level to realise that that is true.
  In the 1970s, probably some reasonable Labour councils were chucked out of office because of the appalling Labour Government of the day. [Interruption.] I am not making a party political point. Whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-West likes it or not, local government democracy, which he clearly loves and talks about often, actually breaks down because of the party political system. As he knows, the vast majority of people do not even bother to vote in local elections. My local Labour party, which has 33 of the 39 seats on Thurrock borough council, saw its hegemony reinforced in May this year by getting fewer than 17 per cent. of the votes of those who are eligible to vote.
  Mr. McCartney: How many voted for Tory candidates?
  Mr. Janman: That is not the point. It does not matter which party it is. I am not trying to make a party political point in the way that the hon. Gentleman normally does. Irrespective of which party it is, it is ridiculous to say that, in most local authorities, the party in power has the overwhelming support of the local people, based on the percentage of the local community who actually voted and put their cross by the name of that party's candidate.
  Many people—it is only because nobody has told them—do not understand how much power county and borough councillors have. When I say to people that elected councillors on Essex county council, when its gets its massive dollop of revenue from the Government, can decide how that massive dollop of taxpayers' money is divided, they look at me aghast. They do not understand how much power elected borough and county councillors have.
  Rightly or wrongly, and conveniently or inconveniently for the concepts and theories of local government of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, most people look to central Government to rescue them from the overspending and largesse of local councils. In Thurrock, where my local Labour-controlled council is overspending to the tune of £50 a head, that is certainly no exception. I agree, certainly in respect of my own locality, that it is a shame that people do not rescue themselves by voting in local elections in the way that they vote in a general election. If they did that, we would not have a Labour council any more. Because of that, I support the Government's capping proposals.
  I support the capping proposals in the absence of a radical reform of finding a local mechanism for holding local politicians to account. I would much rather a system where, if local councillors, having been elected, wished to spend more than central Government thought they should, they did not have to stand for re-election as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) suggested, but faced a yes-no referendum on whether councils should be allowed a budget that was bigger than that commensurate with the standard spending assessment set for it.
  I hope that Opposition Members agree that, although that would take away the party political aspect, which would reduce confusion in the electorate about who has

  853
  authority for what and exactly what the power relationship is between central Government and local government, it would make matters clear cut. People would be asked, "Do you vote yes or no to local councillors in effect challenging the authority of central Government, who obviously have the duty to protect public spending as a whole?" That would give an accurate and specific local mechanism which was better than the current mechanism which is clouded by party labels and national party politics.
  We must not make the same mistake that we made when we changed from the rating system to the community charge, when councillors—mainly socialist but including some Tory councillors who were only Tory in name and description but not in action—took their community charge payers, the Government and this Parliament to the cleaners. They used the opportunity that was presented by the change in the system to whack up their spending in a cynical fashion. When Thurrock council did that, I said in the local papers that its cynicism was worse than that of Ceausescu in Romania. That ruthless political cynicism went on up and down the country and the main victims were those who were least able to pay. However, Labour councils were determined to ensure that people were fleeced. They banked on the fact—with some success, unfortunately—that the electorate would blame the change in the system, whereas it was the promises and decisions that those Labour councils were making within the system that were to blame for millions of citizens being fleeced.
  I also support the courts retaining strong powers to extract payment from those who will not pay. My Labour opponent in Thurrock trotted along to the inaugural meeting of the Thurrock branch of the Anti-Poll Tax Union, which was held at the Thameside theatre at Grays, thus giving that organisation succour and support. With the odd exception—I accept that there will always be odd exceptions, especially in relation to the standard community charge on houses that are no longer lived in and where there are problems in selling the property—because of the generous rebate system that exists, and the even more generous rebate system that is proposed under the new legislation, there is no valid excuse for non-payment for the person paying one personal community charge.
  The most important improvement under the new system as compared with the old rating system is the provision for a 25 per cent. discount. However, I should like to know how the figure of 25 per cent. was arrived at. Is there any likelihood, on reflection, of its being increased? Although I would not go as far as some of my hon. Friends who believe that there should be a discount of 50 per cent.—although none has said so in the debate—I suggest that the discount should be about 40 per cent. For reasons that I shall not go into in detail now, and although I believe that the 50 per cent. figure is illogical, I believe that the 25 per cent. discount is possibly too low. Could not larger households, containing more than two adults, pay a small supplement to the council tax and thus, in effect, fund the increased reduction of 40 per cent. for single householders?
  The principle of the community charge was never all that unpopular—[Interruption.] Opposition Members
  854
  may make strange hissing noises, but, as has already been said, the vast majority of the British people are fair-minded, and they saw nothing wrong with the principle that all those who have the right to vote in local elections should, in some degree or another, make some contribution to the revenue that has to be raised. The Labour party will come unstuck on that point. Opposition Members may glibly adopt slogans and dub the council tax "poll tax mark II", but they will come unstuck if they make such comments as a way of buttressing their attack on the principle that any system of local government finance should take at least some account of the number of people living in a household. The proposed reduction for single person households is the only element of the previous system that has been retained. I cannot put it any more strongly than "an element". The Opposition will come extremely unstuck if they attack the Bill on that basis.
  One weakness of the current system is that community charge payers do not see the separate charges imposed by the county tier as opposed to the borough or district council tier of local government. Therefore, I am pleased that the legislation proposes to give a separate council tax figure for each tier of local government for those parts of the country, such as mine, where there are two tiers. However, may I also ask—if the answer is no, I hope that it will change—that the individual comparative standard spending assessment be set against the individual amounts? If that does not happen, we could end up with the tricky situation of a Tory-controlled county council, such as Essex, spending 2 per cent. under its SSA but, because it is a county, it will be raising a much bigger proportion of the total tax bill than the borough. Thurrock, for example, has a much smaller budget and raises a much smaller amount of money, but is overspending by £50 per head against its SSA. Given the deviousness of the people who run that council, I know that they will come out with all sorts of claptrap about the Labour local council taking much less money than the Tory county council. If the two figures are separated and given as individual amounts, it is essential that the individual SSA comparatives are also given so that people can put the figures in their proper context when they receive their bill.
  I am pleased to support the Bill tonight and shall be pleased to vote for it tomorrow on Second Reading. I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for making sure that I know where I am going and what I am doing. He does a good job on that. Surely, however, it cannot be beyond the wit of man to find a system of local government finance which is practical to implement and enforce, which is fair and is perceived as being fair by the public, which is comprehensively accepted by them and which gives accountability. Let us hope that the council tax is it.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: First, I should like to assure the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that I shall stick to what I understand to be the agreement behind the Chair to ensure that every hon. Member who wishes to participate in the debate has the opportunity to do so, especially those who have stayed for the whole debate——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I must correct what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The Chair is not involved in the question of the length of hon. Members' speeches. It is of course very nice if all hon. Members can be called, but a debate is a debate.
  Mr. McCartney: I did say "behind the Chair", Madam Deputy Speaker.
  As someone who has spent most of the last decade as an elected member of a local authority and having continued to serve in that capacity for a period after being elected to this House, I have listened with anger to those Conservative Back Benchers who are on the road to Damascus tonight and who have given us the reasons why they did not really support the introduction of the poll tax. They have said that it was all the fault of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley); that it was the fault of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer for not providing sufficient resources when the legislation was implemented; that it was the fault of the profligate Labour local authorities and that the local authorities failed to play fair with the central exchequer and to develop adequate systems for ensuring payment for local services. However, none of that is true.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has said, the poll tax was the Government's flagship. Last November, however, when the captain was ashore in Paris, restocking the victuals, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) delivered the black spot. But it was not the right hon. Gentleman who delivered the final blow; it was the former Prime Minister's most trusted and personally appointed Chancellor—the man who would ultimately replace her—who made the right hon. Lady walk the plank because of the poll tax.
  The right hon. Member for Henley delivered a 52-minute speech earlier today, of which five minutes dealt with the council tax while he spent 47 minutes on anything but the council tax. That was a signal that the admiral had finally scuppered his own flagship. Not since the sinking of the Graf Spey have we seen so many rats deserting a sinking ship at the same time.
  Unfortunately, Conservative Members have sought only to defend themselves tonight. They have not apologised for the poll tax's consequence for local government, its cost to local government or to the individuals who have suffered from it. At one stage, some Conservative Members even gloated over the fact that people in Wandsworth who can pay the poll tax do not have to pay any in the current year. That is grotesque when hundreds of miners' widows in my constituency, whose husbands died of pneumoconiosis, now have to pay the full poll tax because their widows' pension is taxed at 97p in the pound. They do not qualify for poll tax rebates simply because of that level of taxation. It was because of such grotesqueness that people recognised the unfairness of the poll tax. Many of my constituents who are Conservative voters and who can afford to pay the poll tax have been turned against that party because of its basic unfairness. It was only in November last year when it became clear that the right hon. Member for Henley was making a major grab for the Conservative leadership that the Cabinet was forced to do something about the poll tax.
  856
  Conservative Members have blamed everything bar themselves. What did the Prime Minister say in an interview with the Daily Mail shortly after being elected Prime Minister? He said:
  "I'll tell you the trouble with poll tax. We were bounced into it quickly because there was such a fuss about rates in Scotland and we were bounced without thinking because of the political fuss".
  Without thinking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues in the Cabinet bounced the poll tax and its consequences on the electorate of Britain. Tonight they ask us and the people of Britain to believe them when they say that they have got it right this time.
  What an admission for the Prime Minister to say that he did not think about the introduction of such a major piece of legislation. The poll tax being introduced in its second form this evening is a panic measure. It is an attempt to get the Conservatives over the next general election and give the impression, as they seek to do with the economy, that things are going well and are about right. They say, "Leave it to us chaps. With a steady hand on the tiller over the next few months, everything will come right and after the next election that will prove to be the case."
  The timescale is out of sync for one major reason. We have a crisis in local government funding in the United Kingdom. Whether local authorities are Conservative, Labour, Scottish National party, Liberal Democrat or Plaid Cymru, in the length and breadth of Britain there is a major crisis in the funding of local government. There is a crisis in the structure of local government, people's expectations of local government and the delivery of services. The reason is that for over a decade local government has been undermined, underfunded and placed in a hostile position by the Government.
  The consensus about delivery of local authority services in Britain was smashed deliberately by the Government and continues to be smashed by the introduction of this legislation. The measure will be unsuccessful. The tragedy is that the unsuccessful nature of the Bill will result in many of our constituents continuing to pay huge amounts towards local government finance while resources are ploughed into not improvement and development of services at local level but the administration of a system which is about hoping to ensure the return of the Conservative party to power.
  The council tax is clearly poll tax with another name. It has three basic and fundamental weaknesses which were present in the poll tax. It is not simple to understand—it is complex. Its complexities will mean that whether hon. Members support it or not, they will be unable to do anything to improve it within the parliamentary timescale. Therefore, a flawed Bill will go on to the statute book, just as the Bill which introduced the poll tax was flawed. The way in which the Bill will be put through the House will be a negation of the House of Commons' right to develop a strategy to create good legislation. Surely that is what the House should be about, irrespective of hon. Members' party political differences about the concepts and principles of legislation.
  When the Bill leaves the House it must be understood and it must be workable. To be workable it must be good law and have a benefit flowing from it. There is no way in which misuse of the guillotine can ensure that the Bill will

  857
  go out as a good and acceptable measure which will improve local government finance and the way in which the British people pay for it.
  The link between the concept of paying for local Government resources at local level and the maintenance of those payments has been the greatest disaster and tragedy of the poll tax. Previously, 99 per cent. of people paid the rates. More than 99 per cent. of local businesses paid the rates. In my area the figure was 99·7 per cent. The system was understood. It was simple and, despite people's grumbles, there was a commitment and an understanding that local government services had to be funded proportionately at local level. The poll tax ended that consensus for ever. No matter what system is brought into operation, millions of people will decide not to contribute to paying for local government services. In my view, that is a wrong decision. The Government broke into that basic tradition of life in the United Kingdom.
  The council tax will be expensive to administer and collect as was the poll tax. The council tax does not relate to people's ability to pay. That is one of the major reasons why the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) was important. How can it be that someone who has in excess of £150,000 per year disposable income can pay the same or less than a miner's wife in my constituency? Under no circumstances is that a fair system of local taxation.
  Not only the Labour party says that the council tax is unfair. The Secretary of State for Wales will reply to the debate tonight. He owes it to those of us who are worried about it to clarify exactly how students, and especially nursing students in the national health service, will be treated. The Royal College of Nursing has made it clear that the regulations which currently define students for the purposes of the community charge distinguish between nursing students pursuing Project 2000 courses, who are in receipt of a bursary, and students pursuing conventional nursing courses, who receive a training allowance. The incomes of the two groups of nursing students are similar but under the community charge Project 2000 students pay 20 per cent. of the tax while the others pay 100 per cent.
  In the same health authority student nurses may work together making beds and caring for patients. But when they leave the ward, one is exempt from the new community charge and others make an immediate payment. The Government must clarify the position under schedule 1 for nurses on the two types of courses. If they do not do so tonight, they should table amendments in Committee. It cannot be acceptable in terms of either logic or good administration to discriminate between the two types of student nurse.
  I will probably be one of the Opposition members of the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill. Although we are opposed to it in principle, I genuinely hope that the Government will provide an opportunity to examine the workings of this complex piece of legislation and ensure that when it leaves the House it has some semblance of a workable piece of legislation. Local authority treasurers, irrespective of local authority and party, all say that the timescale within which the Government intend to introduce the council tax and the way in which they intend to force through the proposals will leave local authorities in administrative trauma. The Government owe it to the
  858
  House, local government and, more importantly, to the British people to introduce workable proposals. I hope that when it is seen in Committee that there are major flaws in the Bill, the Government will be big enough to accept Opposition amendments to improve it. Britain cannot afford either financially or in terms of its democratic structures to go through another debacle like the poll tax.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is clear from the debate that every right hon. and hon. Member wants an equitable and bearable form of local government taxation. Indeed, as was rightly pointed out, this is not the first time that we have sought that end. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary set about devising such a form of taxation and it was the poll tax and the uniform business rate which brought us to this stage and so low in public esteem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said that the central proposition of the poll tax was that everyone should pay a little. Of course, if one recalls, that was not the first principle of the poll tax. The first principle was that we should all pay equally. On Second Reading of the poll tax legislation I accepted the advances of the Government and voted for the Bill. I am grateful for the processes of legislation in the House, because as the Bill unfolded it became clear that the original principle was unsustainable. It was so unsustainable that the Government had to accommodate the changes, inadequate as they turned out to be, which enabled my hon. Friend and other Conservative Members to argue that the principle of the poll tax was that everyone should pay a little, almost as if it were a discretionary tax. But the original concept was that everyone should pay equally and it was swept up by the magnificent phrase of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) with his usual panache—"Why should a duke pay more than a dustman". That phrase swept round the country and concentrated our minds on what the debate meant more than any other contribution.
  During the parliamentary discussions one began to understand the principles that underlay the debate, what it amounted to and why the tax could not be borne by our constituents. We could genuinely signify neither acquiescence nor consent.
  The spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party pointed out something about the process of legislation that was very true. At our first attempt to reform local government finance in the House, taking three bites of the cherry, there were 218 Government amendments in Committee—not the perversities of modest Back Benchers such as ourselves—135 on Report and 268 on Lords Report. That was the scale of amendments to a thought-through, carefully designed Bill that we were told was certain. We were told that we could return to our constituents and assure them that the tax was bearable, just and equal.
  I wish this Bill the best in the world. I want an equitable and bearable form of local government taxation. Normally, I would vote for the Second Reading, but the most extraordinary guillotine that has ever been introduced into the House is marching with the Bill. We are talking about a guillotine, which will be moved tomorrow, but in the knowledge of the Bill and of the fact,

  859
  fundamental to its passage, that we shall discuss in Committee for only nine days a Bill whose predecessor required more than 700 Government amendments. We have witnessed Ministers unable even to argue their new clauses let alone understand, for the conviction of the House, what the Bill means.
  The Government are insistent that by 6 December—St. Nicholas' day, that is Father Christmas' day—they will bring back to the House a Bill that they will claim has been thoughtfully considered. Conservative Members understand Burke's understanding of the British constitution. As Back Benchers of a constitutional party our role is to scrutinise legislation and to attest that our constituents, our people, will bear it. That is the justice of the system of Parliament—Parliament meaning that we have the right to free speech on behalf of our constituents. Yet, on the same Order Paper as this measure, the Government propose to restrict debate to nine days in Committee. It is a travesty of parliamentary procedures. It will do us down—not because the Bill may be wrong, but because we will be unable to judge it. Driving through a major piece of taxation legislation to secure their purpose this side of Christmas is the most high risk strategy that a Government can undertake.
  There is no point in imploring the Government because they have cast their die. I hope and pray that this Bill has integrity, because the assumption behind it is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has spent his days since he came to office with the Lord above and the accounting angels to forge the most perfect piece of legislation that has been known. That is an absurdity. I cannot imagine that the Government will not come forward with a large number of amendments.
  In the justice of this argument we are talking about the Local Government Finance Bill, but we have not heard one word from the Government about the uniform business rate which has been a fundamental element in the finances of our local authorities for many years. That issue has not been tackled.
  Whether the Bill is enacted before a general election is also a moot point, as we have no call over the processes and the time that the House of Lords takes for consideration of the Bill. Therefore, it may or may not come about. All that the Government will demonstrate is that by the brutal use of a guillotine they will certainly ensure that the Bill is enacted without proper and adequate debate. As a constitutional party, we have a duty to have regard to the form of debates and procedures in the House.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: That was an eloquent and honest speech by the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and he is right to draw attention to the savagery of the guillotine on this measure. This tax is being imposed on our constituents without proper parliamentary consideration. There will be an enormous number of flaws and unfairness in it. Like the poll tax, the consequences will be a scandal.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment's speeches today and during the Queen's Speech were full of jokes and banter, but many of my constituents do not view the costly shambles of the poll tax as much of a laughing matter. The Secretary of State has pretensions as a political heavyweight, but his performances have been more of a light banterweight. During the five minutes that he spoke
  860
  about the Bill in his 52-minute speech he was floored by his own seconds—Conservative Back Benchers—when they expressed their concern. That is why he spent as much time as he possibly could outside the ring, talking about anything but the council tax.
  The poll tax could have been abolished from April next year, but it will linger on for at least another year under the Government. At the end of 1990–91, £1 billion of the poll tax remains uncollected in England alone and about 7·5 million summonses will have been issued by the end of the year. That is the largest debt collection exercise in history.
  Many people think that the poll tax has already been abolished, which will make it even harder to collect. The non-collection element will be loaded on to the bills of those who pay, which is an inherent feature of the poll tax system. The Government must get the blame when bills go through people's doors, and I for one intend to make clear that that is their fault.
  Mr. James Paice: How can the hon. Gentleman say that it is the Government's fault when someone does not pay taxes? He is right to point out that arrears caused by people who have not paid are a burden on the vast majority of law-abiding people who pay up, whether they agree with the basis of the taxation or not. However, as some of the non-payers are members of the Labour party and are his colleagues on the Opposition Benches, how can he blame the Government for the fact that people have decided of their own free will not to pay a tax?
  Mr. Cohen: It is the Government's fault, because their legislation took no account of ability to pay. There will always be vast numbers of people who cannot afford to pay. I tabled a question asking how much the Government had set aside for bad debts, and the answer showed that not one penny had been set aside. There should he immediate abolition of the minimum 20 per cent. payment. That should happen this year, or at least in 1992–93.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Why?
  Mr. Cohen: Because it affects the poorest people.
  Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is on an important point. The 20 percenters, as they are colloquially known, receive benefits which more than compensate this year for their 20 per cent. payment of the community charge.
  Mr. Cohen: That is not the case in London where the 20 per cent. bill is higher than elsewhere in relation to DSS payments. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) reminded the House, the Audit Commission has said that it costs £15 to collect £8. Thirdly, there is a housing benefit crisis in local government. Low-income families are put at grave risk and local authorities are unable to administer the housing benefit system efficiently because they are tied to the 20 per cent. element. If it were abolished, administration of the poll tax system would be easier.
  The Government have accepted 100 per cent. rebates for the new tax. Why should abolition not apply to the poll tax during what are allegedly its last two years? The Government have been most mean in not getting rid of the 20 per cent. payments. On BBC news on 23 November last year the Prime Minister said:

  861
  "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."
  As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills so eloquently pointed out, we are seeing exactly the same thing with this tax.
  Mr. McCartney: In today's truncated debate hon. Members have questioned in great detail the precise nature of the rebate system for students and others who are eligible. The Government have been woolly about the exact meaning of their proposals. Because of the guillotine, amendments to ensure that the rebate system is simple and reaches people who require it may not be properly discussed.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We will not know whether an ability-to-pay element will apply in relation to the rebates.
  One of the major problems for local authorities is the computer software that is essential for the efficient billing and collecting of the tax. For the poll tax the Government gave councils 18 months to get their computer software in order, but the councils were unable to do so because they did not have the resources and the rules and complexities kept changing. It is now less than 17 months to April 1993 when the council tax will be introduced. Much of the information and secondary legislation which are vital to work out what will be in the computer programmes are not yet available. The Government are leading us to a shambles.
  Mr. Key: I am delighted to reassure the hon. Gentleman on the subject of computer software for local authorities. My Department is working closely with local authority associations on the matter. Only last week we had yet another meeting with them on the subject of computer software. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it plain that, unlike some other Bills, we hope that for this one not only will most of the regulations be in place before Royal Assent, but that draft regulations will be composed parallel to the legislation. Many of the draft regulations will be complete by Christmas. There is no point in engaging in scaremongering about a matter that is well in hand.
  Mr. Cohen: Experience shows that there will not be enough time and that on the Government's reckoning there will not be enough resources. Is the Minister saying that by Christmas every dot and comma of what local authorities need for their computers will be in place? The Government keep changing the rules of the game, which creates enormous problems for local authorities.
  Mr. McCartney: The Minister is disingenuous, because he did not mention the twin-track approach that local authorities have been asked to operate—not only the introduction of the new tax, but the maintenance of the poll tax. There will not be the same winding down that occurred with the old rating system. In addition, because of poll tax capping, local authorities have to deliver their budgets within a matter of weeks of the Government's decision on standard spending assessments. There could well be a major collapse in the administration of local government funding. I make not a party-political point,
  862
  but one which shows the reality of not having proper consultations on the time scale for implementing such a major piece of legislation.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right. Local authorities will have to administer the dying poll tax and deal with all the problems associated with that, while trying to get the new council tax system into play. The Government have not provided sufficient time or resources to ensure that the system works properly.
  Three major elements run through the council tax. One is its complexity, both for the authorities to administer and for ordinary people to understand. Secondly, a register will be required. As I said earlier, I do not think that a register is necessarily bad. We had a register of property under the old rating system. However, the new register will include personal details, especially in relation to the benefit and discount systems. That invasion of privacy will be a problem. Thirdly, many of the unfairnesses of the old poll tax will persist in the new council tax system.
  I want to run through the discount system. It is not targeted at those in greatest need, because ability to pay will not be a factor. Indeed, two discounts will be available to the owner of a second home—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Not in Wales.
  Mr. Cohen: Why should that be so in Wales, but not in England?
  The administration of the new tax will be complex. Local authorities will have to check the applications of those claiming discounts. They will have to police the discounts, both for someone's initial eligibility for the discount, and for any change in circumstances that might take away that eligibility. That is an enormous and difficult task for local authorities.
  The vital secondary legislation on the benefits system has not yet been published. My understanding was that it was likely to be published in the spring. Although I welcome the Minister's assurance that it will be earlier than that, we shall have to wait and see. Local authorities can do little preparatory work before the regulations are published.
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the complexities of the system, especially with regard to benefits. In my local authority it is estimated that only 9 per cent. of overall income will be raised by the council tax. Despite all the effort, the local authority will get only 9 per cent. of its income from the tax, even if it manages to achieve 100 per cent. collection—and the very idea of that is a nonsense. Does my hon. Friend know the estimated figure for his local authority?
  Mr. Cohen: Local authorities in London are estimating the figure to be about 15 per cent. The business rate has been taken away from local authorities, and in London that accounted for about £2 billion of income. That has implications for the gearing of the system.
  The proposed method of operation for the benefits system will cause enormous problems for families. If a liable person wants to claim benefit, he must tell his local council that a second person in the household has a low income. That implies that that person already knows the financial details of the second person, and if he does not that could create some problems. There is absolutely no incentive for the second person on a low income to sign the application form because he is not liable to pay the tax. He

  863
  will not be the one receiving the bill. Who is supposed to tell the council of any changes in circumstances? It may be in the interest of neither of those two persons to do so. If there is a fraudulent claim for benefits, who will be prosecuted? That is not clear from the way that the Bill is worded. The benefit structure is not workable, and it will be a software nightmare until it is made clear.
  Mr. Key: If one is talking about second adult rebates, of course it is true that we need to try to simplify the proposals, to overcome the administrative difficulties brought to our attention by local authority associations. It is true also that the regulations will be a matter for discussion at a later stage. Those aspects will have to be the subject of regulations that the House will have to consider later.
  Mr. Cohen: The Minister was not particularly forthright. Is he saying that they will be completed by Christmas?
  Mr. Key indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cohen: The Minister is shaking his head, so they will not be completed by Christmas. Local authorities had their fingers burnt before when they tried to get the software up and running and then found that the Government were changing the rules. It looks as though exactly the same will happen again in respect of the benefits system.
  Another feature that will survive from the poll tax is joint and several liability. Under that unfair system, many women were caught for bills payable by their husbands, and vice versa. Under the council tax, that hierarchy will be extended to two tenants, who, if they are at the same level in that hierarchy, could become responsible for each other's council tax jointly and severally. A tenant could be held responsible for an absentee landlord, in the same way that a married couple and partners living together as husband and wife will be responsible for each other. Not only is that unfair, but it will require checks by local authorities, and snooping to see how couples are living together to decide whether they are liable for each other's bill.
  Londoners will be particularly disadvantaged by the valuation banding. Most London homes will find themselves at the top levels. The Department of the Environment's own statistics give a Greater London average council tax for two adults of £478. From past experience, that figure could be out by as much as 100 per cent. In any event, it is 20 per cent. higher than for the rest of England and Wales.
  The Government must look to be fairer to London, with equalisation at least in the grants system—perhaps on the basis of incomes, or by taking the regional banding approach. They could at least give the business rate—or an element of it—back to London so that the bills can be kept down there.
  There is no local accountability in the new system. That was discarded as the justification for the poll tax. In its place we shall have the serious problem of gearing for London. As I said, something like 15 per cent. of a local authority's revenue will come from the council tax, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that in some local authorities the percentage will be even lower. That will have serious consequences, because where there is a small increase in spending by a
  864
  local authority, high gearing will result in a large increase in the council tax that it has to levy. In Tower Hamlets, for example, a 1 per cent. spending increase will mean an 11 per cent. rise in council tax. In Newham, the figure is 9 per cent.; in Hackney, it is 8 per cent.; in Waltham Forest, my borough, it is about 7 per cent. That is unfair, and it certainly does not represent local accountability.
  Mr. Tony Banks: As my hon. Friend clearly knows far more about the Bill than does the Secretary of State, I am far more likely to get sensible answers out of him. What will this mean for my borough?
  Mr. Cohen: Every 1 per cent. over the figure set by the Government will mean at least a 9 per cent. increase in Newham's tax. Moreover, the Government's original standard spending assessment may or may not be realistic.
  The Secretary of State also controls the criteria for capping. If he considers an authority's budget excessive—or, indeed, considers it an excessive increase on the previous year's budget—that is sufficient reason for him to cap that authority. Although the authority may appeal, the Secretary of State controls the appeal process as well. That, too, directly negates the principle of local accountability.
  Mr. McCartney: A recent survey showed that my local authority, Wigan metropolitan council, was one of Britain's top 10 councils in terms of giving value for money. According to its standard spending assessment, Manchester needs 69 per cent. more money to provide the same level of service. Why is my borough—which is also in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—to be capped? It is being penalised for providing a cost-effective service.
  Mr. Cohen: That is an example of the arbitrary nature of the capping arrangement, and shows the extent to which it is controlled by the Secretary of State. Local accountability has gone out of the window; Ministers no longer even talk about it, because they know that it is not a reality.
  Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cohen: No, I will not; I have only a few minutes left.
  The Government may call the proposed tax a council tax, but the bills will be their bills. That message will become increasingly clear.
  Mr. Lewis rose——
  Mr. Cohen: Because my hon. Friend looks so disconsolate, I will give way to him after all.
  Mr. Lewis: I did not take it personally, but I thank my hon. Friend none the less.
  I have just had an exchange with the Secretary of State for Wales across the Floor of the House. The irony of the position described by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is that, if Wigan had received the same amount in grant as was received by Wandsworth and Westminster in the year in which it was capped, it would not have had to levy a tax at all; indeed, it might have been able to give money back from the previous year's levy.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has made his point very well.

  865
  The Bill gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging new powers, relating not only to capping but to the vast number of orders and regulations that he will be able to issue, and even to the grants that will be given to London's voluntary organisations. If a London voluntary body cannot agree a budget, as happened this year, the Secretary of State will set one, but will make no allowance for inflation. It would have been far better if majority voting had applied in that instance.
  The worst aspect of all, however, is the way in which poll tax penalties have been carried forward and retained in this council tax Bill. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux commented on two features of the problem: imprisonment, and the position of bailiffs. In regard to bailiffs, the association said:
  "We believe that the law and practice concerning the bailiffs should be urgently reviewed and amended. CABs would wish to see enforcement by private bailiffs abolished. All cases against individuals involving less than a specified amount (£25,000, for example) should be enforced through the County Court. It is much more straightforward to have warrants set aside and negotiations entered into in the County Court whereas Magistrates Courts are usually unwilling to reconsider until a warrant has been returned to the court. In addition, County Court bailiffs are employees of the court and usually better trained and more aware of the legal responsibilities and duties. On the other hand, private bailiffs are subject to far less control and scrutiny. Disturbing cases of abuse of power and criminal activity have been reported concerning private bailiffs. Monitoring of private bailiffs is needed as a matter of urgency."
  On imprisonment the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux says:
  "Imprisonment of people for arrears of community charge should cease immediately."
  It is not a left-wing Labour council or Member of Parliament who says that. It is the NACAB, which continues:
  "It is financially highly inefficient and imprisoning people because of their financial vulnerability should be anathema to a humane society."
  The council tax is better than the poll tax, but only just. It is still appallingly ill thought out and it will be grossly unfair. It is a mess. We need an election and a Labour Government to clear up the mess.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made a number of unscheduled statements in the debate. I listened to them with great interest.
  At the beginning of the Secretary of State for the Environment's speech there was a fusillade of Government interventions. The tenor of those interventions was worry and apprehension. There were interventions from the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), and the hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Rochford (Dr. Clark), for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) sought a 2·5 per cent. increase in value added tax—but he is standing down at the general election.
  I heard the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) say of the poll tax that it was the most
  866
  misconceived legislation ever. He was intensely critical of the capping proposals in the Bill. He said that capping is "crude and unsatisfactory." I understand that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) strongly criticised the Bill. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West—a Conservative—said that the poll tax was a disaster. He severely criticised his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), for the manner in which he had introduced the poll tax. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—a Conservative—said that the Government had got the poll tax wrong. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that the Government had wasted vast sums of money and that the council tax would not survive.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) made a robust speech. He called the council tax the poll tax mark II and said that the new tax was to be bulldozed through the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that Her Majesty's Government did not know how to organise local government. In his vigorous speech, he produced examples of the statements he has made. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) expressed his anger at Conservative Back Benchers who had supported the poll tax measures and who are now trooping forth to support this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton made a passionate case for getting rid of the 20 per cent. minimum payment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) called the council tax a schizophrenic tax. He must be right. He spoke for the people of Neath and west Glamorgan, as he always does. We on these Benches agree with his wish that the money thrown at the poll tax had been invested in schools, hospitals and job creation. We understand why he had come to the House today to denounce freeloading for the rich. He, too, sought the end of the 20 per cent. payment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) spoke eloquently for social justice and said how the Prime Minister had been bounced into supporting the poll tax. We all drew the appropriate conclusions from her remarks on that.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will tell us whether the rumours are correct that this week—perhaps tomorrow—the Government will make statements on local government finance for 1992–93.
  Less than four years ago, the House debated the Second Reading of the poll tax bill. The poll tax has been a social, political and economic disaster of historic proportions. It has brought financial and administrative chaos to councils throughout Wales. It has caused collection problems on a hitherto unprecedented scale, and more than £100 million worth of taxpayers' money has been squandered on administering the wretched tax in Wales alone. The people of Wales deserve an apology from Ministers
  The poll tax was conceived in Finchley, tested on Scotland, and imposed on Wales via the Wirral. The people of Wales have had the misfortune of having a concentration of poll tax fanatics representing them in Whitehall. I shall be generous because I shall exclude the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who is not here. He is well liked and sticks to his brief come what may—a tactic that has rightly earned him the nickname of the "Bardic steamroller".

  867
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is of a different vein. He told the House:
  "The community charge is a fair tax and a reasonable charge to make on people, so we should support it."—[Official Report, 23 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 911.]
  We know that he was the archetypal loyal Thatcherite Back Bencher in the Second Reading debate four years ago. He told the House:
  "The system of charging on the basis of property … is absurd."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1151.]
  He was a member of the No Turning Back group, and he has not changed.
  To placate the hon. Member for Pembroke and his kind, the Government introduced the council tax—a property-poll tax hybrid that makes but fleeting reference to ability to pay.
  The poll tax has been an outstanding success for the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt)—it has got him into the Cabinet. When his appointment as Secretary of State for Wales was announced, he told the House:
  "I … look forward to explaining in Wales, as I have in England …the way in which the community charge is a much fairer and simpler system"—[Official Report, 21 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1109.]
  He told the Conservative local government conference:
  "In time I believe the community charge will come to be accepted for what it is; simple, straightforward, and, above all fair.
  What came next? It was a priceless gem:
  "But it will also do local government a power of good."
  It did, like a dose of strychnine. That is how the right hon. Member for Wirral, West got into the Cabinet.
  I found one other instructive quote from the right hon. Gentleman—a delphic utterance worthy of William Wordsworth at his best. In March 1990, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I have an instinctive suspicion of calm. Calm comes before a storm. But equally so, a storm precedes calm. So too, I believe, it will be with the community charge."
  Can we believe anything that Conservative Ministers say? Dare we believe anything that the Secretary of State for Wales will say? Did these Welsh Office Ministers experience a Pauline-like conversion on the road from the Welsh Office to the House? No. Poll tax panic prompted this change—a change borne out of short-term electoral desperation. It is not repentance; it is simply that they are scared for their skins and wish to save parliamentary seats in the general election.
  With the council tax, the Government are set to repeat the mistakes of the poll tax. Like the poll tax, this property tax is deeply flawed. We believe that it is not fair, it is not practical, and it will not stand the test of time. The undoing of the poll tax was its unfairness. The people of Wales—not the local authority associations, not even Her Majesty's splendid Opposition—killed the poll tax. The people of Wales saw that it was unfair and they will not be fooled by this council tax.
  The council tax will retain the most objectionable parts of the poll tax—the head count tax on the individual. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley said, the council tax will simply put a new kind of poll tax on the statute book. Just like the poll tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Neath said, the council tax is designed to protect the very rich. It will protect, at the expense of the rest, those people in Wales who live in the most expensive properties.
  868
  People in the top band in Wales will pay only three times the council tax of those at the bottom, although the value of their property is more than eight times greater.
  The importance of the head count element in the property poll tax is most clearly shown in the proposals for the discounts. There is no relationship to ability to pay. One could say that a bank manager living alone will receive the same discount as a dustman. The poll tax has been a bureaucratic nightmare. It has thrown Welsh councils into administrative chaos and has proved difficult and expensive to collect. In Wales alone, it has cost more than £100 million to set up and administer.
  Mr. Blunkett: In Wales alone.
  Mr. Jones: In Wales alone, as my hon. Friend says.
  The poll tax has succeeded in making ordinary citizens suspicious and resentful of local taxation. Some now pay late and with ill feeling. That is the achievement of Conservative Members. Resentment of the council tax will grow. That is certain as people begin to understand that the valuation given to their property is not necessarily the actual property value. That is soon to dawn on the people of Wales, and on people throughout Britain.
  That resentment will grow further when people realise that the Welsh Office has got its sums wrong and that the bills that they pay will be much higher than Welsh Office estimates. I hope that the Secretary of State will address this question: does he accept that council tax bills are likely to be much higher than the Welsh Office predicted? Does he agree with the Nationwide Anglia building society, which said that house prices in Wales are below those used by the Welsh Office for its council tax calculations?
  The right hon. Gentleman already had to allocate more than £10 million to offset part of the cost of implementing the council tax in Wales. As with the poll tax, our local authorities believe that the cost will far exceed that predicted by Welsh Office Ministers and their officials. Indeed, Welsh councils are also unhappy about the fact that the Government have invented a new tax but that the councils are expected to foot part of the bill for its implementation from their existing resources.
  We believe that the principle of accountability in local democracy has gone out of the window under this Government. First under the poll tax and now under the council tax, central control has replaced local democracy in determining spending.
  Mr. McCartney: An old Soviet system.
  Mr. Jones: An old Soviet system, as my hon. Friend says. Local authorities are to be held accountable for the effects of a financial system over which they will have even less control than the councils in England and Scotland. In Wales, for every 1 per cent. increase in local spending, the council tax will rise by an average of 12 per cent. That is a severe gearing.
  Greater accountability could be achieved if the Government accepted Labour's proposal to return control of the business rate to local authorities. I emphasise that the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Council of Welsh Districts and the Audit Commission back the restoration of local control over the business rate. In this case, only the Secretary of State stands in the way of a move to decentralise control over local spending and to return it to

  869
  local communities. The Bill contains no provision for the widely supported proposal to strengthen local accountability.
  I refer briefly to the question of second homes in Wales. Some hon. Members referred to the issue, but in the time available I say only that we all accept that second homes present a threat in parts of Wales. We also know that the poll tax arrangements for empty premises can be very unfair, for example, to elderly people in hospital or old people's homes. The Government's proposals for second homes in Wales are wrong.
  The discount principle is costly to administer. It will require a register, and a proper rebate system would do the job much better. In Committee we shall probe deeply into that issue.
  The Government are bringing the council tax to Wales out of the utmost panic. The Conservatives are offering a property poll tax in a desperate effort to avoid what we know to be their imminent electoral slaughter, as we would call it. The people of Wales observe the Government's panic-stricken measures with contempt. They do not support them. They recollect that the Secretary of State for Wales perfected the poll tax and boasted of its merits. Indeed, he was promoted to the Cabinet for his total commitment to that hated and unjust tax in Wales.
  The people of Wales do not believe the right hon. Gentleman's protestations about the so-called council tax. We know that it still has a poll tax element, that it will still need a register, and that it still does not relate to the ability to pay. It will still create administrative chaos. It is still unfair and costly. It still keeps the uniform business rate. It still celebrates central Government control.
  All of us who represent Welsh constituencies know that in the general election the Conservatives will lose their seats there. The people of Wales now regard this tired Government with the utmost contempt. They await the general election with enthusiasm because they want this wretched Government out of office. They know that the next Queen's Speech will be the product of a Labour Government. They want a fair deal and, under the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islywn (Mr. Kinnock), justice and fair play is what they will get.
  9.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I have listened carefully to 19 speeches, each of which has, in its own way, added to the lustre of this occasion.
  Before dealing with the many points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, I propose to say something about Wales but, before doing that, I should point out that I have never in my life before spoken from one doughnut to another. Given their present configuration, Opposition Front-Bench Members might better be described as a hot dog. I do not know where all the Labour Back-Bench Members, supposedly so angry about the Bill, can have gone. It appears that only five or six Labour Back Benchers have come here to protest about local government finance. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about your lot?"]
  Although the hot dog is making so much noise, I shall endeavour to say something about the structure in Wales. My predecessors and I have enjoyed a close and fruitful
  870
  working relationship with local authorities in Wales over many years and I believe that that has contributed significantly to the efficient and effective conduct of business between central and local government which is the key to the debate. I have previously paid tribute to the high level of dedication and professionalism exhibited by the staff of all Welsh councils in introducing and managing changes in local government finance. It is commendable that they have once again quickly seized the opportunity to involve themselves fully with my Department in working towards the successful implementation of the council tax in 1993.
  In that respect, close contact has been established with leaders of the Council of Welsh Districts and the Assembly of Welsh Counties, and local government officers and my officials are paying detailed attention to the practical aspects of implementing the new council tax, including—as the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said—the information technology requirement.
  It is nonsense to claim—as one or two Opposition Members have—that councils will not be ready to implement the tax in 1993. The Government have introduced the Bill at the earliest possible moment in the Session, and we shall ensure that secondary legislation is made as quickly as possible. Combined with the preparatory work now being undertaken, that will give councils the maximum time to prepare themselves before April 1993.
  I welcome the positive approach—perhaps I should qualify that by saying "part positive"—adopted by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) towards the Committee stage. I hope that the Committee will examine the Bill carefully. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has a longstanding opposition to guillotines, but he will recall that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have proposed that we should adopt a procedure under which there is an automatic timetable motion in respect of all Bills. He should consider that. However, my hon. Friend is right to point out that there must be sufficient time to consider the Bill. We must be satisfied that there is an appropriate amount of time. My hon. Friend made his point very effectively.
  We believe that the council tax is straight forward and fair. It is based on the market value of properties, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment explained. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) that regional banding would produce many more anomalies. The tax takes account of the number of people in households. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) asked us to review the 25 per cent. discount. However, 90 per cent. of adults are counted if one counts, as we do, one or two in the household. There are generous rebates for those on low incomes. In that context, we commend the new council tax.
  Mr. McCartney: Before I accept the Secretary of State's olive branch and damn my political career in front of my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, will he clarify at an early stage in the Standing Committee the position about nurses in Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland who take courses and then return to their own districts? Irrespective of how nurses enter a training scheme, will all nurses undertaking training be treated in the same way?
  Mr. Hunt: I withdraw the commendation that I gave the hon. Gentleman, but only because that is damaging his political career.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked about students and student nurses. I want to make the Government's proposals absolutely clear. Students, student nurses, apprentices and YT trainees will receive a 25 per cent. personal discount. That means that such people cannot increase the bill for any household. As I have said before, they are invisible with regard to the council tax.
  Student nurses, other than those on Project 2000, with apprentices and YT trainees, will be able to claim council tax benefit if they are on low incomes. However, because most students and student nurses on Project 2000 cannot obtain social security benefits, we have made special arrangements for them. Property occupied only by students will he exempt. Student halls of residence and hostels will be exempt, as will be houses and flats where all the residents are students. Students living alone will not therefore have to pay.
  Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State for Wales is trying to be helpful and to clarify the matter. However, if a landlord or landlady has a resident student, is there any guarantee that the student will not be asked to contribute towards the council tax?
  Mr. Hunt: I obviously cannot give that guarantee. Where students choose to share accommodation with non-students, the point that the hon. Gentleman described arises. They will have to decide between them how the council tax bill is shared. However, their presence will not add to the bill. If a number of people share a house, it is unlikely that any student in it would be worse off than under the community charge.
  Several hon. Members have said that there must be a register. The Government have made it absolutely clear that a statutory register of council taxpayers is not required. There is no provision for one in the Bill. It will be up to councils to decide how to keep—[Interruption.] Of course it will. It will be up to councils to decide how to keep——
  Mr. Douglas rose——
  Mr. Hunt: May I finish my sentence?
  It will be up to councils to decide how to keep information about people who are liable to pay the council tax. Some councils may choose to canvass residents, but there will be no requirement, and there is no requirement in the Bill, to respond to such a canvass.
  Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State canvass how this matter is being approached from the point of view of data protection? What advice would he give local authorities which might want to keep not a register but a list? What is the difference between a register and a list in relation to data protection?
  Mr. Hunt: I could say that the hon. Gentleman should ask one of his former hon. Friends because he has given a definition. I am talking about a statutory register. There is no provision in the Bill for a statutory register. I make that absolutely clear. We have answered that point—there is no statutory register. The hon. Member for Dunfermline,
  872
  West (Mr. Douglas), who I believe is a prospective candidate in Garscadden, need have no worries about a statutory register in respect of the council tax.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Hunt: I have many points to answer, rather than respond to hon. Members who have not been present for the full debate.—[Interruption.] I shall give way in a few moments.
  One of the points that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) failed to make is what he proposes to introduce in Wales. I can disclose tonight that there is a five-point plan of pain for the Welsh people. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what it is. The first point was given by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on 26 March in an interview on the "Today" programme. He said that the Labour party intends to increase the burden of council spending met locally to 20 per cent.
  Mr. Gould: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunt: Let me finish the quotation. I want the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside to respond, because, although that is an increase of 40 per cent. in England, it is two and a half times what is raised presently in Wales.
  Mr. Gould rose——
  Mr. Hunt: I want the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside to respond. He does not want to respond.
  Mr. Gould rose——
  Mr. Hunt: I want the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside to respond. I say to the hon. Member for Dagenham what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said about his speech, which is that he made very heavy weather. As soon as he finished his speech, he fled from the Chamber like a fly-by-night quack doctor, disappearing before his patent medicine is tasted. He might well brief the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside.
  Mr. Gould rose——
  Mr. Hunt: In Wales, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—
  Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a convention in the House that if an hon. Member is attacked by a Front-Bench Member, he is allowed the opportunity to reply.
  Mr. Hunt: I was merely quoting what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said and I have said that I am willing to give way to him.
  The second point is that we have been told that we in Wales would return to the rates. At present, Wales has rates that are structured on rateable values that were worked out in 1973. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Leeds, North-West, I must now advise the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that a revaluation would be bad news for Wales. I do not believe that the rates are a fair system.
  The words of the right hon. Member for IsIwyn (Mr. Kinnock), speaking in Gwent in 1980, have been quoted against us many times today. The Opposition replied, "That was 10 years ago", to which my hon. Friend the

  873
  Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), whom I commend for this observation, said, that 10 years was a very long time for the Leader of the Opposition and 10 minutes was about the average length of every policy that he had put forward. The right hon. Gentleman said that the rates were the most unjust form of local taxation, yet under Labour we would have a revaluation that would be carried out on an arbitrary basis such as the market price; the rebuilding cost; the maintenance and repair cost; the private rent value; the number of windows, the size of the roof, or the view from the property. What on earth is the modernised valuation system? It is bad news for Wales.
  Under Labour, there would be unlimited spending. As my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Thurrock have said, people expected to be protected by central Government, but we have been told by the Labour party that there will be no limit whatsoever on spending. If we look at the rates proposals—[Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—[Interruption.] He does not want to intervene because what I am saying is right. I advise him that with unlimited spending, with arbitrary revaluations, with a rates proposal that goes back to 1973——
  Mr. Gould rose——
  Mr. Hunt: No, I have said that I will give way to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside.
  With a rates system that no longer preserves the Welsh grant advantage, it is all bad news for Wales.
  Labour's rates proposals are to fairness what Henry VIII was to marital stability and what Basil Fawlty is to the art of hospital and hotel management. Labour's faulty fairness is something—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should see what Basil Fawlty has done to hospitals as well as to hotels.
  It is about time that Opposition Members reconsidered this matter. I made an offer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that he may well recall. I said that I was
  874
  willing to see him and his colleagues to consult on how best and how quickly to abolish the poll tax and on how best and how quickly to introduce a new and fairer system. The Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and Conservative Members came in to see me, but the Labour party did not.
  Mr. Lewis: Will the Secretary of State tell us how many ideas from the Liberals and others he has included in the Bill?
  Mr. Hunt: I am not sure what the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) is trying to say, but although I made an offer to his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside, the hon. Gentleman did not come to see me. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is brandishing a document that he sent to me, but he refused my offer to come to see me. I understand that the hon. Member for Dagenham also refused a similar offer from my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). It does not sit easily with that denial of consultation for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside now to criticise my right hon. Friends and myself for introducing fair and straightforward proposals for a council tax.
  Many of the points which have been raised this evening will be considered in Committee. Not only did the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) get his facts wrong, but the key point——
  Mr. Barry Jones: The Secretary of State has consistently misrepresented the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and all the statements that the Labour party has made about the matter. The people of Wales are tired of observing him whingeing and whining his way around Wales. The people of Wales do not take kindly—
  Mr. Hunt rose——
  Mr. Jones:—to being lectured by the right hon. Gentleman, who is the man who perfected the poll tax. He should be ashamed of himself.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Derbyshire Police Force
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  10 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: It is without any pleasure that I seek once more to call the attention of the House to the problems faced by Derbyshire police force. I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues here, including my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) a:nd for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and several other colleagues. I know that they share my views and worries.
  The House will recall my Adjournment debate of 22 January 1991 following the publication in December 1990 for the first time of the annual report by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary, Mr. Geoffrey Dear. Mr. Dear painted a picture of a poorly funded, undermanned force under great pressure, and a chief constable with his hands tied behind his back by council rules and bureaucracy such that decisions on spending even minute amounts have to be referred to a committee, including items as minute as the installation of a telephone line.
  The fingerprint bureau was on the point of collapse. Specialised services on drugs and undercover activity were severely curtailed. The police computer was overloaded. Police stations were falling apart and in a disgusting state. The net result was rising crime and falling detection rates—an astonishing pattern in our sensible and law-abiding community. In all, Mr. Dear threatened to withhold the certificate of efficiency if matters did not improve.
  Mr. Dear has now returned to Derbyshire and has produced another interim report. It makes even worse reading and it distresses me to have to bring it to the attention of the House. In paragraph 2.2 he reminds everybody that in his first report
  "the state of policing in Derbyshire was described as 'mixed but all too often one of deterioration in infrastructure and morale.' … The position almost 12 months later is now worse."
  He reports, for example, exactly what the committee has done since the first report was published. The report was discussed with the police authority back in October 1990 and with the chairman of the police authority in October 1990. It was published in December 1990 and almost immediately debated by the police committee. What did the committee do? Did it pass resolutions to spend more money and get itself organised to ensure that the police could run themselves properly? No. The only thing that it did was to clarify the legality of its position. So it sought the opinion of legal counsel. It instructed him in February 1991. It received his opinion in March 1991. The report went back to legal counsel with suggested amendments. It was debated again on 4 June 1991.
  Mr. Dear says that almost no action that could be registered and measured by Her Majesty's inspector has yet been taken by the police committee. He commented rather wryly:
  "Whether or not the delay of almost 6 months was procrastination must remain a matter of opinion."
  The committee was still discussing its response to crucial aspects of the first inspection when the next inspection process commenced in May this year.
  Where are we now? Let us take staffing. The authorised establishment of Derbyshire police force is 1,820 officers. That is effectively the official Home Office ceiling. It has
  876
  been increased twice in recent months. It has been increased by 27 posts. But the actual number of police officers employed at 15 October 1991 was 1,713, not 1,820. That is a reduction of 38 officers in a year. The council's main reaction to Mr. Dear's complaints of undermanning has been to cut the force even further. All recruitment stopped in mid-1990 and we are now more than 100 officers below strength. Moreover, there are now 66 fewer officers in post than there were 10 years ago. That has been the result of 10 years of Labour control in Derbyshire county council. Yet, according to the chief constable, in the same period calls for service have increased by 85 per cent. In 1990 a total of 220,000 calls for service—a record—were received. The sensible response would have been to increase the number of officers, not to cut them.
  The shortfall was made worse by the high level of civilian staff, which is traditional in Derbyshire. However, the county is not recruiting them either, and they are 100 posts below establishment. That means that we have even fewer uniformed officers on our streets because they have to do civilian tasks such as manning telephones.
  There are virtually no traffic wardens, school patrols are entirely haphazard activities, and in many parts of the county rural policing has disappeared—it is non-existent in many parts, especially in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West and in my own constituency.
  This is not fantasy—I am not making it up. In paragraph 2.16 of his report, the inspector says:
  "The effect on the public of Derbyshire must now be very serious. It was apparent throughout the Inspection that substantial areas of the County are no longer patrolled by the Police. The Chief Constable has recently stated that community policing is now a myth and foot patrols a rarity."
  The results should be fairly obvious. The crime rate in the first quarter of 1991 rose by 26 per cent. over previous years in Derbyshire. In the same period, burglary in dwellings was up by 65 per cent., compared to a 15 per cent. increase nationally. The detection rate is well down and has fallen steadily in the past four years—the detection rate for burglary in dwellings is now less than 20 per cent.
  Officers are working huge amounts of overtime and they are not being paid for it. The sickness rate is well up and is a matter of considerable concern. Because no spare officers are available to give assistance, attacks on the police have increased and are 50 per cent. higher than in similar forces.
  The situation is deeply worrying. Let me quote again from the report so that people realise that I am not making this up. For example, in paragraph 2.19 it states
  "HMI was concerned to hear, repeatedly, from police officers that they were having to concede more and more ground to the hooligans in the street, as no police back-up could be expected when scanty resources were deployed to incidents."
  Those of my constituents who are members of the police force—both uniformed and civilian—and those in the constituencies of my hon. Friends are absolute saints to continue to work in such circumstances with bravery, courage, commitment and cheerfulness. The fact that they do so and produce any results at all in such circumstances says a great deal about the men and women who serve us all in Derbyshire. It is a heartbreaking business.
  Why is it happening? Money has a lot to do with it, as it has with every problem in Derbyshire. It is interesting to reflect on that. The Labour party won control of Derbyshire with a substantial majority in 1981 and the

  877
  inspector of constabulary says that there have been at least eight years of progressive underfunding by the police committee—1·8 per cent. per annum less than the average for English non-metropolitan forces. The cumulative effect in the past decade means that the force has more than 14 per cent. less funding than it would have been expected to have. The inspector adds that he thinks that
  "the Force was in a parlous state in 1990."
  This year he says:
  "a further £2·116 million has been cut from the budget. Effectively the police budget only grew by 5·4% in 1991–92 over the previous year, in the face of inflation and pay awards running at 9·5%."
  That results in an absolutely ridiculous state of affairs. The way in which the cuts and budgetary controls are applied makes Derbyshire the laughing stock of the country. I shall give the House a few examples. Throughout the country, mileage restrictions on operational vehicles and on essential users include the following:
  "in the north west of the County, an area 20 miles across, was patrolled by an Area car with a 40 miles allocation for an 8 hour tour of duty; in the conurbation the panda vehicles were restricted to 28 miles for each 8 hour shift".
  One of them recently ran out of petrol and had to do a 45-mile round trip for fuel when its total allocation for the whole shift was only 28 miles.
  "supervisory officers were virtually confined to their office or foot after midnight on the night shift when they had used up their allocation. Some detectives were restricted to 18 miles per day with their main custody suite located some 12 miles away from their base."
  That of course means that the police pay for petrol out of their own pockets and that is an absolute disgrace.
  There was a row over a kettle in the communications room at Alfreton in Amber Valley, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley drew attention. The electric kettle broke down and will not work unless somebody stands beside it holding in the knob. They sensibly asked for a new kettle but were told that they could not have one because cuts meant that no new equipment or furniture of any kind was available. The office staff even have to share staples. Depriving our police force of a cup of tea is astronomically vindictive and silly.
  However, Derbyshire county council is not short of money. The standard spending assessment for all services in Derbyshire was set at 17 per cent. over the 1990–91 figure. By anybody's calculations that is much more than inflation and allows a tremendous amount of growth—and growth there has been. The fire service, which has an SSA of £15 million, had a budget of £15·7 million. It spent more than its SSA, but perhaps that has something to do with the marginally left-wing nature of the fire services union in our area. However, the fire service, especially in south Derbyshire, does a very good job.
  The SSA for the social services is £68 million but the total spend is £86 million. That is not a misprint. The social services spend £18 million more than SSA partly because everybody in Derbyshire gets free home helps whether they are in financial need or not. Education has an SSA of £311 million, but its actual budget this year is £350 million, almost £40 million more than its SSA. My hon. Friends know where the money is spent. I shall return to that.
  The police SSA is £32·3 million and that is the amount that the county budgets to spend on them. It is the only budget in which the SSA is exactly matched by what is
  878
  spent. The largest chunk of the increase over SSA is spent on funding school meals in Derbyshire because the price has not been increased for more than 10 years. My constituents face the most extraordinary problems. They cannot police the place for themselves or teach for themselves, yet 400 teachers face redundancy this year. My constituents cannot run the library service for themselves, but some libraries in my constituency have been closed.
  The one thing at which my constituents are jolly good is feeding their children and they do not need to be subsidised to the tune of £14 million a year to do it. That is where some of the money goes. Some of it also goes on several splendid, wonderful, much-admired council newspapers. The official cost of this rubbish is nearly £200,000 a year. There is one for the work force and something called "Green Watch" on which I have had correspondence with the county director and which costs about £60,000 a year. They all go in the bin because we have abandoned the process that we adopted some years ago of posting them back to the county officials and the councillors because that was not having any effect. If the official cost of that little lot is well over £250,000, I suspect, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley will agree, that the actual cost is much more.
  Our football clubs have free policing. Mr. Justice Taylor's report following his inquiry into the Hillsborough stadium disaster commented on the cost of policing and stated:
  "The temptation to the clubs to leave it all to the police is stronger if they are not required to make a realistic payment for police services."
  He commented with amazement that the charge was supposed to be entirely arbitrary and that at one ground it was said to be nil. Just one ground in the entire country does not pay for its police service, and of course that has to be Derby County football club, yet it is the Derbyshire police force that so desperately needs the money.
  The council spent £600,000 on a legal department. It has sued most hon. Members in the Chamber tonight——
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Unsuccessfully.
  Mrs. Currie: No doubt it will be equally unsuccessful in future. Goodness only knows why the county has to spend so much. It challenged the Government on charge-capping legislation and lost. The moment that there is any challenge to the council, there is an inquiry. It spent £24,000 on a so-called independent inquiry into the library service. It spent £10,000 on market research into the attitudes of the police, when it could have spent that money on such items as kettles for the constables to have a cup of tea, a little more petrol and so on. It is all nonsense.
  Recently, the council agreed to send a group of its councillors and supporters on a day trip to Brussels in December to lobby MEPs on the single European market impact on "immigration and citizenship issues." That quote comes from the council's press release. The council is sending not just one or two people, and not at their own expense; it is sending a whole coachload of them at our expense. Goodness knows what they think they will do when they get there, except possibly claim their attendance allowances and charge us even more.
  We all know how the funding system works for the police. The county council could choose to spend more on the police now; my understanding is that the Government

  879
  would match that spending pound for pound because the Home Office pays 51 per cent. The Government cannot simply hand over a large chunk of money, as they have done for education, because it would be wasted in the same way that so much of the other money is wasted.
  I quote with approbation the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Labour party spokesman on local government, who said:
  "Bureaucracy and incompetence are not a result of financial stringency … but rather the result of poor management or political direction."
  Never was a truer word spoken. It is time that Derbyshire county council accepted its responsibilities and ensured that the police can do their job. We want our lovely and beautiful county to return to the peaceful and relatively crime-free state that it was in before Labour won control.
  Labour's stupid and lunatic policies, which I have described, are the brainchild of one man, currently the leader of the council. I think that he hates the police, but why is a matter for speculation. Perhaps it is because he was convicted under a Trade Descriptions Act prosecution. Perhaps it is because of the miners' strike, when the working miners in my constituency were protected by the police. Perhaps it is because of a lingering belief in certain left-wing circles that the police should be the instrument of a socialist state, do what they are told and not make life difficult for criminals. That is a criminal attitude, which is found in county hall, and especially in the plush offices of the leader of the council and the chairman of the police committee.
  I call on both those people, but especially Councillor Bookbinder, to do the honourable thing and resign and let someone else, less political, less irresponsible and more sensible, to take their place.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the consent of both the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and the Minister to speak?
  Mr. Oppenheim: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) for allowing me to participate in the debate. I congratulate her on raising such an important issue. I do not want to go over the ground that she so expertly and thoroughly covered, but I want to emphasise that we are talking about real problems that have been caused for our constituents.
  Rarely a weekend passes when a constituent does not come to me worried about the state of the police, about underpolicing in the area and about the way that the police are so thinly spread on the ground that they cannot always tackle the problem of crime in the way that they should and would like to be able to do.
  I emphasise that I do not believe that the current state of affairs is in any way the fault of the police. People in Derbyshire get a tremendously good deal from their police, who are generally people of the highest calibre and do a tremendous job under difficult circumstances. In return, the police receive the wholehearted support of the vast majority of Derbyshire people. If it were not for the high calibre of the county's police and the attitude of Derbyshire people, the situation would be much worse.
  880
  The problem is that Derbyshire police are hamstrung by the county council, which effectively holds the purse strings. Councils all over Britain have to order their priorities, and we all appreciate the difficulties of prioritising different parts of public spending. The difficulties in Derbyshire centre on the priorities that the county council and its leadership have chosen.
  Over the past 10 years or so, the county council has taken on more than 8,000 extra staff—the highest increase of any such authority in England and Wales. At the same time, Derbyshire is the only county in England and Wales to have fewer police. Virtually every county in Britain except Derbyshire has many more police than 12 years ago. It seems strange that the county council's priorities are so warped that it can employ 8,000 extra people—some of whom are in worthwhile jobs, but not all—but employ fewer police than 10 years ago.
  That serious problem possibly transcends all the other difficulties that the regime in Matlock has caused for people in Derbyshire. Responsibility for it lies fairly and squarely at the feet of the leader of the county council. I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South in saying that it is time that Councillor Bookbinder did the honourable thing and departed quietly from the scene.
  People in Derbyshire are sick of Councillor Bookbinder's posturing and posing. They are tired of the way that he seems to place more emphasis and importance on trying to set up a millionaire's resort in Russia, and manages to give well-paid jobs in the council to his political friends and cronies—rather than do his job properly and ensure that police in Derbyshire get the resources and support from the county council that they need and deserve to do their job properly.
  Above all, people in Derbyshire are fed up with Councillor Bookbinder's priorities, which hold that it is more important to spend £1 million on a publicity department than to put more police on the streets.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Instead of this knockabout stuff, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he agrees that the Government's standard spending assessment, which determines the level at which Derbyshire county council can spend, is wholly inadequate? Should not the Government ensure that the SSAs for many items, but particularly those relating to the police, are increased? That would improve the Government grant and ensure that money available for other areas could appropriately be spent on policing. That would also go some way towards improving what is a desperate situation—and the policing situation is desperate throughout the country.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman believes that this is knockabout stuff. The issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South and I are raising are of great concern to our constituents. It is disgraceful of the hon. Gentleman to claim that this is some sort of political knockabout. As to the SSA, clearly the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South, who dealt fully with that aspect.
  Councillor Bookbinder's fan club is dwindling, with its membership in the House now confined, it seems, to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—and even the councillor's own Labour colleagues in

  881
  Derbyshire think that it is time for him to go. If Councillor Bookbinder lines his own pockets with some spurious, well-paid county council job when he goes—as it is rumoured he will try to do—the people of Derbyshire will never forgive either Councillor Bookbinder or his Labour colleagues for letting him get away with it.
  10.24 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on securing this Adjournment debate. I am grateful to her, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), for their clear exposition of the difficulties faced by Derbyshire police as a result of the county council's policies and priorities. I am well aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) are also deeply concerned; they have demonstrated that by their presence in the Chamber this evening.
  As the House has already been reminded, this is the second Adjournment debate on this subject in the current year. That is a proper reflection of the continuing worry felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South—who has secured the debates—and other Conservative Members representing Derbyshire constituencies, who have given her audible moral support. It also reflects the Government's concern. We all share the same determination to ensure that the deficiencies that have been identified in successive HMI reports are addressed, and addressed effectively, so that the long-suffering public in Derbyshire can benefit from the standard of policing that other counties can take for granted.
  I stress, however, that it is the Derbyshire police force itself that most wishes to see improvements in the service with which the public are provided. It is no criticism of the chief constable or his officers to say that they are prevented by council policies from delivering the service that they would like to operate. Indeed—as Mr. Dear's most recent report makes clear—they are going to heroic lengths to provide as good a service as possible in the difficult circumstances in which they have been placed.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South pointed out, overtime is being worked voluntarily, without payment and without time off in lieu. Private vehicles are being used without recompense to ensure minimum levels of services. Everyone in Derbyshire can feel both pride and gratitude in regard to the dedication and commitment that are being shown throughout the force. Only by the determination of individual officers have the Derbyshire public been shielded from the full effects of the county council's lack of adequate support for the police.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire South knows, the Government share her concern about the state to which the county council has brought policing in Derbyshire. At a meeting last month, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary discussed the position with her and other Conservative Members, in the light of Mr. Dear's
  882
  interim inspection report published in September. It may help the House if I set out now how the Government see the position, and the next steps to be taken.
  Mr. Dear's first inspection report on Derbyshire, published in December 1990, set out in detail the effects of the combination of neglect and restrictive procedures from which the police force has suffered for a considerable period. He found the force on the brink of inefficiency, and made a series of key recommendations for improvements. Mr. Dear reviewed the position in a further inspection, the report of which was published in September. I am happy to say that the recommendations that were matters for the chief constable have largely been addressed, but recommendations affecting the procedures imposed by the police authority and the county council had been addressed so recently that Mr. Dear could reach no conclusion on their effectiveness at the time. Exceptionally, he has deferred making any formal judgment on the force's efficiency, and will revisit the force before the end of the financial year to assess the effect of the changes now in progress.
  I hope that by then Derbyshire will have taken the action needed to bring its police force up to the standards enjoyed by other counties. Let us make no mistake: it is the legal duty of the police authority, under section 4 of the Police Act 1964,
  "to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area".
  That is the authority's duty, and its alone.
  The whole tripartite structure of our policing is based on the division of powers and duties between the chief constable, the police authority and the Home Secretary. It works as long as all parties share the common aim of achieving the most effective policing possible; but it runs the risk—as we have seen in Derbyshire—of standards falling sharply if one party puts a spoke in the wheels. Derbyshire's problems are clearly of its own making. The county council may try to blame the standard spending assessment formula or the limited sums available for capital expenditure, but the fact remains that those factors apply equally to all other police authorities. Only in Derbyshire have affairs been so badly managed as to provoke such a level of criticism from the independent inspectorate.
  For all the serious criticisms in the report—and I do not devalue them in the slightest—Mr. Dear has noted some signs of progress. For instance, in January's Adjournment debate I drew the House's attention to the example of the casualty bureau which would, in the judgment of the 1990 report, be totally inadequate to deal with the demands of a major disaster. That has been improved, and I hope that other improvements will follow. Powers exist, resting with the Home Secretary, that can be used if the inspector, in his report, declares the authority to be insufficient, and not to be providing a service that can be described as in any way compatible with its obligations under the law.
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Goods Vehicle Drivers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statistical evidence is collected about accident rates for large goods vehicle drivers.

  Mr. Chope
  The statistics available cover road accidents involving personal injury and reported to the police. The standard report prepared by the police and submitted to the Department of Transport includes information on each vehicle involved and identifies the vehicle type. The report also includes the vehicle registration mark of any vehicles involved, and, by linking with data held at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea, a more precise definition of vehicle type can be obtained.

  Information about the driver includes age, sex and results of any roadside screening breath test, but no other personal details. Information on heavy goods vehicle traffic and movements are produced by the national traffic census and the continuing survey of roads and goods transportation. Information on heavy goods vehicle accident involvement rates is published in "Road Accidents Great Britain 1990: The Casualty Report". The involvement rate of HGVs in injury accidents has fallen from 70 per 100 million vehicle kilometres in 1980 to 56 per 100 million vehicle kilometres in 1990. The casualty rate for HGV drivers was 11 per 100 million vehicle kilometres in 1990.

  High-speed Rail Link
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparisons he has undertaken between the amount of revenue income attributable to the proposed King's Cross low-level international station from high-speed rail link services approaching via Stratford East, and those approaching from the previously proposed link from the south.

  Mr. Freeman
  The low-level station at King's Cross was treated by British Rail in its comparative study of routes for a high-speed rail link as an integral part of those routes in which it featured. British Rail's comparative estimates of the revenues obtainable from the traffic forecast for each of the routes is shown in its route comparison report, a copy of which is in the Library. In deciding their preferred route the Government took account of all the relevant considerations, including regional planning. the environmental impact, and the effect on property, as well as transport objectives.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport within what time range he expects the high-speed rail link from the channel tunnel to be(a) completed and (b) connected to the proposed low-level station at King's Cross.
  334
  Mr. Freeman
  It is too soon to say. No decision has yet been made on when construction may start.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the proposed rail link from Stratford to King's Cross will be designed to be able to take freight services;

  (2) whether he has yet received any proposals from British Rail for the use of the proposed rail link from Stratford to King's Cross for freight services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Further consideration has to be given to the implications of the proposed new line for freight. But if it were to be designed to be able to be used for freight, it seems unlikely that freight trains would run on the section between Stratford and King's Cross.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) within what range of real rates of return British Rail's revenue projections for the proposed international low-level station at King's Cross lie;

  (2) whether British Rail's proposals for the European passenger services component of the financing of the proposed international station at King's Cross envisage the involvement of any Government financial support; and whether British Rail is seeking any capital grant for the new Kent express or Thameslink components of the financing of the station;

  (3) what updated appraisal he has received from British Rail of its proposals for financing the works covered by the King's Cross Railways Bill following his decision that the high-speed rail link should come to King's Cross via Stratford.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has not yet received British Rail's detailed financial appraisal for the proposed King's Cross terminal.

  International passenger services using the station will be subject to the terms of section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, so they will have to cover the part of the station costs properly attributable to them out of commercial revenue.

  Network SouthEast is in principle eligible to receive capital grant in recognition of benefits of projects to non-users. British Rail has not sought such a grant so far in respect of the element of the cost of the proposed works at King's Cross relating to commuter services.

  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when the Ove Arup original consultation team will be able to visit the Medway constituency to continue discussions on the precise location of the route;

  (2) if he will meet constituents of the hon. Member for Medway to discuss their requirement that the channel tunnel rail link Medway crossing should be positioned as closely as possible to the present crossing;

  (3) if the Government will publish the precise details of the channel tunnel rail link route through the Medway constituency.

  Mr. Freeman
  The route originally proposed by Ove Arup, and developed further in conjuction with British Rail, will now be refined over the next few months. It will be published once sufficient details are available to form the basis of the public consultation process that BR will lead. There will then be ample opportunity for any concerns to be aired about the alignment of the route and how best to limit its environmental impact. Only after this will the plans be finalised.
  335
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proposals he has received from British Rail in furtherance of the implementation of its proposals in "International Rail Services for the United Kingdom" of 1989 to run 11 services per day from different places beyond London;

  (2) what proposals he has received from British Rail for the provision of the rolling stock it aims to obtain for the channel tunnel rail link services to run through-trains beyond London.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1989 investment proposals have been approved by the Government for various infrastructure works which are under way. We are considering proposals for the day trains. Orders for the night rolling stock depend on the outcome of British Rail's negotiations with their continental railway partners. British Rail's initial plans and requirements for rolling stock are not affected by the Government's recent decision on the rail link.

  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Ove Arup route now adopted for the channel link deviates in any way from that discussed with Ove Arup and the local communities.

  Mr. Freeman
  The supplementary note to British Rail's document "Rail Link Project: Comparison of routes: Report to British Railways Board, May 1991", a copy of which is in the Library, explains two late changes which Ove Arup introduced to its proposed route. These were summarised in letters which my right hon. and learned Friend's office sent to my hon. Friends the Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 14 October, and were reflected in the outline route map published by the Department.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be lifting his safeguarding directions covering the section of the previous British Rail preferred route for the channel tunnel rail link between Detling and Malling.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and leaned Friend made a direction on 5 November 1991 to the local authorities concerned. This varies the present safeguarding directions for the channel tunnel rail link in Kent so that these no longer apply to the west of the A249 at Detling.

  Brownieside
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now publish the report of the inspector who conducted the public inquiry into objections to the Al Brownieside improvement scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  The decision letter and inspector's report on the statutory orders for the A1 Brownieside improvement scheme will be issued in a matter of weeks.

  Blighted Homes
  Sir. John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be using his new powers under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 to make voluntary acquisitions of blighted homes regardless of their distance from the proposed new highway scheme in question.

  Mr. Chope
  Section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 gives my right hon. Friend the 336
  power to acquire property which in his opinion will be seriously affected by the Department's road schemes. The criteria by which he will exercise his discretion are under consideration.

  Driving Licence Fees
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the income from driving licence fees during 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  The income from driving licence fees for the year 1990–91 was £22,305,780.

  High-speed Rail Link
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish the precise details of the channel tunnel rail link route as it passes through the Dartford constituency; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects the original Ove Arup consultation scheme to visit the Dartford constituency to discuss the implications of the chosen channel tunnel rail link route upon local householders and communities;

  (3) if the route he has approved for the channel link in concept deviates significantly from that running at March 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner).

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department has taken over the past year to reduce the number of people who are killed or injured on the roads.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today published the "Road Safety Report 1990–91" which describes the measures to reduce casualties that the Department, together with the Scottish and Welsh Offices, have promoted over the past year. Copies have been placed in the House Library.

  Central European Time
  Sir Gerrard Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the effect of a move by the United Kingdom to central European time on the number of fatal and serious road accidents; and whether the Government support such a move.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to estimates by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory set out in the Green Paper "Summer time: A Consultation Document", CM722. The responses to the Green Paper revealed considerable difference of opinion within the United Kingdom about options for future summer time arrangements. Policy on those arrangements therefore remains under consideration.

  Smoke Emissions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will specify what type of smoke measuring equipment will be required for use in heavy goods vehicle testing stations.
  337
  Mr. Chope
  The vehicle inspectorate is currently studying which smoke opacity measuring equipment should be installed in heavy goods vehicle testing stations.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations to require the identification of manufacturers' emission standards as recorded at COP testing on under-bonnet plates.

  Mr. Chope
  There is no need to do this. Information on vehicle manufacturers' recommended emission levels is readily available from the manufacturers and their agents and from certain specialist publications.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what standards will be used to assess emissions of smoke from heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  The current test relies on a visual check of smoke density by vehicle examiners to standards which are published in the heavy goods vehicle inspection manual. The same standards will be applied when smoke meters are introduced into the testing scheme.

  Cycles
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that cycles using the public highway are equipped with an audible means of warning.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1984, there was consultation upon a proposal to require pedal cycles to be fitted with bells. The proposal was not implemented because it was subject to many objections from cycling organisations and also the Pedestrians Association. The issue will be considered further when the Pedal Cycles (Safety) Regulations are updated next year.

  Remote Sensing Equipment
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the use of remote sensing equipment to detect in-use vehicles which exceed the new MOT standards for carbon monoxide; and what action will be taken.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

DEFENCE

  Operation Buffalo Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to remove nuclear debris from the site of the Operation Buffalo nuclear tests and to store such debris in a nuclear waste depository.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter fror the Government of Australia.

  Maralinga Nuclear Test Site
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the extent of plutonium contamination of the Maralinga site, resulting from the minor trials of British nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The latest assessment of the extent of contamination of the Maralinga site is contained 338
  in the report by the technical assessment group entitled "Rehabilitation of Former Nuclear Test Sites in Australia" published by the Australian Department of Primary Industries and Energy in November 1990. I will arrange for a copy of this report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of the extent of radioactive contamination of the Maralinga site of the British nuclear bomb test; and what is his latest estimate of the cost of a clean up.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The latest assessment of the extent of contamination and cost of clean-up of the Maralinga site is contained in the report by the technical assessment group entitled "Rehabilitation of Former Nuclear Test Sites in Australia" published by the Australian Department of Primary Industries and Energy in November 1990. I will arrange for a copy of this report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates his Department has made of I he cost of decontamination of the Maralinga range, South Australia; what representations he has received on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Newport, (Mr. Flynn), on 5 November,Official Report, column 43, Estimates of the cost of options for rehabilitation of the former nuclear weapon test sites at Maralinga and Emu Field are set out in the report of the technical assessment group entitled "Rehabilitation of Former Nuclear Test Sites in Australia" published by the Australian Department of Primary Industries and Energy in November 1990. I will arrange for a copy of this report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Regiments
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the dates for restructuring the regiments of the combat arms.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is intended to implement the majority of the regimental mergers and other restructuring progressively over the next four years. Plans have been made for the following major changes to take place by early 1993:

  Early 1992

  40 Army Engineer Support Group and RHQ 28 Engineer Regiment amalgamate.

  30 Field Squadron Royal Engineers disbands.

  Mid 1992

  2nd and 3rd Royal Tank Regiments amalgamate

  4th/7th Dragoon Guards and 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards amalgamate.

  The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers merge to form two battalions.

  The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of The Royal Anglian Regiment merge to form two battalions.

  The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of The Royal Green Jackets merge to form two battalions

  52 Field Squadron (Construction) Royal Engineers disbands.

  244 Signal Squadron (Air Support) disbands.

  Late 1992

  The 1st and 2nd Battalions of 2nd King Edwards VII's Own Gurkha Rifles merge to form one battalion.

  339

  13th/18th Royal Hussars and 15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars amalgamate.

  The Life Guards and The Blues and Royals combine.

  The Royal Hussars and 14th/20th King's Hussars amalgamate.

  49 Field Regiment Royal Artillery disbands.

  22 Signal Regiment disbands.

  Early 1993

  The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of The Queen's Regiment together with The Royal Hampshire Regiment amalgamate to form a regiment of two battalions.

  The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of The Light Infantry merge to form two battalions.

  27 Field Regiment Royal Artillery disbands.

  50 Missile Regiment Royal Artillery disbands.

  Detailed planning for later years has not been finalized but it is expected that the following timetable will apply:

  The 1st and 2nd Battalions of The Royal Irish Rangers merge to form a single general service battalion.

  The Second Battalions of the Coldstream Guards and the Scots Guards are placed in suspended animation.

  The Cheshire Regiment and The Staffordshire Regiment amalgamate.

  The Queen's Own Hussars and The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars amalgamate.

  1st and 4th Royal Tank Regiments amalgamate. 16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers and 17th/21st Lancers amalgamate.

  45 Field Regiment Royal Artillery disbands.

  94 Locating Regiment Royal Artillery disbands.

  23 Engineer Regiment disbands.

  10 Field Squadron Royal Engineers disbands.

  16 Field Squadron Royal Engineers disbands.

  229 Signal Squadron disbands.

  The Queen's Own Highlanders and The Gordon Highlanders amalgamate.

  The Gloucestershire Regiment and The Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment amalgamate.

  The Royal Scots and The King's Own Scottish Borderers amalgamate.

  The Second Battalion of the Grenadier Guards is placed in suspended animation.

  2 Field Regiment Royal Artillery disbands.

  46 Air Defence Battery Royal Artillery disbands.26 Engineer Regiment disbands.

  Average sentence length1 of persons received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales under an immediate custodial sentence2: by sex, type of prisoner and ethnic origin, 1990

  Months

  Sex and Type of prisoner

  White

  West Indian Guyanese African

  Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi

  Chinese Arab Mixed

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  All persons

  Males

  Young Offenders

  12·2

  16·7

  16·1

  14·4

  11·6

  12·6

  Adults

  17·7

  25·5

  21·1

  23·2

  23·4

  18·6

  Females

  Young Offenders

  10·8

  19·3

  3·2

  13·2

  7·2

  11·7

  Adults

  12·4

  25·6

  37·6

  18·4

  16·2

  14·9

  1 Provisional Figures.

  2 Excluding those sentenced to life.

  Torture
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the report on the visit to the United Kingdom by the European committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have received the committee's report and have recently responded to it. Subject to the
  340

  26 Engineer Regiment disbands.

  38 Field Squadron Royal Engineers disbands.

  1st Armoured Division Headquarters and Signal Regiment disbands.

  2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles, 6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles, 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles and 10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles merge to form a single large regiment of three battalions.

  71 Amphibious Support Squadron Royal Engineers disbands.

  28 Signal Regiment disbands.

  NORTHAG Air Support Radio Squadron disbands.

  By 1997

  As part of the drawdown in Hong Kong: there will be a reduction of one further Gurkha battalion; The Queen's Gurkha Engineers, The Queen's Gurkha Signals and the Gurkha Transport Regiment will each reduce to one squadron; and 660 Squadron Army Air Corps will disband.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Population (Ethnic Groups)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average sentence length of the prison population for each major ethnic group.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The readily available information for 1990 is given in the table. The differences between the average sentence lengths received by males in the major ethnic groups in 1984–85 were discussed in Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue No. 17/86 "The Ethnic Origin of Prisoners: The Prison Population on 30 June 1985 and Persons Received July 1984—March 1985, paragraphs 24–27" a copy of which is in the Library. The differences were found to be associated with a range of factors including the type of offence, the type of court which had passed sentence, and the number of previous convictions.

  The average sentence lengths recorded for some of the female groups may be unrepresentative in that they are based on small numbers of persons.

  committee's agreement, we plan to make its report and the Government's response publicly available as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.

  City Status
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received for city status; and if he will list those towns seeking city status.
  341
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  It is likely that the Queen will wish to grant city status to one town to mark the 40th anniversary of her accession. I have received representations that their town might be chosen for this from and on behalf of the authorities of the following 20 towns in England: Blackburn; Bolton; Brighton; Chelmsford; Colchester; Croydon; Dudley; Guildford; Ipswich; Middlesbrough; Milton Keynes; Northampton; Preston; Sandwell; Shrewsbury; Southend-on-Sea; Stockport; Sunderland; Telford; and Wolverhampton.

  Dogs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the first set of centrally collected statistics related to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information relating to 1991 prosecutions is expected to be available towards the end of 1992.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the general secretary of the Prison Officers Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman and general secretary of the Prison Officers Association on 25 July 1991. I met them on 7 November. Subjects discussed at these meetings included the reorganisation of London prisons, the use of police cells, the corporate objectives process, the current review of the prison estate, contracting out and the Prison Service Union's application for recognition.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have escaped from prisons in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years up to 1 November.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The figures are as follows:

  Number

  Year ended 1 November 1989

  169

  Year ended 1 November 1990

  185

  Year ended 1 November 1991

  316

  Reports of all escapes are analysed to identify methods and possible preventive measures. The numbers of escapes nevertheless remain a cause for concern.

  Joseph Arthur Lewis Baker
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to write to the hon. Member for Stockton, South about the matters relating to Joseph Arthur Lewis Baker raised on 22 October 1991,Official Report, column 539,

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have written to my hon. Friend.

  Prison Cells, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison cells were out of use on 1 November at London prisons due to the work taking place on the installation of an internal sanitation system.
  342
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Three hundred and four cells.

  Relate
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are being used to decide the forthcoming level of grant allocation to Relate.

  Mr. John Pattern
  Subject to parliamentary approval of supply estimates the level of grant to Relate's central administrative costs in 1992–93 will maintain cores funding in real terms. Additional funding will be made available in 1992–93 for other activities designed to improve the organisation's management structures at national and local level.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will show the level of grant expenditure allocated to Relate each year since 1979, both at current prices and showing the percentage change in the level of funding.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is as follows:

  Grant

  Percentage increase

  (£ cash terms)

  on previous years

  1979–80

  418,000

  -

  1980–81

  555,000

  32·8

  1981–82

  704,000

  26·8

  1982–83

  750,000

  6·5

  1983–84

  788,000

  5·0

  1984–85

  827,460

  5·0

  1985–86

  864,570

  4·5

  1986–87

  890,500

  3·0

  1987–88

  912,870

  2·5

  1988–89

  935,910

  2·5

  1989–90

  958,890

  2·5

  1990–91

  1,006,840

  5·0

  1991–92

  1,107,500

  10·0

  1992–93

  11,511,400

  36·5

  1Subject to Parliamentary approval of Supply Estimates.

  In addition Relate received a special grant of £600,000 over the three years 1988–89 to 1990–91.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department is giving to the use of section 43 of the Shops Act 1950 to enable shops to trade legally on Sundays during the Christmas period.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 43 of the Shops Act 1950 contains no power to vary the provisions of the Act which are concerned specifically with Sunday trading.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance on which shops and markets may open and which goods may be legally offered for sale in England on Sundays between 17 November and Christmas.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a question from him given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 5 November 1991 at column 46.

  PC Tony Salt
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to why PC Mark Bury
  343
  was permitted to retire on medical grounds before disciplinary action was taken against him, following the various false statements he made about the circumstances surrounding the death of his colleague, PC Tony Salt;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to the date on which Assistant Chief Constable Meften became aware of the statement by the widow of PC Salt regarding the discovery of her husband's kubaton; and what action he took;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the West Midlands police regarding the disciplinary action taken against the officers responsible for obtaining confessions from Messrs. Peter Gibbs, Mark Samuels and Tony Frances on charges of murdering PC Tony Salt;

  (4) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to (a) the date when the widow of the late PC Tony Salt made a statement regarding the discovery at home of her husband's kubaton, (b) the date the statement was passed to the Crown prosecution service and (c) the date charges were dropped against the three men accused of Mr. Salt's murder.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. These are matters for the chief constable of the West Midlands.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order a public inquiry into the death of PC Tony Salt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Young Offenders
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to encourage the establishment of projects similar to the Ilderton motor project in Deptford;

  (2) if he will list the community-based projects in the United Kingdom which attempt to rehabilitate young people convicted of the offence of taking away a vehicle without the owner's consent; and how much Home Office funding has been allocated to such projects in recent years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office is providing £157,000 to seven motor projects this financial year under the young adult offenders grant scheme which exists to support voluntary organisations offering supervision to a wide range of offenders, in partnership with probation services. These projects are:

  £

  Guiding Hands Assocation, West Glamorgan

  20,787

  Croft Motor Trust, North Yorkshire

  4,100

  Car Offender Project, West Sussex

  27,774

  Dragon Wheels, South Glamorgan

  2,194

  NACRO New Careers Training, West Yorkshire

  69,653

  Telford Drive, Shropshire

  21,679

  Mendip Motor Project, Somerset

  11,300

  Total

  157,487

  Similarly the Home Office makes grants available through the safer cities programme to motor projects with the aims of crime prevention. Grants in this financial year are:

  £

  Salford Swinton Karting

  2,005

  Salford General Education in Automobile Responsibility

  12,000

  Nottingham Wheelbase

  13,500

  344

  £

  Hull Orchard Park Wheels

  750

  Coventry Henley Green Motorcycle

  16,000

  Bradford Motor Education

  16,500

  60,755

  No comprehensive record is held centrally of similar projects in England and Wales not funded by the Home Office.

  Overall provision for the young adult offender grant scheme is being increased from £2·8 million this financial year to £3·8 million next; further applications will be invited shortly and motor projects as well as others will be welcome to apply.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders have been transferred from Hewell Grange to other institutions since 1 September 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The following numbers of young offenders have been transferred from Hewell Grange since 1 September:

  Number

  Week commencing 1 September

  Nil

  Week commencing 8 September

  5

  Week commencing 15 September

  Nil

  Week commencing 22 September

  95

  Week commencing 29 September

  2

  On 30 September the role of Hewell Grange was changed from that of a young offender institution to a category D open prison for adult males.

  Football (Policing)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1986,(a) the total number of police officers on duty at Football League matches in England and Wales, (b) the total attendance at Football League matches in England and Wales, (c) the total number of police officers as a percentage of the total attendance at Football League matches in England and Wales and (d) the total number of police officers in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of police officers on duty at Football League matches is not held centrally. On 31 July 1991 I wrote to the hon. Member with details of the attendance at Football League matches in England and Wales; those details were placed in the Library. The number of police officers in England and Wales is contained in the following table:

  Police strength at 31 December

  1990

  127,090

  1989

  126,110

  1988

  124,759

  1987

  124,102

  1986

  121,550

NATIONAL FINANCE

  British Telecom
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the costs to the Government of(a) advertising, (b) marketing, (c) fees to advisers and (d) receiving bank and registration costs in connection with the sale of further shares in BT from (i) March 1990 to date and (ii) projected costs from March 1990 to March 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  Costs for the BT sale will be reported to Parliament after the sale has been completed. Sales proceeds will be appropriated in aid of the expenses of the sale.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to improve recruitment and retention levels in the civil service in the London area.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Recruitment and retention in the civil service is monitored carefully. There have been very significant improvements in the recruitment and retention position of the civil service in the London area, due in part to the changes in pay which the Government have introduced over the past three years.

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the United Kingdom net contribution to the community budget of the proposals on cohesion in the draft treaty on monetary union.

  Mr. Maude
  Cohesion is best achieved by sound macro-economic policies, supported by the existing structural funds, within which there is provision for commitments to be doubled in real terms by 1993 in comparison with 1987. Future levels of the funds will be considered as part of the review of Community finances, not within the intergovernmental conferences. There is no reason why economic and monetary union should justify increases in the funds; sound open-market policies should bring about the convergence of economic performance necessary before any decision could be taken to move to a single currency.

  Savings (Taxation)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give figures for the taxation on savings in each OECD country for savings of(a) £10,000 and (b) £20,000.

  Mr. Maude
  The tax charge would depend on the type of investments held and the degree to which they produced income or capital gains subject to tax, as well as the amount of income and gains from other sources received by the saver and the availability of tax allowances and reliefs.

  Guest Houses
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of revenue has been lost from uncollected uniform business rates from guest houses accommodating more than six paying guests.
  346
  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available.

THE ARTS

  Regional Arts Boards
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what progress has been made on the setting up of the new regional arts boards.

  Mr. Renton
  I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that excellent progress has been made. The 10 new regional arts boards formally came into being as planned on 1 October this year. The chairman and vast majority of board members have been appointed, and there remains only a small number of staff appointments to be made.

  Arts, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what financial assistance is currently given to the arts in London out of public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The Arts Council spent £19·3 million in London in 1990–91 on its own clients and through Greater London Arts. In addition, the Arts Council made grants totalling just under £51·5 million to the major national companies, which are mainly based in London.

  Local authorities in London also provide support for the arts from public funds.

  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to visit the Victoria and Albert museum to discuss the increase in its collection of fine arts.

  Mr. Renton
  I have made several visits to the Victoria and Albert museum and am familiar with the extent of its magnificent collections of fine arts. Last week I was pleased to announce additional funding of £5 million over four years to the museum to enable it to concentrate conservation of these collections in a single building at South Kensington.

  Arts Sponsorship
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts by how much the demand for business sponsorship incentive scheme awards exceeds the funding available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The business sponsorship incentive scheme has been very successful in attracting sponsorship, with 2,075 sponsors and £45 million new money for the arts since 1984. The scheme is currently confined to new sponsors and demand for matching awards is close to the current ceiling of £3·5 million. From 1992–93 the annual budget will be increased to £4·5 million to help sustain the continuing growth in business sponsorship of the arts.

  Museums (North-West)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what industrial museums he has visited in the last 12 months in the north-west.
  347
  Mr. Renton
  Since my appointment as Minister for the Arts in November 1990 I have visited the Quarry Bank mill at Styall in Cheshire, and the museum of science and industry in Manchester in June. Last week on a return visit to Manchester, I was pleased to announce a special grant of £200,000 in 1992–93 towards that museum's 1830s warehouse project.

  Birmingham (City of Music)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will visit Birmingham during its year as Arts Council city of music in 1992.

  Mr. Renton
  I was delighted to be present at the launch on 7 October of "Sounds like Birmingham", which sets out a full and exciting range of events to celebrate Birmingham's year as City of Music. It will also play a prominent part in National Music Day. I am inviting the EC Ministers of Culture to join me in Birmingham on 7 September 1992 to mark our presidency of the European Communities.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the achievements of the next steps agencies.

  Mr. Renton
  Next steps is progressing well. We are today publishing the 1991 annual review on next steps agencies together with the Government reply to the seventh report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. The annual review shows agencies meeting and beating targets for quality of service, financial performance and efficiency and gives many instances of improved service to customers.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when the Government intend to reply to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's seventh report of Session 1990–91, on the next steps initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government are today publishing, as Cm 1761, the reply to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's latest report on next steps.

  The Government are able to report further good progress in implementing next steps, with 56 agencies now established and 32 more announced candidates. Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue are moving towards full operation on next steps lines. In all, by next April over half the civil service should be covered, and some 70 agencies due to be established by next July. The Government are committed to completing the coverage as far as practicable by the end of 1993. Details of all existing agencies are set out in the second annual review of next steps, published today as Cm 1760, which also sets out their targets and the results they are achieving.

  The Government welcome the Committee's continuing endorsement of next steps, its recognition of the substantial progress that has been made, and its constructive recommendations. The Government remain firmly committed to taking forward this major programme of change, to making the reforms durable, and to ensuring that they deliver all the benefits of which they are capable.
  348
  Next steps is leading to a more effective and adaptable civil service, with all its traditional values of propriety and impartiality intact, but better attuned to deliver the high-quality public services for which the citizen increasingly looks.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Divorce
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has concerning the total cost of processing divorce applications in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  The information sought is not readily available. It is estimated that the administrative cost of processing divorce proceedings in the High Court and in the county courts in each of the last four years was:

  £ million

  1987–88

  16·5

  1988–89

  17·0

  1989–90

  18·3

  1990–91

  20·5

  A substantial proportion of these costs is recovered by way of court fees, as follows;

  £ million

  1987–88

  13·8

  1988–89

  14·8

  1989–90

  15·9

  1990–91

  16·9

  The net cost of legal aid and advice in divorce and related matters during the same period was:

  £ million

  1987–88

  95·6

  1988–89

  109·6

  1989–90

  117·4

  1990–91

  137·0

  Court Hearings
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will ensure that during court hearings of serious crimes, witnesses for the prosecution are securely separated from defendants' associates and defendants' witnesses while on court premises.

  The Attorney-General
  Segregated witness waiting rooms are provided in existing court buildings wherever possible. For new Crown court buildings, the design standards provide for a sufficient number of witness waiting rooms per courtroom and a separate witness suite which incorporates toilet facilities. Listing officers will, whenever possible, list cases so that witnesses and others involved are not kept waiting unnecessarily on court premises.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will ensure that witnesses attending hearings of serious crimes are invited to attend the court on a phased basis rather than having to be present at all times during a particular day.
  349
  The Attorney-General
  So far as possible, the Crown prosecution service tries to minimise delay for witnesses waiting to give evidence, and it is current practice to phase the attendance of witnesses in lengthy trials.

  County Court Rules
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average time taken to hear a disposal action at Lambeth county court under order 9, rule 3(3) of the county court rules; and what is the reason for this length of time.

  The Attorney-General
  There is no longer a hearing for a disposal action under order 9, rule 3(3). In line with the Lord Chancellor's objective of ensuring that business in the civil courts is dealt with at the most appropriate level this function is now undertaken by court staff.

  Extradition (Ireland)
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Attorney-General what arrangements have been made(a) to comply with the terms imposed by the Irish Republic on the endorsement of British warrants under the Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1989 and (b) to comply with the Irish demand for formal adoption of the speciality rule in extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

  The Attorney-General
  The effect of the Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987 in the Republic of Ireland is that a warrant issued in the United Kingdom can be backed for execution in the republic only if the Attorney-General in the republic is satisfied that there is a clear intention to prosecute the person, and that this intention is based on sufficient evidence. To enable the Attorney-General in the republic to discharge this duty, I have agreed that, in cases arising in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I shall supply him with a certificate confirming the prosecuting authority's intention to prosecute, a statement detailing the facts of the case, and a statement of the relevant law. These documents are not required, however, if the person concerned has been ordered to stand trial following a consideration of the evidence by a judicial authority, since the relevant provisions of the 1987 Act do not apply to such a case.

  There is no statutory speciality rule that applies to extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the republic. There is an agreement between the United Kingdom and the republic, however, which the Government have no plans to change and under which the consent of the requested state is required before charges, other than those for which the offender's return was ordered, may be substituted or added, save in the limited circumstances where the substituted offence is one for which the jury could enter an alternative verdict notwithstanding that the indictment contained only the charge for which his return was ordered.

  PC Tony Salt
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will order an inquiry into the failure of the Crown prosecution service to disclose to solicitors for the persons charged with murdering PC Tony Salt the statement by his widow regarding the discovery of her husband's kubaton; on what date it was disclosed; and if he will make a statement.
  350
  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service is committed to full discharge of its obligation to disclose to persons charged with criminal offences or to their lawyers all material not included in the prosecution case which has some bearing on the offences charged and the surrounding circumstances of the case. The acting Director of Public Prosecutions has not yet been able to ascertain whether there was a failure in this particular case but has asked for a report upon the circumstances. I will write to the hon. Member in the light of that report.

  Trade and Industry Select Committee
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made in his consideration of the papers sent to him by members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry relating to the alleged harassment of members of that Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery on 6 November 1991, at column 113.

  Inter-agency Steering Group
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement concerning the inter-agency steering group appointed to prepare plans for the implementation of the report of the working group on pre-trial issues.

  The Attorney General
  The Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and I have approved the implementation plan submitted recently by the steering group. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  In the preparation of the plan, the steering group consulted organisations and professional bodies with a direct interest in the working group's report. The steering group concluded that the interdependent nature of the recommendations means that it is necessary to implement the report as a package to achieve worthwhile improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of pre-trial and court procedures, for example the proposed national time guidelines for the progress of cases will only be realised if the police produce the standard of prosecution files required, the Crown prosecution service—CPS—serves advance information on the defence by the first hearing date, and the courts revise listing practices.

  The police, the CPS and the courts are required to adopt new approaches to their work which will substantially improve the quality of services provided to victims, witnesses, defendants and others involved in criminal proceedings. The agencies concerned have demonstrated their determination to act by the steps already taken to implement some of the recommendations. The majority of the recommendations will be implemented over the next two years, and those with significant resource implications will come into effect as the funds become available. The implementation dates allow for the introduction of certain recommendations, for example typed dual police files, in stages which reflect the degree of change required in different police forces, CPS areas and court centres.

  Because of the inter-related nature of recommendations it may be some time before the full benefits are seen to have been achieved across the system as a whole. My ministerial

  351
  colleagues and I are nevertheless satisfied that there is a very positive joint commitment to ensure progress in the shortest possible time scale.

  Social Security Tribunals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will introduce provisions to ensure that the Office of the Social Security Commissioner supplies claimants with details as to the reasons why they have been refused leave to appeal against a decision of a social security tribunal.

  The Attorney-General
  It is not proposed to alter the provisions of the Tribunals and Inquiries (Social Security Commissioners) Order 1980 which exempts commissioners from the obligation to give reasons for decisions on applications for leave to appeal.

  Shops Act 1950
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Attorney-General what new initiatives he will be taking to ensure that the Shops Act 1950 is enforced over the Christmas period.

  The Attorney-General
  It remains the responsibility of local authorities to consider with their legal advisers what means are at their disposal.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Attorney-General what practical means local authorities now have at their disposal to carry out their responsibilities for enforcing the Shops Act 1950.

  The Attorney-General
  Parliament has given local authorities the primary responsibility for enforcing the provisions about Sunday trading in the Shops Act 1950. I shall take account of all relevant circumstances known to me, including developments in the courts, in deciding whether any new initiative by me is appropriate.

  Attachment of Earnings Orders
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the implications of attachment of earnings orders for the security of an individual's employment.

  The Attorney-General
  No such assessment has been made. Employers have had a statutory obligation to comply with attachment of earnings orders since the commencement of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. If an individual is concerned about the effect of an attachment of earnings order on his relations with his employer, he may ask the court for a suspended order under which he makes payments directly to the creditor. Under this arrangement, a copy of the order is not sent to the employer.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs what a 3 per cent. increase in real terms in aid for developing countries, over the survey period referred to in the ODA press release of 6 November, would be in cash terms for the same period.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The overseas aid budget for developing countries is planned to increase to £1,980 million in 352
  1994–95 compared with the original planning figure for 1991–92 of £1,721 million; this is an increase in cash terms of 15 per cent.

  Simple Truth Appeal
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs whether he will make a statement on the allocation of funds raised for Kurdish refugees by the Simple Truth appeal.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The British Red Cross, which helped to distribute the funds, confirms that all of the £57,042,000, including the £13,832,000 raised in the United Kingdom, has been accounted for. The Government were pleased to contribute £10 million. We are satisfied that these funds have been properly used. Of the £10 million, we contributed US$10 million to United Nation agencies and £5 million to the British Red Cross.

  The British Red Cross figures show that of the £57,042,000, £56,098,000 has been distributed, leaving £396,000 in reserve earmarked for programmes in Iraq this winter; £250,000 of that sum was dispatched early last week to supplement winterisation programmes already in being. The difference of £548,000 represents British Red Cross's commendably low expenses.

PRIME MINISTER

  Irish Republic (Legislation)
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Prime Minister in how many cases proceedings in the Irish Republic under their Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976 have been requested by United Kingdom prosecuting authorities since 1976; in how many cases proceedings in the United Kingdom under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 have been requested by prosecuting authorities in the Irish Republic since 1975; and if he will make a statement on this reciprocal legislation.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1976 there have been 32 applications by the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities for proceedings in the republic under the 1976 Act. There have been no applications from the prosecuting authorities in the republic under the 1975 Act, but 18 persons have been prosecuted in the United Kingdom under that Act for offences allegedly committed in the republic.

  "Voice"
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to a letter to him from "Voice" dated 11 October.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It is not my normal practice to do so.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply of 5 November columns 42–43 about political advisers to Ministers, whether any of the individuals work for Ministers of lower rank than Secretary of State or equivalent.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. Six do so.
  353
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply of 5 November columns 42–43 about political advisers, whether there is any limit on the number of political advisers who can be appointed by individual Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  My approval is required for the appointment of all special advisers.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply of 5 November, columns 42–3, about political dvisers to Ministers, if he will list the names of the individuals concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  The names of the special advisers (political) currently serving are as follows:

  Mr. K. Adams

  Mrs. E. Laing

  Mr. L. Anisfield

  Mr. W. Lightfoot

  Mr. E. Bickham

  Mr. R. Marsh

  Mr. G. Black

  Mr. J. Mayhew

  Ms. A. Broom

  Ms. S. McEwen

  Ms. L. Campey

  Mr. P. Miller

  Mr. T. Collins

  Mr. P. Moman

  Mr. M. Fraser

  Mrs. K. Ramsay (part-time)

  Mr. J. R. M. Gardner

  Dr. W. Robinson

  Mr. C. M. Grantham

  Mr. A. Rosling

  Mr. H. Harris-Hughes

  Mr. A. Ross-Goobey

  Mr. J. Hill

  Mr. D. Ruffley

  Mrs. S. Hogg

  Mr. I. Stewart

  Ms. S. Hole

  Lady Strathnaver

  Mr. A. Kemp (part-time)

  Mr. N. True

  Mr. T. Kerpel

  Miss B. Wallis (part-time)

  Mrs. T. Keswick

  Mr. A. Young

  Civil Service (Sexual Harassment)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will develop a female contact point in the civil service management structure where women can seek guidance when suffering from sexual harassment.

  The Prime Minister
  The civil service is committed to providing a working environment which is free of harassment for all staff. Departments and agencies are advised to ensure that women who feel that they have been subjected to sexual harassment are able to go to a woman officer for advice and support in dealing with the problem. In many departments and agencies there are specially designated women officers to contact in case of sexual harassment. Specific training is available for those dealing with complaints of sexual harassment.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all Government policy initiatives taken since 1987 which aim to assist single parents.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is set out in the table.

  Policy initiatives taken since 1987 to assist lone parents

  Department/Date

  Policy initiative

  EMPLOYMENT September 1988

  Lone parents who have been in receipt of Income Support for at least 26 weeks may enter Employment Training even if they do not meet the usual eligibility criteria.

  HEALTH Since 1987

  The National Council for One Parent Families and Gingerbread have received over £1 million in core grants.

  Since 1987–88

  Gingerbread has received a total of £90,000 for its local groups from the Department's under fives small grants scheme.

  354

  Department/Date

  Policy initiative

  Early 1988

  Over £1 million of the RPI error monies was spent by 10 voluntary organisations on many different projects for lone parents.

  Since 1989–90

  The second Under Fives Initiative includes 4 local projects, costing in all over £300,000, to help understand better the effect of childcare services on the economic circumstances of lone parents.

  HOME OFFICE 1991

  In the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991 the Government has given courts additional powers to enforce the payment of maintenance, which will help to ensure that single parents receive the monies to which they are entitled. The Act will be implemented in spring 1992.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S 1989

  Single Parents can benefit from the new orders provided under the Children Act 1989. One of the Act's main principles is that parents should, wherever possible, come to an agreement about the future of their children without the intervention of the court.

  The Act also gives unmarried fathers the chance to apply for formal parental responsibility for their children.

  SOCIAL SECURITY April 1988

  The structure of personal allowances in Income Support provide that all lone parents aged 18 or over receive the full adult rate of benefit, normally only available from age 25.

  The Income Support lone parent premium is paid on top of the family premium to those lone parents who do not qualify for another type of premium.

  Income Support earnings disregard is £15 a week for lone parents, compared with a £5 disregard for most single people.

  Family Credit introduced: a much more generous scheme for all low income families than the Family Income Supplement scheme.

  In Family Credit lone parents get the same adult credit as two parent families.

  One Parent Benefit is ignored when calculating entitlement to Family Credit.

  Higher levels of lone parent premium in Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit.

  Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit rules for lone parents generally aligned with those in Income Support.

  October 1989

  Lone parents under 18 who have to live away from home entitled to the over 18 rate of Income Support personal allowance.

  April 1990

  Lone parent premium in Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit increased.

  October 1990

  Earnings disregard for those lone parents not on Income Support but receiving Housing Benefit or Community Charge Benefit increased from £15 to £25 a week.

  Planned for April 1992

  Reduction in qualifying hours rule in Family Credit from 24 to 16 hours a week. Corresponding change in Income Support.

  Introduction of £15 maintenance disregard in Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit.

  Child Support Unit Becomes operational and takes on existing liable relative work in preparation for the establishment of the Child Support Agency.

  355

  Department/Date

  Policy initiative

  Planned for Spring 1993

  Child Support Agency becomes operational. The Agency will trace absent parents, assess, collect and review child maintenance, and ensure that payments are made regularly.

  WELSH OFFICE

  Gingerbread is helped through the Support for Child and Family Services' grant scheme.

  1991–92

  A total of £24,440 has been awarded to Gingerbread to meet part of the costs of their Swansea office and of a development officer in North Wales.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make the European Community's policy for disabled people one of his priorities at the Maastricht summit.

  The Prime Minister
  We believe that existing provisions for disabled people at the European level are satisfactory. In addition, a number of new proposals relating to disabled people are under consideration.

  London Government
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received calling for a directly elected council for the London conurbation; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware none, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has received a dozen or so, mostly in response to consultation on the review of local government outside London and the metropolitan counties. I am aware that the main opposition parties and the Association of London Authorities want to recreate a Greater London council in all but name. I have no plans for changing the basic structure of local government in London.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to allow names and addresses of child benefit claimants to be sold or passed on outside the Department of Social Security.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 November 1991]: It is Government policy that all personal information, including names and addresses, held in social security records should be regarded as confidential and should not normally be disclosed to a third party without the consent of the person concerned. Information may normally be disclosed without consent to assist the police in the investigation of a serious crime; to meet the welfare needs of the individual concerned; to meet statutory requirements, for example, to other Government Departments or organisations which act as agents of the DSS in paying benefit; and to prevent the duplication of payments from public funds. We have no plans to change this policy.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes have been made in the arrangements regarding the sending of letters from chief executives of executive agencies to hon. Members in response to parliamentary questions when the House is not sitting.
  356
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 November 1991]: The aim of the arrangements for chief executives to write direct to hon. Members is to ensure that the replies are full, prompt and as helpful as possible. It is for individual Ministers to determine how they will achieve this, including when the House is not sitting.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each Department and each executive agency which employs its target quota of people with disabilities.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 November 1991]: All departments and agencies work to increase opportunities for people with disabilities, whether registered or unregistered, under a civil service code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities. The civil service compares favourably with the private sector and in 1990 six departments and agencies exceeded a 3 per cent. level of staff registered as disabled. The Government will continue to seek to ensure that disabled people have opportunities for employment in departments and agencies which are at least as good as those of able bodied people.

  Offensive Odours (Cardiff)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he has had concerning the Butetown main foul sewer and offensive odours in the area of the Cardiff bay pierhead broadwalk.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 November 1991]: During my visit to Cardiff bay on 20 September the problem was raised by local residents.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Adult Education
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to develop the provision of non-vocational adult education classes and increase the access to vocational classes for mature students.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Further and Higher Education Bill, which was introduced in another place on November 4. Our proposals are designed to increase participation and improve opportunities in further education, including for adults.

  English Teaching
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to legislate for the regulation of schools teaching English as a foreign language.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no plans for the regulation of private sector schools teaching English as a foreign language. Consumer choice, backed by the independent voluntary accreditation schemes, appropriately safeguards proper standards in the non-maintained further and higher education institutions.

  Howbury Grange School
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the future of Howbury Grange school, Slade Green, Erith.
  357
  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received five letters about the Howbury Grange school. Four expressed opposition to its proposed closure and one sought technical information about the statutory procedures relating to school closures.

  IQ Tests
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is provided in the syllabus to students at teacher training colleges on IQ or mental tests for children.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Secretary of State's criteria for the approval of courses of initial teacher training state:"on completion of their course students should have developed skills in the evaluation and recording of pupil performance, including in particular the testing and assessment requirements related to the National Curriculum and, where relevant, the preparation of pupils for public examinations."

ENERGY

  Energy and the Environment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what response he has made to the House of Lords European Affairs Select Committee report on energy and the environment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government provided the Committee with a response to each of the report's conclusions and recommendations on 16 October; with the agreement of the Committee, we placed a copy of the response in the Library on 7 November. A debate on the report is taking place this afternoon in another place.

  Coal Mining (Employment)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the levels of employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Oil and Gas Revenues
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the value of production in the United Kingdom continental shelf of the oil and gas revenues to the United Kingdom Exchequer.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the value of production in the United Kingdom continental shelf of oil and gas revenues to the United Kingdom Exchequer.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In his autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave his estimate of the value to the United Kingdom exchequer of UKCS oil and gas production as being £2·5 billion for the financial year 1990–91.

  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other European Community countries on the disposal of nuclear waste from electricity production on the sites of nuclear power stations and other nuclear installations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Neither the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has policy responsibility for nuclear waste management, nor myself, with responsibility for nuclear energy policy more widely, has recently had discussions with European Community counterparts on the disposal of nuclear waste from power stations and other nuclear installations.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of independent electricity generation projects.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government's policy is to encourage the development of competition in generation. The first new independent power station since privatisation, at Roosecote, has already started supplying electricity to the grid; construction work has now started at three other sites; and the Government are aware of around 20 other projects at various stages of consideration.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the percentage of energy generation from(a) nuclear and (b) renewable sources in 1995 and 2000.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I anticipate that the contribution made to electricity generation by renewables will grow strongly in the future. Nuclear generation will also continue to make a substantial contribution.

  Solar Energy
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research is being undertaken into the potential for active solar technology in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I announced on 19 August a review which is presently under way to investigate developments in active solar heating during the last 10 years. As part of that review we are undertaking a comprehensive survey of the United Kingdom active solar heating industry.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The non-fossil fuel obligation continues to ensure the availability in the national interest of nuclear generating capacity and, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy informed the House last week, is providing for the construction of greatly increased amounts of renewables-sourced generating capacity.

  Refuse Incineration
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the contribution to energy needs that could be provided by(a) refuse incineration and (b) sewage sludge incineration and the technical possibilities of achieving acceptable standards for either or both.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Energy recovery from refuse and sewage sludge incineration can be an economically attractive and environmentally acceptable disposal route. Our review of renewable energy will consider the potential contribution from such sources of energy.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement about combined heat and power schemes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government fully recognise the environmental and energy efficiency benefits of combined heat and power and the Energy Efficiency Office continues to promote the wider use of the technology under its best practice programme. Interest in CHP is at a high level and the prospects for CHP in the 1990s are most encouraging.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the coal industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the industry.

  Insulation
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most recent estimate of the annual amount spent on insulation measures in the private and public sectors.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most recent estimate of the annual amount spent on insulation measures in the private and public sectors.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not available. However, public sector expenditure to promote energy efficiency amounts to in excess of £1 billion.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what new initiatives he plans to increase the volume of energy generated by renewables.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The second Renewables Order laid before the House on 5 November has resulted in a very substantial increase of 472 MW of capacity being contracted with the regional electricity companies. I am currently reviewing our renewable energy strategy and a revised forward plan is expected in spring 1992.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total budget granted to the Energy Efficiency Office in each year from 1986–87 to 1991–92.
  360
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following figures give the budget provision for the Energy Efficiency Office in each year from 1986–87 to 1991–92:

  £ million

  1986–87

  21·3

  1987–88

  18·9

  1988–89

  20·3

  1989–90

  15·0

  1990–91

  23·3

  1991–92

  41·9

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent initiatives he has taken to promote research and development into clean coal technology.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In partnership with United Kingdom industry, British Coal and overseas agencies we have recently launched five new clean coal projects with a contract value of £20 million.

  Wind Technology
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the obligation for wind technology under the 1991 Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Renewables Order, calculated on the same basis as that used for the other technology bands in the statement of 5 November by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan),Official Report, columns 329–41.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The wind tranche of the 1991 renewables non-fossil fuel obligation has been set at a level that will build up to 82·43 MW declared net capacity. I understand that the regional electricity companies have entered into contracts for some 49 wind projects at a price of 11 p/kWh.

  Electricity Shareholders
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the number of electricity vouchers sent to customer shareholders in the 12 regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Nearly 1 million people who bought shares in their regional electricity companies last December were sent vouchers in August. The breakdown in respect of each company is as follows:

  Electricity vouchers issued by 1 October 1991:

  Company

  Number of vouchers

  Eastern Electricity

  62,099

  East Midlands Electricity

  62,300

  London Electricity

  27,344

  Manweb

  98,284

  Midlands Electricity

  137,083

  Northern Electric

  72,456

  NORWEB

  43,267

  SEEBOARD

  83,667

  Southern Electricity

  46,091

  South Wales Electricity

  79,924

  South Western Electricity

  72,038

  Yorkshire Electricity

  159,845

  Total

  944,378

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Debt Counselling
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list debt counselling services which are currently funded wholly or in part from his Department's budget; and what plans he has to expand funding of debt counselling services.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department does not provide funds specifically for debt counselling services and has no plans to do so. The main provider of debt counselling services nationally is the Citizens Advice Service which, through the network of citizens advice bureaux, advises on debt problems as part of its general advisory work. Individual bureaux are funded mainly by local authorities. My Department funds the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Citizens Advice Scotland which provide the support services to the local bureaux. Total DTI grant-in-aid in 1991–92 to NACAB and CAS will be about £12 million.

  Many lending institutions have already provided funds to support debt counselling services; the Government would like to see more following that lead.

  Insurance Services Group
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for 'Trade and Industry what steps he has taken within the specific powers and responsibilities of his office to assist civil service employees that have been or will be affected by the sale of the Insurance Services Group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Over 500 of ECGD employees have volunteered to transfer to the privatised new company which will take over the business of the Insurance Services Group. The decisions on who will be offered jobs in the new company and who will remain in ECGD will take account as far as possible of the preferences expressed by the employees. If there should be a surplus of people remaining in ECGD after all the transfers have taken place, every effort will be made to find them other jobs in the civil service. The appropriate unit of Her Majesty's Treasury has been alerted accordingly.

  Engineering Steel Industry
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has of the effect exercised upon the engineering steel industry by the increases in electricity prices in recent months; and if he proposes to offer advice or take any action in regard to this matter.

  Mr. Leigh
  I am aware of the concern expressed by companies in the engineering steel industry about electricity price increases. Monitoring the operation of the electricity market is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply, who is also aware of this concern.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Baltic States
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes for the return to the three Baltic sovereign states of their gold deposit made at the Bank of England in 1940.
  362
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have invited each Baltic Government to send a representative to London for a first round of discussions on the gold and other financial issues. Talks were held with the Estonian delegation on 7 November and the Latvian delegation on 8 November. In both cases it was agreed that a further round of discussions should be held. The discussions were friendly and useful progress was made. Talks with the Lithuanian delegation have been arranged for 13 November.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is being given by Her Majesty's Government to the Sahrawi refugees in the western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not provided any bilateral financial assistance to western Saharan refugees. However, we have given our full support to the United Nations Secretary-General's settlement plan, which envisages the holding of a referendum early next year. This will enable the Saharawi to determine their own future. We have contributed, both in terms of finance and personnel, to the United Nations mission (MINURSO) responsible for the organisation and conduct of the referendum.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the western Sahara in respect of the progress on the United Nations peace plan; and what action is being taken by the United Kingdom Government to support the peace plan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) on 5 November, column 27.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Council of Ministers last discussed the problems of disabled people; and when he next expects the Council of Ministers to discuss these problems.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Council of Ministers agreed a Council resolution on 31 May 1990 on the integration of disabled young people into ordinary systems of education.

  The Commission has published this year proposals concerning disabled people under its social action programme, but they have not yet been scheduled for Council discussion.

  Croatia
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to bring the fighting in Croatia to an end.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 8 November we and our EC partners agreed a number of economic measures against Yugoslavia. We shall now be working towards a United Nations Security Council resolution imposing restrictions on the sale of oil to Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making to provide a package of aid to assist the people of Croatia; and if he will make a statement.
  363
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are contributing £250,000 to the International Red Cross Committee's effort in Yugoslavia. Together with our share of the 1 million ecu already committed by the European Community this brings our total contribution to over £.1·3 million.

  European Union
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the current negotiations on European political, economic and monetary union leading up to the ministerial European Council on 8 December.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Following the European Council in Luxembourg on 28–29 June, the Netherlands presidency has made good progress in leading negotiations on both political and economic and monetary union towards settlement at the European Council in Maastricht on 9 to 10 December.

  On political union, the presidency has held a number of ministerial sessions of the intergovernmental conference since July and has made good progress on the basis of the Luxembourg presidency's text produced in June. A revised presidency text was produced on 9 November. It will be for the presidency to reconcile the differing views of member states in order to achieve an agreement acceptable to all at Maastricht.

  On economic and monetary union discussions are now focussed on a composite text of draft treaty amendments circulated by the Netherlands presidency on 28 October. The text is a useful basis for further negotiations, but neither the United Kingdom nor other member states are committed to any particular part of its contents.

  EC Draft Treaties
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what circulation has been given by the current Presidency of the European Council to the texts of their proposal for draft treaties on economic and monetary union and on political union; and what restrictions have been placed on their availability.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Luxembourg presidency circulated a draft treaty text on economic and monetary and political union on 18 June in advance of the Luxembourg European Council. The Netherlands presidency produced composite draft treaty texts on political union on 24 September and on economic and monetary union on 28 October. They also produced, on 9 November, a revised treaty text on political union in advance of the Conclave of Foreign Ministers, 12 to 14 November. These texts are circulated by the presidency to those participating in the intergovernmental conferences—that is, the member states and the Commission. These are working documents in a confidential negotiation, but they have in practice rapidly become public and are or will all be available in the Library of the House.

  Vietnamese Migrants
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Hurd
  On 9 November, 59 Vietnamese illegal immigrants were repatriated from Hong Kong to 364
  Vietnam. This group was made up of so-called double-backers—those who did not qualify as refugees, who volunteered to return to Vietnam from Hong Kong once, thereby benefiting from repatriation payment by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, but who re-entered Hong Kong illegally for a second time, together with members of their family. All were screened again after arrival in Hong Kong and, after appeal, were again determined not to qualify for refugee status under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention and its 1967 protocol.

  The repatriation was carried out in full accordance with standard international practices, over a two-day period, and in line with the internationally agreed comprehensive plan of action, in particular the provision that all those who are not refugees should return home. On 8 November the illegal immigrants were moved from the Nei Kwu detention centre to a transit centre at Kai Tak airport. On 9 November, they were transported by air to Vietnam. Those returned will spend up to three days in the British-financed Co Nhue transit centre near Hanoi to obtain identity documents before travelling by bus to their home villages.

  The Vietnamese Government have guaranteed that no illegal immigrant who returns to Vietnam will face persecution. They will facilitate the monitoring of all those who return by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others to ensure that these guarantees are fully respected. In the last two and a half years, more than 11,500 Vietnamese migrants have returned voluntarily to Vietnam from Hong Kong without a single substantiated case of persecution.

  Further repatriation will be arranged in the coming weeks. We welcome the fact that of the 160 double-backers whom we had originally intended to return to Vietnam on 9 November, more than half chose to opt for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' voluntary repatriation scheme. There remain almost 63,000 Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong. We hope that all those determined to be illegal immigrants in Hong Kong will similarly opt to volunteer to return to Vietnam.

  Hong Kong
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he envisages in his relationship with the Hong Kong Legislative Council following the recent elections.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We share the wish expressed by the Governor of Hong Kong to build up a co-operative partnership with the new Council. This is essential for the continued success of Hong Kong. We look forward to keeping in close touch with members of the Council.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Sittings of the House
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the cost in constant prices, in overtime, other payments and overheads, of sittings of the House beyond 10 pm for each year since 1961 for which records exist.

  Mr. Beith
  It is not possible to provide the information requested without disproportionate cost. It is expected,
  365
  however, that the systems necessary to identify many of the elements of such expenditure in future will be established as a result of the implementation of proposals agreed by the House in respect of the report made by Sir Robin lbbs to the House of Commons Commission.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Pay and Allowances
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to publish the reports of(a) the Hay Management Consultants into the office costs allowance, (b) the Office of Manpower economic report and (c) the Top Salaries Review Body report on Members' pay and allowances.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As part of the Top Salaries Review Body's review of the office costs allowance, the Office of Manpower Economics commissioned a report from Hay Management Consultants and ran a questionnaire survey of Members of Parliament. It is a matter for the review body to decide whether either or both of these are published. However, I am happy to draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the review body's attention.

  Select Committees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many departmental Select Committee reports there have been since the inception of the system; and how many have been debated on the Floor on a substantive motion.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 13 June 1989, col.357, which gave information for the period from 1979 until then. Since that time 196 reports and 90 special reports have been published by the departmentally related Select Committees. None has been debated on substantive motions; but several have been debated in other ways, including debates on estimate days and other occasions when reports were cited on the Order Paper as relevant to proceedings in the House.

  Suspended Sittings
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many times a Minister of the Crown has used the power to suspend the sitting under Standing Order No. 10 since 14 July 1969.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The last occasion was 14 July 1969.

  Thefts
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many thefts have been reported in the Palace of Westminster for the latest year.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The police in the Palace of Westminster have recorded 92 incidents of theft in the parliamentary precincts since 1 January 1991. Five arrests have been made in the same period.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will initiate measures to provide all Members who wish it, with keys to their offices so they can secure their property against theft; and if he will make a statement.
  366
  Mr. MacGregor
  Members occupying the new accommodation in 1 Parliament street are already being issued with keys to their rooms. In other parliamentary outbuildings and the Palace of Westminster itself, keys can be made available to Members on request to the Serjeant at Arms. Keys are also provided for all desks and filing cabinets and it is a great help to the security staff if Members can ensure that desks and filing cabinets both in their own rooms and in their secretaries' rooms are locked when not in use, that the keys are not left in easily accessible places and that articles of value, such as portable television sets, telephones and cash boxes, as well as confidential papers are locked away when offices are left unattended.

  Special Standing Committees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the occasions when Special Standing Committees have been established; and what proposals he has to use these procedures in the current Session.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The following Bills have been referred to Special Standing Committees: in Session 1980–81, the Criminal Attempts Bill, the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill[Lords], and the Education Bill; in Session 1981–82, the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; and in Session 1983–84, the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [Lords].

  As I indicated to the House on 7 November, col. 581, this procedure is really best suited to specialist, highly technical measures which are not really of party-political controversy: I doubt if any of the Bills in the current Session fall into this category.

  Private Members' Bills
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the cost to public funds, in each of the last four Sessions of Parliament, of printing Private Members' Bills introduced under the ten-minute rule which never reached the Second Reading stage.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The costs of printing all the Bills of the House are borne by HMSO, which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue.

  The estimated cost, including materials, of printing Private Members' Bills introduced under the 10-minute rule which did not reach the Second Reading stage in each of the last four Sessions is as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  7,500

  1988–89

  11,900

  1989–90

  11,500

  1990–91

  7,100

  Guillotine Motions
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the occasions on which the Government have introduced the guillotine allocation of time order since the 1979–80 Session, indicating after how many hours in Committee on each Bill it was introduced and the total number of hours in Committee.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 8 November 1991]: The information is supplied in the table.
  367

  Bills guillotined in Standing Committee

  Bills guillotined in Committee of whole House

  Session/Bill

  Hours in Committee before guillotine

  Total hours in Committee

  Hours in Committee before guillotine

  Total hours in Committee

  1979–80

  Education (No. 2)

  82

  103

  —

  —

  Social Security

  60

  92

  —

  —

  Housing

  110

  144

  —

  —

  Social Security (No. 2)

  44

  64

  —

  —

  1980–81

  Transport

  55

  96

  —

  —

  British Nationality

  90

  136

  —

  —

  1981–82

  Oil and Gas (Enterprise)

  70

  99

  —

  —

  Employment

  91

  110

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  54

  64

  1982–83

  Transport

  80

  96

  —

  —

  Telecommunications

  110

  149

  —

  —

  Housing and Building Control

  90

  108

  —

  —

  1983–84

  Telecommunications

  80

  106

  —

  —

  Rates

  80

  109

  —

  —

  Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland)

  82

  100

  —

  —

  1984–85

  Local Government

  86

  145

  —

  —

  Transport

  76

  129

  —

  —

  1985–86

  Gas

  75

  114

  —

  —

  Social Security

  100

  141

  —

  —

  European Communities (Amendment)

  —

  —

  18

  22

  1986–87

  Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland)

  101

  119

  —

  —

  Local Government Finance

  —

  —

  15

  21

  1987–88

  Education Reform

  88

  163

  —

  —

  Local Government Finance

  72

  136

  —

  —

  Social Security1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Firearms1 (Amendment)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Housing1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  Children (Lords)1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Companies (Lords)1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dock Work

  29

  46

  —

  —

  Employment1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Football Spectators (Lords)

  37

  54

  —

  —

  Local Government and Housing1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Official Secrets

  —

  —

  14

  30

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)

  52

  54

  —

  —

  Self-Go verning Schools &c. (Scotland)

  120

  188

  —

  —

  Water

  75

  148

  —

  —

  368 369

  Bills guillotined in Standing Committee

  Bills guillotined in Committee of whole House

  Session/Bill

  Hours in Committee before guillotine

  Total hours in Committee

  Hours in Committee before guillotine

  Total hours in Committee

  1989–90

  Education (Student Loans)1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Human Fertilization and Embryology (Lords)2

  —

  10

  —

  17

  National Health Service and Community Care1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Social Security1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  Community Charges (General Reduction)2

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Dangerous Dogs2

  —

  —

  5

  —

  1 Allocation of time motion moved after Committee stage.

  2 Allocation of time motion moved before Committee stage.

SCOTLAND

  Salmon Fisheries
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list all the bodies and individuals from whom he received formal or informal representations about the east coast salmon fisheries between the date when the report on the fisheries was first delivered to his Department and the date of its publication; and whether he will list any further bodies or individuals whom he consulted on the matter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. Views about east coast salmon net fisheries were stated or sent in by very many bodies and individuals while the report was in preparation. There were, however, no consultations about the report or its contents which, as section 39 of the Act makes clear, were matters for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider and present to Parliament.

  Examinations Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the number of pupils in Scotland who were presented for exams in those standard grade subjects offering credit, general and foundation level in 1991; what are the corresponding figures for the number of pupils who actually sat each of those exams; and if he will publish a breakdown of these figures for each local education authority.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is set out in the tables. It includes data for those examinations offered at credit and general levels only: that is, biology, chemistry, physics and the optional writing examinations in French, Gaelic (Learners), German, Italian, Russian and Spanish.
  370

  Borders Region

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  460

  442

  Biology

  508

  504

  Chemistry

  417

  416

  Classical Studies

  —

  —

  Computing Studies

  391

  387

  Contemporary Social Studies

  23

  23

  Craft and Design

  317

  309

  Drama

  —

  —

  Economics

  —

  —

  English

  1,302

  1,278

  French

  532

  524

  French-Writing

  510

  441

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  —

  —

  Geography (Revised)

  477

  451

  German (Revised)

  224

  220

  German-Writing

  212

  178

  Graphic Communication

  —

  —

  Greek

  7

  7

  History (Revised)

  263

  249

  Home Economics

  260

  250

  Italian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Italian-Writing

  —

  —

  Latin

  28

  27

  Mathematics

  1,460

  1,437

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  258

  239

  Music

  220

  203

  Office and Information Studies

  319

  313

  Physical Education

  309

  302

  Physics

  397

  392

  Religious Studies

  46

  44

  Russian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Russian-Writing

  —

  —

  Science

  272

  264

  Social and Vocational Skills

  117

  115

  Spanish (Revised)

  —

  —

  Spanish-Writing

  —

  —

  Technological Studies

  186

  174

  371

  Central Region

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  988

  785

  Biology

  933

  930

  Chemistry

  1,180

  1,164

  Classical Studies

  12

  10

  Computing Studies

  919

  901

  Contemporary Social Studies

  280

  274

  Craft and Design

  720

  671

  Drama

  15

  14

  Economics

  —

  —

  English

  3,257

  3,206

  French

  1,453

  1,414

  French-Writing

  1,251

  1,004

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  2

  2

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  2

  2

  Geography (Revised)

  558

  538

  German (Revised)

  252

  246

  German-Writing

  241

  216

  Graphic Communication

  46

  45

  Greek

  —

  —

  History (Revised)

  542

  497

  Home Economics

  672

  605

  Italian (Revised)

  8

  8

  Italian-Writing

  8

  8

  Latin

  102

  99

  Mathematics

  3,266

  3,228

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  210

  182

  Music

  403

  383

  Office and Information Studies

  702

  677

  Physical Education

  636

  609

  Physics

  1,032

  1,025

  Religious Studies

  47

  44

  Russian (Revised)

  5

  5

  Russian-Writing

  5

  4

  Science

  881

  870

  Social and Vocational Skills

  175

  164

  Spanish (Revised)

  —

  —

  Spanish-Writing

  —

  —

  Technological Studies

  234

  216

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  664

  626

  Biology

  674

  654

  Chemistry

  756

  738

  Classical Studies

  —

  —

  Computing Studies

  530

  516

  Contemporary Social Studies

  97

  92

  Craft and Design

  462

  440

  Drama

  47

  45

  Economics

  —

  —

  English

  1,827

  1,770

  French

  651

  642

  French-Writing

  637

  555

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  —

  —

  Geography (Revised)

  606

  559

  German (Revised)

  246

  229

  German-Writing

  225

  198

  Graphic Communication

  —

  —

  Greek

  —

  —

  History (Revised)

  539

  510

  Home Economics

  356

  326

  Italian (Revised)

  15

  15

  Italian-Writing

  15

  14

  372

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Latin

  7

  6

  Mathematics

  1,857

  1,810

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  261

  243

  Music

  278

  268

  Office and Information Studies

  602

  583

  Physical Education

  484

  456

  Physics

  620

  608

  Religious Studies

  44

  38

  Russian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Russian-Writing

  —

  —

  Science

  437

  408

  Social and Vocational Skills

  177

  173

  Spanish (Revised)

  36

  36

  Spanish-Writing

  34

  24

  Technological Studies

  119

  98

  Fife Region

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  1,341

  1,288

  Biology

  1,162

  1,148

  Chemistry

  1,262

  1,247

  Classical Studies

  30

  25

  Computing Studies

  1,072

  1,046

  Contemporary Social Studies

  510

  495

  Craft and Design

  879

  837

  Drama

  —

  —

  Economics

  13

  12

  English

  4,178

  4,110

  French

  1,567

  1,538

  French-Writing

  1,526

  1,257

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  —

  —

  Geography (Revised)

  771

  676

  German (Revised)

  777

  772

  German-Writing

  777

  631

  Graphic Communication

  26

  24

  Greek

  6

  6

  History (Revised)

  704

  661

  Home Economics

  975

  945

  Italian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Italian-Writing

  —

  —

  Latin

  97

  93

  Mathematics

  4,181

  4,127

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  946

  894

  Music

  379

  356

  Office and Information Studies

  71

  71

  Physical Education

  388

  377

  Physics

  1,348

  1,336

  Religious Studies

  —

  —

  Russian (Revised)

  1

  1

  Russian-Writing

  1

  1

  Science

  1,318

  1,277

  Social and Vocational Skills

  94

  91

  Spanish (Revised)

  8

  8

  Spanish-Writing

  8

  7

  Technological Studies

  681

  652

  373

  Grampian Region

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  2,047

  1,963

  Biology

  1,374

  1,352

  Chemistry

  1,507

  1,482

  Classical Studies

  2

  2

  Computing Studies

  1,575

  1,543

  Contemporary Social Studies

  180

  176

  Craft and Design

  1,300

  1,249

  Drama

  119

  118

  Economics

  13

  12

  English

  5,772

  5,718

  French

  2,471

  2,455

  French-Writing

  2,072

  1,668

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  —

  —

  Geography (Revised)

  1,641

  1,593

  German (Revised)

  663

  658

  German-Writing

  588

  492

  Graphic Communication

  59

  59

  Greek

  —

  —

  History (Revised)

  1,063

  1,020

  Home Economics

  899

  882

  Italian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Italian-Writing

  —

  —

  Latin

  35

  35

  Mathematics

  5,707

  5,670

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  1,192

  1,114

  Music

  402

  395

  Office and Information Studies

  1,037

  1,030

  Physical Education

  845

  823

  Physics

  1,235

  1,226

  Religious Studies

  88

  84

  Russian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Russian-Writing

  —

  —

  Science

  1,457

  1,439

  Social and Vocational Skills

  1,109

  1,098

  Spanish (Revised)

  56

  55

  Spanish-Writing

  49

  47

  Technological Studies

  590

  566

  Highland Region

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  1,054

  1,030

  Biology

  723

  714

  Chemistry

  784

  769

  Classical Studies

  15

  15

  Computing Studies

  764

  742

  Contemporary Social Studies

  66

  64

  Craft and Design

  768

  738

  Drama

  37

  36

  Economics

  31

  28

  English

  2,665

  2,639

  French

  1,123

  1,093

  French-Writing

  1,053

  861

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  2

  2

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  113

  111

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  84

  63

  Geography (Revised)

  1,176

  1,136

  German (Revised)

  282

  271

  German-Writing

  266

  214

  Graphic Communication

  28

  26

  Greek

  2

  2

  History (Revised)

  713

  683

  Home Economics

  686

  678

  Italian (Revised)

  16

  16

  Italian-Writing

  9

  9

  374

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Latin

  35

  35

  Mathematics

  2,685

  2,665

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  303

  290

  Music

  415

  401

  Office and Information Studies

  409

  402

  Physical Education

  606

  597

  Physics

  935

  924

  Religious Studies

  56

  54

  Russian (Revised)

  9

  9

  Russian-Writing

  9

  9

  Science

  670

  664

  Social and Vocational Skills

  29

  29

  Spanish (Revised)

  —

  —

  Spanish-Writing

  —

  —

  Technological Studies

  183

  175

  Lothian Region

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  2,225

  2,127

  Biology

  1,922

  1,897

  Chemistry

  2,248

  2,224

  Classical Studies

  —

  —

  Computing Studies

  2,179

  2,125

  Contemporary Social Studies

  216

  210

  Craft and Design

  1,540

  1,437

  Drama

  66

  63

  Economics

  154

  152

  English

  7,230

  7,090

  French

  2,086

  2,053

  French-Writing

  1,856

  1,546

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (learners)-Writing

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  —

  —

  Geography (Revised)

  2,336

  2,242

  German (Revised)

  1,084

  1,062

  German-Writing

  1,011

  851

  Graphic Communication

  58

  56

  Greek

  4

  4

  History (Revised)

  1,533

  1,429

  Home Economics

  1,544

  1,484

  Italian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Italian-Writing

  —

  —

  Latin

  76

  76

  Mathematics

  7,135

  6,709

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  1,077

  1,008

  Music

  870

  810

  Office and Information Studies

  1,935

  1,890

  Physical Education

  1,405

  1,358

  Physics

  2,338

  2,303

  Religious Studies

  97

  89

  Russian (Revised)

  22

  22

  Russian-Writing

  22

  20

  Science

  2,316

  2,267

  Social and Vocational Skills

  238

  229

  Spanish (Revised)

  76

  72

  Spanish-Writing

  68

  55

  Technological Studies

  686

  650

  375

  Orkney Islands

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  65

  63

  Biology

  94

  94

  Chemistry

  125

  124

  Classical Studies

  —

  —

  Computing Studies

  73

  73

  Contemporary Social Studies

  1

  1

  Craft and Design

  62

  61

  Drama

  —

  —

  Economics

  —

  —

  English

  256

  254

  French

  112

  110

  French-Writing

  112

  107

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  —

  —

  Geography (Revised)

  117

  116

  German (Revised)

  43

  43

  German-Writing

  43

  41

  Graphic Communication

  —

  —

  Greek

  —

  —

  History (Revised)

  74

  72

  Home Economics

  39

  39

  Italian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Italian-Writing

  —

  —

  Latin

  16

  16

  Mathematics

  262

  260

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  33

  30

  Music

  37

  37

  Office and Information Studies

  61

  60

  Physical Education

  23

  23

  Physics

  97

  97

  Religious Studies

  —

  —

  Russian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Russian-Writing

  —

  —

  Science

  32

  30

  Social and Vocational Skills

  29

  28

  Spanish (Revised)

  —

  —

  Spanish-Writing

  —

  —

  Technological Studies

  40

  37

  Shetland Islands

  Subject

  Number of Pupils Presented for Standard Grade at February 1991

  Number of Pupils Assessed

  Art and Design

  83

  81

  Biology

  57

  57

  Chemistry

  100

  98

  Classical Studies

  —

  —

  Computing Studies

  49

  48

  Contemporary Social Studies

  32

  32

  Craft and Design

  89

  89

  Drama

  —

  —

  Economics

  —

  —

  English

  317

  316

  French

  102

  101

  French-Writing

  100

  84

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  —

  —

  Geography (Revised)

  174

  172

  German (Revised)

  —

  —

  German-Writing

  —

  —

  Graphic Communication

  —

  —

  Greek

  —

  —

  History (Revised)

  100

  97

  Home Economics

  71

  70

  Italian (Revised)

  —

  —

  376

  Subject

  Number of Pupils Presented for Standard Grade at February 1991

  Number of Pupils Assessed

  Italian-Writing

  —

  —

  Latin

  2

  2

  Mathematics

  317

  317

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  26

  26

  Music

  32

  31

  Office and Information Studies

  83

  82

  Physical Education

  9

  8

  Physics

  114

  114

  Religious Studies

  —

  —

  Russian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Russian-Writing

  —

  —

  Science

  113

  113

  Social and Vocational Skills

  4

  4

  Spanish (Revised)

  —

  —

  Spanish-Writing

  —

  —

  Technological Studies

  —

  —

  Strathclyde Region

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  7,587

  7,130

  Biology

  7,223

  7,123

  Chemistry

  8,563

  8,466

  Classical Studies

  122

  114

  Computing Studies

  5,907

  5,649

  Contemporary Social Studies

  1,700

  1,592

  Craft and Design

  6,631

  5,893

  Drama

  286

  262

  Economics

  208

  193

  English

  26,985

  26,250

  French

  10,882

  10,615

  French-Writing

  9,535

  7,195

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  3

  2

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  27

  12

  Gaelic (Learners) Writing

  17

  12

  Geography (Revised)

  5,507

  5,021

  German (Revised)

  1,699

  1,663

  German-Writing

  1,579

  1,231

  Graphic Communication

  113

  107

  Greek

  9

  7

  History (Revised)

  3,380

  3,047

  Home Economics

  5,343

  4,926

  Italian (Revised)

  90

  89

  Italian-Writing

  79

  65

  Latin

  599

  566

  Mathematics

  27,268

  26,695

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  3,618

  3,223

  Music

  2,432

  2,283

  Office and Information Studies

  5,503

  5,320

  Physical Education

  4,301

  4,096

  Physics

  7,527

  7,447

  Religious Studies

  185

  166

  Russian (Revised)

  31

  30

  Russian-Writing

  29

  23

  Science

  8,065

  7,727

  Social and Vocational Skills

  2,411

  2,230

  Spanish (Revised)

  398

  377

  Spanish-Writing

  379

  278

  Technological Studies

  1,923

  1,771

  377

  Tayside Region

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  1,108

  1,051

  Biology

  1,059

  1,042

  Chemistry

  1,180

  1,163

  Classical Studies

  —

  —

  Computing Studies

  1,333

  1,304

  Contemporary Social Studies

  510

  478

  Craft and Design

  933

  859

  Drama

  19

  19

  Economics

  30

  25

  English

  4,492

  4,388

  French

  1,787

  1,740

  French-Writing

  1,627

  1,314

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  —

  —

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  5

  5

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  2

  2

  Geography (Revised)

  1,044

  994

  German (Revised)

  493

  476

  German-Writing

  483

  402

  Graphic Communication

  35

  34

  Greek

  4

  4

  History (Revised)

  238

  207

  Home Economics

  833

  746

  Italian (Revised)

  3

  2

  Italian-Writing

  1

  1

  Latin

  102

  100

  Mathematics

  4,458

  4,349

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  401

  361

  Music

  480

  454

  Office and Information Studies

  603

  579

  Physical Education

  811

  751

  Physics

  1,161

  1,147

  Religious Studies

  42

  36

  Russian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Russian-Writing

  —

  —

  Science

  1,189

  1,154

  Social and Vocational Skills

  417

  396

  Spanish (Revised)

  68

  67

  Spanish-Writing

  65

  50

  Technological Studies

  514

  483

  Western Isles

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  128

  128

  Biology

  130

  128

  Chemistry

  173

  173

  Classical Studies

  —

  —

  Computing Studies

  161

  156

  Contemporary Social Studies

  10

  10

  Craft and Design

  58

  57

  Drama

  —

  —

  Economics

  —

  —

  English

  469

  463

  French

  129

  127

  French-Writing

  123

  72

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  102

  101

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  131

  129

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  91

  68

  Geography (Revised)

  —

  —

  German (Revised)

  6

  6

  German-Writing

  5

  5

  Graphic Communication

  —

  —

  Greek

  —

  —

  History (Revised)

  —

  —

  Home Economics

  80

  79

  Italian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Italian-Writing

  —

  7

  378

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Latin

  —

  —

  Mathematics

  469

  465

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  —

  —

  Music

  40

  38

  Office and Information Studies

  120

  119

  Physical Education

  67

  65

  Physics

  155

  152

  Religious Studies

  —

  —

  Russian (Revised)

  —

  —

  Russian-Writing

  —

  —

  Science

  151

  148

  Social and Vocational Skills

  —

  —

  Spanish (Revised)

  —

  —

  Spanish-Writing

  —

  —

  Technological Studies

  50

  50

  Total for all Regions

  Subject

  Number of pupils presented for standard grade at February 1991

  Number of pupils assessed

  Art and Design

  17,750

  16,714

  Biology

  15,859

  15,643

  Chemistry

  18,295

  18,064

  Classical Studies

  181

  166

  Computing Studies

  14,953

  14,490

  Contemporary Social Studies

  3,625

  3,447

  Craft and Design

  13,759

  12,640

  Drama

  589

  557

  Economics

  449

  422

  English

  58,750

  57,482

  French

  22,895

  22,412

  French-Writing

  20,402

  16,104

  Gaidhlig (Revised)

  107

  105

  Gaelic (Learners) (Revised)

  278

  264

  Gaelic (Learners)-Writing

  196

  147

  Geography (Revised)

  14,407

  13,498

  German (Revised)

  5,769

  5,646

  German-Writing

  196

  147

  Graphic Communication

  365

  351

  Greek

  32

  30

  History (Revised)

  9,149

  8,472

  Home Economics

  11,758

  11,030

  Italian (Revised)

  132

  130

  Italian-Writing

  112

  97

  Latin

  1,099

  1,055

  Mathematics

  59,065

  57,732

  Modern Studies (Revised)

  8,325

  7,610

  Music

  5,988

  5,659

  Office and Information Studies

  11,445

  11,126

  Physical Education

  9,884

  9,465

  Physics

  16,959

  16,771

  Religious Studies

  605

  555

  Russian (Revised)

  68

  67

  Russian-Writing

  66

  57

  Science

  16,901

  16,361

  Social and Vocational Skills

  4,800

  4,557

  Spanish (Revised)

  642

  615

  Spanish-Writing

  603

  465

  Technological Studies

  5,206

  4,872

  Crofters
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total amounts of money awarded under the crofter building grants and loans scheme in each of the past five financial years; what is the amount
  379
  awarded so far in the current financial year; and what were the amounts awarded specifically to fishermen who are not crofters for each of the same years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The approved expenditure under the crofters building grants and loans scheme in each of the past five financial years and the first six months of the current financial year is set out in the table.

  Total Approved Expenditure

  Approved Expenditure—fishermen feuars

  £

  £

  1986–87

  3,402,000

  64,000

  1987–88

  3,885,500

  121,500

  1988–89

  2,977,500

  121,500

  1989–0

  3,586,500

  94,500

  1990–91

  4,027,500

  31,000

  April 1991 to 30 September 1991

  2,175,000

  31,000

  Red Deer
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent studies he has received and considered relating to the red deer population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The most recent study of this nature is the report on "The Management of Wild Red Deer in Scotland", commissioned by Rural Forum. My right hon. Friend considers that this report is a helpful contribution to public debate and is timely in view of the current review of deer legislation. It will be studied in detail in the context of the review.

  Scottish Food
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action his Department is taking to promote Scottish food and drink, both in the United Kingdom and abroad; and whether he has any plans to help fund a body similar to Scottish Food Promotions Ltd.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Government support for the industry's marketing of food and drink is provided through Food From Britain, which is accountable to all four Agriculture Ministers. In Scotland, additional public support is provided by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The Scottish Office provides specific forms of assistance for exporters and is supporting the National Farmers Union of Scotland's plans for comprehensive quality assurance systems on farms. Since the closure of Scottish Food Promotion, SE and HIE have commissioned Trade Promotions (Scotland) Ltd. to arrange a Scottish presence at major trade fairs. There are no plans to set up another company to perform other functions of SFP.

  School Reports
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken by his Department to monitor the implementation of recommendations made in HM inspectorate of schools' reports on individual schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  After a sufficient interval to give an opportunity to act on a report—usually a period of 380
  several months after publication—the inspectorate mounts a follow-up inspection to discuss the report and any action which has been taken on it with the director of education and the head teacher.

  School Meals
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children are receiving free school meals in each of the education authorities in Scotland expressed as a percentage of the total number of children taking school meals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested, taken from the 1991 annual school meals census return, is as follows:

  Percentage of children taking school meals who receive free meals

  Number receiving free meals

  Percentage of total receiving meals within each Region

  Borders

  650

  12·2

  Central

  5,170

  29·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,769

  14·1

  Fife

  6,432

  24·9

  Grampian

  4,375

  14·0

  Highland

  2,881

  22·1

  Lothian

  12,330

  28·2

  Strathclyde

  61,169

  39·7

  Tayside

  6,199

  28·2

  Orkney

  179

  9·2

  Shetland

  160

  5·9

  Western Isles

  601

  23·6

  All Scotland

  101,915

  30·7

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by educational authority the number and percentage of secondary schools which now operate a cash cafeteria system for their pupils for the midday meal.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested, taken from the 1991 annual school meals census returns, is as follows:

  Number of secondary schools operating a cash cafeteria system

  Region

  Number of secondary schools

  Number offering cash cafeteria system

  Percentage

  Borders

  9

  9

  100

  Central

  19

  19

  100

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16

  16

  100

  Fife

  19

  19

  100

  Grampian

  38

  38

  100

  Highland

  27

  23

  85

  Lothian

  51

  51

  100

  Strathclyde

  182

  177

  97

  Tayside

  32

  32

  100

  Orkney

  6

  2

  33

  Shetland

  9

  1

  11

  Western Isles

  16

  6

  38

  All Scotland

  424

  393

  93

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has to improve the diet of Scottish schoolchildren.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An objective of health education in schools is to encourage pupils to adopt a well-balanced
  381
  and healthy diet. The place of health education in the curriculum is being reviewed as part of the 5–14 development programme.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to reintroduce the nutritional requirement for school meals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Nutritional standards for school meals have never been prescribed in Scotland.

  Cumbernauld High School
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken by his Department to monitor the implementation of the recommendations made by HM inspectorate of schools' report on Cumbernauld high school in 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Cumbernauld high school was inspected in January and February 1990, the inspectorate report was published in June 1990 and a follow-up inspection was made by the inspectorate in January 1991.

  Corporal Punishment
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from Kilsyth primary school board concerning corporal punishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The school board wrote to me on 29 October advocating the reintroduction of corporal punishment in schools as a deterrent of last resort. Following a judgment in the European Court of Human Rights in 1982, the legal safeguards covering the administration of corporal punishment by staff in Scottish schools were withdrawn and this form of sanction was abolished.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what support his Department has given to the fish farming industry in Scotland since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department has given support to the fish farming industry in various ways.

  The Scottish Office provides scientific advice and research through the marine laboratory in Aberdeen. Spending on relevant research has amounted to some £4 million in the last five years.

  The Department also provides supplementary funding to fish farmers seeking grants from the European Community (EC Regulation 4028/86). Such assistance has amounted to £1·321 million to date. In addition, financial assistance has been provided through Highlands and Islands Enterprise and its predecessor for fish farms, fish processing investment, and for other forms of assistance, estimated at some £34 million since 1979.

  The Department has also committed funding under the integrated development programme and the agricultural development programme for the Scottish islands for fish farming amounting to £4 million in total since 1982.

  Royal Observer Corps
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what training facilities will be available to local authorities taking on the responsibilities of the Royal Observer Corps; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what arrangements have been made to ensure the maximum use of existing expertise and equipment during the transfer of Royal Observer Corps duties to local authorities; how many volunteers will be sought; which authorities have already developed parallel arrangements and what those arrangements are; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what plans have been made for the transfer of Royal Observer Corps duties to local authorities; by what date the transfer is expected to be complete; who will undertake these duties in the interim period; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if additional finances will be made available to local authorities in order to carry out the role of the Royal Observer Corps; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following the statement on the Government's emergency planning review made on 10 July 1991 by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, columns 393–96, preliminary discussions have been held with local authorities in Scotland on what new monitoring arrangements may be appropriate following the standing down of the Royal Observer Corps and what role the former ROC volunteers might have in these new arrangements. While no conclusions have yet been reached on these matters, the aim will be to make as much use of ROC resources as possible.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the future plans for Royal Observer Corps centres at Raigmore, Inverness, and the RIMNET system on Tiree.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Home Office has responsibility for the Royal Observer Corps facility at Raigmore. Officials of my Department are considering with their opposite numbers in the Home Office whether an alternative civil defence use for the centre might be found.

  The radioactive incident monitoring network system on Tiree is one of 16 sites throughout Scotland established under the national response plan to cater for the response to nuclear incidents occurring overseas. There are no plans to discontinue the use of the site on Tiree and it will continue to be part of the network.

  College Management
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what added costs will arise from the change in management of colleges in the Further and High Education (Scotland) Bill because of the requirements under section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An accurate assessment of the colleges' liability for value added tax after 1 April 1993 will be made when a precise breakdown is available of the sum to be transferred to the Secretary of State's budget for the funding of further education colleges.

  Football (Policing)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1986,.(a) the total number of police officers on duty at Scottish Football League and Premier Division matches in Scotland, (b) the total attendance at Scottish Football League and Premier Division matches in Scotland and (c) the total number of police officers as a percentage of the total attendance at Scottish Football League and Premier Division matches in Scotland and (d) the total number of police officers in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally, but I will write to the hon. Member.

  Civil Defence Budget
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total annual budget for civil defence provisions for 1991–92 and for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Home and Health Department's annual budget for civil defence provision over the period in question has been as follows:

  £ million

  1978–79

  0·8

  1979–80

  1·1

  1980–81

  1·4

  1981–82

  2·4

  1982–83

  3·7

  1983–84

  6·5

  1984–85

  7·5

  1985–86

  5·4

  1986–87

  5·3

  1987–88

  5·8

  1988–89

  6·1

  1989–90

  7·0

  1990–91

  7·9

  1991–92

  7·6

  Rural Enterprise Programme
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now able to announce the outcome of the review of the operational areas for the business development scheme of the rural enterprise programme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am pleased to announce today that the rural enterprise programme's business development scheme, which aims to help farmers and crofters develop new businesses, will now be extended into two additional areas of the Highlands and Islands. The new areas are Dunoon/Cowal, Oban/Lorn and Mid-Argyll/ Kintyre, and Badenoch/Strathspey and Upper Moray. Locally based project officers will be appointed as quickly as possible and I hope the first awards for approved projects in the new areas will be made by spring 1992.

  The response to the BDS from the four existing operational areas of south-east Sutherland, West Ross, Lochalsh and Lochaber has been most encouraging, with some 30 projects already approved and many more under consideration. The REP offers generous levels of support and I am very pleased at the response so far. I hope that farmers and crofters in the two new operational areas will also respond positively to this opportunity which aims to
  384
  make agricultural producers in the highlands and islands more secure in the face of growing pressures to reduce agricultural support.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase resources for Scottish local authorities to be able to increase their sheltered housing provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 November 1991]: Resources totalling £454·5 million were announced in March for housing capital investment in authorities' own stock in 1991–92. It is for local authorities to decide how best to deploy the resources available to them to meet local housing needs, including the need for sheltered housing provision if this is seen as a priority in their areas.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state which sites he intends next to designate as special protection areas under EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, and which sites he intends to so designate before 1 December.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 November 1991]: Consultations are taking place about the designation of eight special protection areas at present. It is not possible to say which site will be designated first or to give dates for possible designation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hospital Laundry Services
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the Eastern health and social services board rejected the tender for laundry services in the Royal group of hospitals.

  Mr. Hanley
  The only tender received for the laundry services contract in the Royal group of hospitals unit of management was from the in-house contractor. Since that tender price substantially exceeded the present cost of the service, the Eastern health and social services board quite correctly decided in this particular case not to award the contract but to re-tender the work within 18 months.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the reasons for there having been only cross board and in-house tenders for laundry services in the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Hanley
  All reasonable steps are taken to generate private sector interest in laundry services contracts. The small number of commercial firms with the capability of and interest in undertaking laundry contracts in Northern Ireland have decided not to submit tenders for contracts in EHSSB. Such decisions are a matter for them and I do not intend to speculate as to their reasons. However, the absence of private sector competition in this particular case does not prevent the board from achieving the objective of competitive tendering which is to test the cost-effectiveness of the service.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding civil defence measures in the event of a nuclear explosion either in peace or war.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am currently reviewing civil defence arrangements in Northern Ireland in the light of the answer which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to a question from the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 10 July,Official Report, columns 393–96. While the new arrangements will be similar to those being developed for the remainder of the United Kingdom, some variations will be necessary to take account of different organisational and administrative structures within the Province.

  CRISP Programme
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the criteria for benefiting under CRISP—the community regeneration initiative special project—programme and urban development grant, indicating any change in those criteria in the last year, and list the persons and bodies which administer the same.

  Mr. Hanley
  The CRISP initiative is targeted on towns and villages with populations below approximately 10,000 in areas of particular disadvantage and is available to community groups and district councils.

  Urban development grants are available for developments in specified areas of Belfast and Londonderry where the intention is to let or sell the completed projects and for refurbishments or new buildings within these areas aimed at achieving physical and economic regeneration.

  There has been no change to the criteria for the UDG scheme or CRISP in the last year.

  These programmes are administered by the Department of the Environment.

  Grant outside Belfast and Londonderry is provided under the urban development programme which is funded by the International Fund for Ireland and I have asked the chairman of the fund to write to the hon. Gentleman. I will place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the towns and villages that have benefited and will benefit from the CRISP—community regeneration initiative special project—programme and urban development grant, giving the total amount and population in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  The moneys committed under the CRISP programme which is funded by the International Fund for Ireland and the Department of Environment, are shown in the table:

  Town

  Amount Approved

  Population (Approximately)

  £ million

  1. Coalisland

  2·700

  3,800

  2. Castlederg

  1·570

  2,900

  3. Carrickmore

  1·880

  1,000

  4. Keady

  1·500

  3,200

  5. Belleek

  1·890

  1,000

  6. Dromore (Co. Tyrone)

  0·670

  1,000

  7. Belcoo

  0·314

  1,100

  8. Newtownhamilton

  0·600

  1,200

  386
  It is not possible to say which applications will receive approval in the future.

  The urban development grant scheme applies only to Belfast—population 280,972—and Londonderry—population 94,721. At 31 October 1991, £68 million had been committed or expended on approved projects in the two cities.

  Grants outside Belfast and Londonderry are provided under the urban development programme which is funded by the International Fund for Ireland. I have asked the chairman of the fund to write to the hon. Gentleman and I will place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Care Standards
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library copies of specifications for care standards required by the four units of management in the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Hanley
  Service specifications for three services—catering, domestic and laundry—have been individually prepared for all nine units of management in the Eastern health and social services board. A sample copy of each of the three services has been placed in the Library.

  School Nurses
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many school nurses were employed in Northern Ireland in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d)

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of Staff1

  Whole time equivalent

  1975

  68

  Not available

  1980

  92

  82·2

  1985

  94

  79·0

  1990

  101

  81·3

  1The figures show the number of staff in post at 31 December of each year

  Chronic Pain
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which clinics sufferers of chronic pain can be treated within the national health service; what is the extent of funding for treatment of chronic pain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Treatment for sufferers of chronic pain is provided at out-patient clinics in the following hospitals in Northern Ireland:

  Eastern Board:

  Belfast City, Royal Victoria, Musgrave,

  Ulster, Mater, Bangor.

  Nothern Board:

  Waveney, Coleraine, Whiteabbey.

  Western Board:

  Altnagelvin.

  Southern Board:

  Craigavon, South Tyrone.

  A clinic is also provided for outpatients on a weekly basis at the Queens university department of anaesthesia and there is a clinic for in-patients at the Belfast city hospital. Information about the extent of funding for the pain relief service is not held centrally.

  Cardiac Operations
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently waiting for cardiac operations at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast; what is the average waiting time; and what proposals there are to reduce the waiting time for such operations.

  Mr. Hanky
  There were 991 people waiting for cardiac operations at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast at the end of September 1991 and I have set out below the details of how long they have been doing so. The recent completion of the £1·5 million extension to the cardiac recovery area at the RVH will permit an increase in the number of operations and an additional cardiac surgeon and supporting staff will be appointed soon to support this increased workload. Boards are also actively considering the possibilities of purchasing further operations from outside Northern Ireland. The Western board has already taken an initiative this year in buying additional cardiac operations for its resident population from hospitals in London.

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Senior Management

  12

  12

  16

  16

  31

  31

  (12)

  (12)

  (16)

  (16)

  (31)

  (31)

  Middle Management

  190

  191

  196

  185

  255

  244

  (182·5)

  (184·58)

  (180·57)

  (177·03)

  (246·81)

  (234·09)

  Medical

  10

  13

  14

  11

  13

  13

  (5)

  (6·7)

  (7·7)

  (4·7)

  (6·7)

  (6·7)

  Nursing

  182

  174

  193

  206

  689

  679

  (152·53)

  (166·12)

  (177·15)

  (177·19)

  (614·45)

  (605·36)

  Social Workers

  94

  94

  113

  105

  106

  106

  (85·96)

  (86·52)

  (104·12)

  (96·12)

  (97·12)

  (97·12)

  Social Work Assistants

  58

  52

  54

  50

  50

  50

  (55·81)

  (51·33)

  (51·95)

  (47·95)

  (47·95)

  (47·95)

  Support Staff

  457

  422

  470

  397

  649

  645

  (335·89)

  (324·9)

  (358)

  (304·85)

  (506·79)

  (505·08)

  Notes:

  1. Whole time equivalent figures are shown in brackets.

  2. The figures show the number of staff in post at 30 September of each year.

  3. Figures for 1990 and 1991 include staff in Muckamore Abbey hospital which prior to 1 April 1990 was a separate unit of management.

  4. Medical figures do not include registrars, senior registrars and consultants who are not on the unit payroll.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of(a) residential care homes and (b) nursing homes in operation for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Residential care homes1

  1979

  Not available

  1980

  234

  1981

  241

  1982

  246

  1983

  257

  1984

  253

  1985

  255

  1986

  266

  1987

  289

  1988–89

  2302

  1989–90

  2337

  388

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Months

  Patients

  0–2

  125

  3–5

  81

  6–8

  78

  9–11

  68

  11–23

  168

  24+

  471

  Total

  991

  North and West Belfast Unit of Management
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in tabular form for the years 1986 to 1991 the numbers in post in the North and West Belfast unit of management in the grades(a) senior management, (b) middle management, (c) medical, (d) nursing, (e) social workers, (f) social work assistants and (g) support staff.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested in respect of the North and West Belfast community unit is set out in the table:

  Year

  Nursing homes3

  1979

  13

  1980

  11

  1981

  12

  1982

  12

  1983

  15

  1984

  18

  1985

  32

  1986

  46

  1987

  64

  1988

  90

  1989

  129

  1990

  164

  1 Includes both homes operated by health and social services boards and homes in the voluntary and private sectors.

  2 From 1988 information on residential care homes has been collected on a financial year basis. All other data on such homes are in relation to end of year.

  3 Figures at 31 December each year.

  DSS Benefit Advisers
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by local office the number of DSS benefit advisers appointed since the new DSS Benefits Agency was set up.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alec Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He has written to the honourable Gentleman and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Number of people receiving supplementary benefit/income support

  May 19871

  May 19881

  May 19891

  October 19902

  Type of Home3

  HSSB

  RCH

  NH

  HSSB

  RCH

  NH

  HSSB

  RCH

  NH

  HSSB

  RCH

  NH

  Status of resident

  60 years or over:

  mentally ill4

  630

  713

  317

  720

  1,120

  1,060

  700

  1,420

  1,500

  N/A

  85

  80

  others

  N/A

  1,321

  2,533

  Under 60 years:

  mentally ill4

  469

  151

  102

  260

  140

  100

  240

  120

  120

  N/A

  41

  7

  others

  N/A

  203

  219

  Totals

  1,099

  864

  419

  980

  1,260

  1,160

  940

  1,540

  1,620

  N/A

  1,650

  2,839

  1 Annual statistical enquiry (5 per cent, sample).

  2 Special survey.

  3 Health and social services boards (HSSB) residential homes, indpendent residential care (RCH) and nursing homes (NH).

  4 Numbers qualifying for supplementary benefit/income support limits appropriate to mental disorder.

ENVIRONMENT

  Regalian Building, Vauxhall Cross
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what Government work will be undertaken at the nine-storey building currently under construction by Regalian at Vauxhall Cross on the Thames Embankment.

  Mr. Yeo
  The building is for occupation by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Royal Parks (Staff)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff of the royal parks are being made redundant; and what is the total redundancy payment.

  Mr. Yeo
  A total of 342 industrial staff have received redundancy notices. It is estimated that redundancy and early retirement payments will total £3·05 million.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many current staff of the royal parks live in tied accommodation; how many will be allowed to remain when contractors take over; and what will happen to the rents of those who remain.

  Mr. Yeo
  A total of 35 current staff live in royal parks lodges. The 22 industrial staff who have received redundancy notices will be allowed to continue living in their lodges whether they are employed by contractors or not. Those who are not already paying fair rents will be required to do so with the increase being phased-in over a period depending on the size of the change.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of people receiving supplementary benefit or income support who were(a) residents in residential care homes, (b)residents in nursing homes, (c) residents over pension age, (d) residents under pension age, (e) elderly residents, and (f) mentally ill residents for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  Full information is not available in the form requested. The available information for the years 1987 to 1990 is as follows:

  Methane
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has available for the quantity of methane loss into the atmosphere from the British gas industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  Data on United Kingdom methane emissions are published annually in the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics," copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. The la test estimates, for 1989 in Digest no. 13, show that gas leakage from the distribution system accounted for 340,000 tonnes of methane, and venting from oil and gas platforms together accounted for a further 175,000 tonnes of methane.

  Sports Facilities (Tendering)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on how local authorities must draw up contracts for competitive tendering of the running of sports facilities so that the private sector has a fair chance to compete; and what powers he has to ensure that fair competition is encouraged with regard to the kinds of tasks set out in the tender documents.

  Mr. Key
  Under the Local Government Act 1988 local authorities are required to avoid anti-competitive behaviour in carrying out tendering for work subject to the Act. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sanction powers which he may use if he considers that an authority has failed to comply with the statutory requirements, including the requirement to avoid anti-competitive behaviour. In March 1991, we issued a circular (1/91) giving guidance on factors that the Secretary of State would consider in reaching a view on whether local authorities had acted anti-competitively. We
  391
  are seeking powers in the Local Government Bill to strengthen our ability to prescribe what is, or is not, to be regarded as anti-competitive behaviour. We have just issued a consultation document "Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services" setting out our proposals for the use of those proposed powers.

  Thames House, Millbank
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he consulted the Royal Fine Arts Commission before commencing work on the listed building Thames house, Millbank.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Royal Fine Arts Commission was consulted after minor works to remove redundant services had started but before the start of the main works.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation banning the importation of all wild birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government share the concern that has been expressed about the possible effects of trade on the wild populations of many species and about the conditions in which animals—especially birds—are transported. These are international problems which require international solutions and we are therefore pressing for stricter controls throughout the European Community and beyond.

  Conservation action must be based on sound science. Earlier this year I therefore commissioned the Government's scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, to review the evidence as to whether the trade in wild-taken animals and plants was compatible with maintaining species at satisfactory levels. The JNCC's report was submitted on 31 July and copies are available in the Library of the House. The report gives unequivocal support for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which is the foundation for conservation controls on trade in the European Community and most of the rest of the world. The Committee does not advocate extensive bans but has made some wide-ranging recommendations for tightening the present controls. The report of the Royal Botanic Gardens submitted recently reaches similar conclusions and makes detailed recommendations on plants. We will make this available as soon as possible.

  I therefore wrote to the European Commission on 14 October, urging it to propose that the Community takes steps to:
  strengthen measures to prevent illegal trade in endangered species and to ensure that specimens of these species are used to bring conservation benefits;
  make more systematic checks on the effect of trade on species whose survival might become threatened, to ensure that it continues only at sustainable levels;
  monitor trade in more species:
  make sure that appropriate care is taken of all species listed in CITES.
  We intend to make clear the importance we attach to early progress at the Environment Council next month.

  Because of his responsibilities for the welfare of animals during transport, my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
  392
  Food, joined me in this approach to the Commission, to press for strict controls on trade in any species which are particularly vulnerable to stress and mortality as a result of transport or captivity.

  Listed Buildings (Alterations)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what bodies he consults before commencing major alterations to listed buildings.

  Mr. Yeo
  Clearance is sought from the local planning authority in line with DOE circulars 18/84 and 8/87. The local planning authority will in turn consult with various heritage bodies, though where significant proposals are concerned my Department will normally have had prior discussions with these bodies.

  Planning Permissions
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in each of the last 10 years has(a) the South Herefordshire district council granted a planning permission as a departure from the structure plan, (b) such a planning consent been granted as a result of an appeal and (c) if he will give the same information for other non-metropolitan district councils in England.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held centrally.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent there is non-payment of the community charge in the current year; and what support he is giving to recover the unpaid community charge.

  Mr. Key
  At the end of June community charge receipts in England averaged 12 per cent. of local authorities' budgeted charge income. This figure was however affected by delays in issuing community charge bills due to the general reduction of £140 in headline charges announced in the Budget and it is not possible to draw conclusions about overall collection for the year. We will be publishing information on the second quarter of the year shortly.

  The Government strongly support local authorities' efforts to collect the community charge. We have given them wide ranging collection powers and if these are used to the full authorities should be able to collect the charge from those people who have not paid.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will immediately review community charge benefit regulation No. 89 in order that full time married students can receive poll tax relief without affecting the spouse's claim.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  Regulation 89 of the Social Security Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1321) provides for excess benefits that have arisen where claimants have not declared all of their capital assets. We are not aware that this regulation has caused any difficulties in particular in relation to full-time married students.

  Non-student partners of registered students can claim community charge benefit, while the student is entitled to

  393
  relief and only pays 20 per cent. of the charge. The benefit awarded to the non-student partner takes account of the couple's joint circumstances.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish a list of each local authority in England, its political control and the amount paid in attendance allowance and expenses to the highest paid councillor in each authority in respect of the most recent two years for which the information is available;

  (2) what information he has in respect of councillors' attendance allowances and expenses for each local authority in England.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not collected by my Department. Each local authority must, on request, make available for inspection a record of allowances paid and the names of the recipients.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to meet the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss the establishment of a code of practice for mortgage lenders.

  Mr. Yeo
  At the suggestion of this Department, the Council of Mortgage Lenders issued statements of practice on the handling of mortgage arrears and of possession procedure in February this year.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of occasions on which the one-hour and the eight-hour World Health Organisation guideline values for ozone were exceeded at each Warren Spring Laboratory monitoring site in the last year for which data are available.

  Mr. Baldry
  The number of days during which the one hour (76ppb) and the eight hour (50ppb) World Health Organisation guideline values for ozone were exceeded at the Department of the Environment's monitoring sites in 1991 are as follows:

  WHO guideline exceedences, days

  1-hour

  8-hour

  Stevenage, Herts

  5

  7

  Sibton, Suffolk

  3

  19

  Bridge place, London

  0

  0

  Aston hill, Wales

  1

  15

  Lullington heath, Sussex

  7

  24

  Strath Vaich, Highlands

  0

  20

  High Muffles, Yorkshire

  4

  23

  Lough Navar, NI

  4

  8

  Yarner Wood, Devon

  14

  33

  Ladybower, Derbyshire

  6

  14

  Harwell, Oxfordshire

  13

  20

  Bottesford, Notts

  2

  11

  Eskdalemuir, Dumfries

  1

  12

  Great Dun Fell, Cumbria

  6

  19

  Wharleycroft, Cumbria

  4

  26

  Glazebury, Iancs

  2

  5

  Bush, Midlothian

  1

  1

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the air quality bulletin 394
  system to ensure that appropriate information and advice is provided to the public during eight-hour sustained pollution episodes.

  Mr. Baldry
  The advice currently issued during ozone episodes follows recommendations in a report by the Chief Medical Officer's advisory group on the medical aspects of air pollution episodes, published in May this year. In accordance with the group's recommendations, it is issued when hourly mean ozone concentrations exceed, or are expected to exceed 100 parts per billion. We see no reason at present to alter this practice, but the arrangements will be kept under review.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the United Kingdom-wide newspapers, radio and television stations which have agreed to print or broadcast his Department's advice on what to do if air quality becomes poor.

  Mr. Baldry
  Advice on what to if air quality becomes poor is obtained from the telephone information system and from general practitioners.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the United Kingdom-wide newspapers, radio stations and television stations which agreed to print or broadcast air quality bulletins on a regular basis.

  Mr. Baldry
  Air quality bulletin information is currently available on a daily basis on page 583 of Ceefax and in the Guardian and the (London) Evening Standard. Weather forecasts on BBC and ITV report episodes and forecasts of poor air quality. The air quality bulletins are provided free of charge to all radio and television stations and newspapers that take the weather information provided by the Meteorological Office.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to assess the effectiveness of the air quality bulletin system in its first year of operation.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department assesses continuously the effectiveness of the bulletin system. It has been extended, improved and made more accessible in a number of ways since its introduction in October 1990. The media are making increasing use of it.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the weekly average number of calls received by his Department's air quality call line(a) in total and (b) seeking advice on what action to take if air quality becomes poor.

  Mr. Baldry
  The weekly average number of calls received on the Department's air quality call line during October 1991 was about three and on the air quality advice line, 32 over the same four week period.

  Noise
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the progress so far made in implementing the recommendations of his Department's noise review working party published in October 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Memberf for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on Friday 8 November 1991, at c.310–03.

  Send-a-penny Campaign
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pennies and representations he has received in connection with the send-a-penny campaign designed to improve the provision, cleanliness and accessibility of public conveniences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has received 235 pennies and 88 representations. For over 100 years authorities have had an absolute discretion as to whether, and how, they provide public conveniences. We have no plans to change this.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures the Government are planning to introduce to protect hedgerows; and when these will be presented.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to bring forward detailed legislation to protect hedgerows.

  Mr. Baldry
  In July I announced the Government's revised proposals to protect hedgerows. These include two main elements: a proposed scheme to require owners and occupiers to notify intended removal of hedgerows—linked with new powers for local authorities to register key hedgerows; and proposed new incentives to promote environmentally beneficial management.

  The former requires legislation, which we shall seek to introduce when parliamentary time permits. However, the
  396
  proposed incentives scheme does not depend on new legislation and we are discussing with the Countryside Commission and others the best means of taking early steps to implement this.

  Housing Investment Programme
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Institute of Housing with regard to the allocation of the housing investment programme.

  Mr. Yeo
  The institute commented on the Secretary of State's recent proposals that more account should be taken of local authorities' performance and plans in the allocation of housing capital resources. Their views were taken into account. The Secretary of State announced on 30 October his decision to proceed to implement these proposals.

  Building Industry
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has had with the Federation of Master Builders about the state of the building industry.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no such consultations.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from building firms about the effects of the recession on the building industry.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 6 November 1991 at column 154.

  Housing Expenditure
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of how he plans to use the increases in public expenditure on housing announced in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement, and his proposals for local authority housing subsidy.

  Sir George Young
  Public expenditure on housing will be nearly £7·8 billion next year, an increase of 4·9 per cent. on previous plans, and will rise further to £8·2 billion by 1994–95. This rising programme will increasingly focus on tackling run-down council estates and providing for families in housing need. Our plans include:

  —£350 million extra over three years to provide nearly £1,200 million in total for the enhanced estate action initiative which I announced in July, and more for housing action trusts in the two later years, to continue our policy of focusing resources on the most run-down council estates;

  —the Housing Corporation's capital programme of new social housing to go on rising as planned to £1·7 billion next year and over £2 billion thereafter, to provide 120,000 homes over three years mainly for the benefit of homeless families and others in housing need;

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Forecast outturn

  Previous plan

  Revised plan

  Previous plan

  Revised plan

  plan

  Housing Corporation (net capital)1

  1,636·7

  1,706·5

  1,706·5

  1,918·8

  1,918·8

  1,966·7

  Local authority capital2

  19,61·1

  1,845·9

  1,962·7

  1,813·5

  1,952·5

  2,002·4

  Housing Action Trusts

  10·3

  67·3

  40·1

  69·0

  86·8

  88·2

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  3,751·1

  3,531·8

  3,755·7

  3,537·8

  3,695·3

  3,861·7

  Other Expenditure

  266·6

  263·3

  310·2

  255·8

  305·4

  292·0

  Total housing

  7,625·8

  7,414·9

  7,775·2

  7,594·9

  7,958·8

  8,211·0

  1Housing Corporation forecast gross capital expenditure: 1991–92 £1,731 million; 1992–93 £1,770 million; 1993–94 £2,004 million; 1994–95 £2,052 million.

  2Includes Estate Action: 1991–92 £266 million; 1992–93 £365 million; 1993–94 £407 million; 1994–95 £423 million.

  My Department is also today consulting local authorities about my proposals for the management and maintenance allowances and rent guidelines to be used in calculating authorities' entitlements to housing revenue account subsidy next year, and I have placed the consultation papers in the Library with a list of proposed allowances and guidelines for each authority. I plan to introduce important new measures to help raise standards of management and maintenance in council housing. First, I propose an average increase of 6½ per cent. in management and maintenance allowances, allowing a real improvement in service to tenants. Second, I propose further moves towards targeting allowances according to the type of housing that each authority owns and the differing management problems they face, thereby directing £93 million more to the authorities with the greatest needs. On rents, I propose increases in guidelines averaging £2·44 a week—to give a new average guideline of £27·33—and ranging from £1·20 to £4·50 a week, thus continuing our policy of encouraging authorities to charge rents that better reflect the relative value of housing provided while remaining on average well below market levels. Responsibility for setting actual rents remains with individual local authorities. Housing benefit will normally meet the whole of any rent increase for the two thirds of tenants receiving it.

  Backed by this substantial public expenditure provision, and by recent initiatives to drive up standards and secure better value for money, our housing policies will continue to focus—though constructive partnerships between all the agencies involved in providing housing
  398
  —£30 million next year for a continuation of the successful programme of new rural housing financed through local authorities;

  —£25 million over three years for bringing flats over shops back into use;

  —£70 million over three years for a new grant to help authorities meet the costs of replacing privately leased accommodation for homeless families;

  —over £1·5 billion each year in grants and borrowing approvals for local authorities' mainstream housing capital programmes of renovating their own estates, supporting housing associations, and helping low-income private owners to renovate their houses;

  —£3·75 billion in 1992–93 for subsidies to council housing, including rent rebates for low-income tenants.

  Lower construction costs—down nearly 10 per cent. since this time last year—and lower land prices are helping us to get more output from current levels of public expenditure. The table gives further details of the breakdown between main spending areas. I shall announce further details of specific programmes, and of capital allocations to individual authorities and of the Housing Corporation's development programme, over the coming weeks.

  —on encouraging owner-occupation for those who can afford it, on helping homeless families, and on widening choice and improving service for tenants especially on the most run-down council estates.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals his Department were unable to trace to tell them they could make up their contributions to claim a full pension.

  Mr. Jack
  The responsibility for tracing individuals for contributions purposes is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to the Treasury of the additional claims for mortgage interest payments from those pensioners who will be entitled to claim income support as a result of the uprating statement; and how many individuals will be able to claim such payments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: We estimate that fewer than 5,000 pensioners with a mortgage could become entitled to claim income support as a result of the uprating statement. The extra cost to the Treasury is negligible.
  399
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money the Government received from pensioners through deductions from their pensions occasioned by stays in hospital longer than six weeks in each year since 1988–89.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many low income pensioners are expected to gain from the measures in the uprating statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The proposed uprating income support by a full 7 per cent. from next April will give increases substantially above the current level of inflation to around 3·5 million low-income pensioners where the claimant or partner is aged 60 or over.

  Furthermore, there will be rises in addition to the uprating increase for older and disabled pensioners who receive the higher pensioner premium. Couples will get £1·50 per week extra and single claimants £1·00. This measure alone will add £60 million in a full year to the help available to low-income pensioners.

  The income support limits for residential care and nursing homes are also to be increased by £15 in nearly all cases. This rise is significantly greater than inflation and represents additional funding of £200 million per year.

  As a result of the proposed uprating it is expected that up to 400,000 people will become newly eligible to claim income support and the majority of these are likely to be pensioners.

  Pensions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what approximate amount per week will be payable as a SERPS addition to their pension to those who have been on average earnings throughout their working life if they retire in 1991, 1992 and for each subsequent year for which forecasts exist.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table.

  The amount of additional pension payable for a man experiencing age specific male average earnings through-out his working life and a woman experiencing age specific female average earnings during her working life retiring in each year 1991 to 2061

  Year reaching pension age

  Men

  Women

  1991

  40·90

  25·45

  1992

  48·80

  30·15

  1993

  54·50

  33·70

  1994

  59·85

  37·00

  1995

  65·25

  40·25

  1996

  70·90

  43·65

  1997

  76·85

  47·20

  1998

  82·80

  50·75

  1999

  84·95

  52·15

  2000

  86·00

  52·85

  2001

  86·95

  53·55

  2002

  87·80

  54·20

  2003

  88·55

  54·85

  2004

  89·15

  55·50

  2005

  89·55

  55·90

  2006

  89·85

  56·30

  2007

  90·00

  56·60

  2008

  89·85

  56·90

  400

  Year reaching pension age

  Men

  Women

  2009

  89·35

  57·00

  2010

  90·00

  57·95

  2011

  90·55

  58·95

  2012

  91·05

  59·85

  2013

  91·50

  60·65

  2014

  91·85

  61·30

  2015

  92·05

  61·90

  2016

  92·25

  62·40

  2017

  92·35

  62·85

  2018

  92·30

  63·20

  2019

  92·20

  63·45

  2020

  91·95

  63·60

  2021

  91·65

  63·70

  2022

  91·30

  63·80

  2023

  90·65

  64·55

  2024

  90·00

  65·45

  2025

  89·10

  66·20

  2026

  88·15

  67·20

  2027

  86·95

  68·10

  2028

  86·95

  69·10

  2029

  86·90

  70·10

  2030

  86·90

  71·15

  2031

  86·95

  72·15

  2032

  87·05

  73·10

  2033

  87·15

  74·15

  2034

  87·30

  75·20

  2035

  87·50

  76·15

  2036

  87·65

  77·10

  2037

  87·90

  78·05

  2038

  88·25

  78·95

  2039

  88·60

  79·75

  2040

  88·95

  80·40

  2041

  89·30

  81·00

  2042

  89·65

  81·55

  2043

  90·00

  82·10

  2044

  90·30

  82·60

  2045

  90·65

  83·10

  2046

  90·95

  83·60

  2047

  91·30

  84·05

  2048

  91·55

  84·50

  2049

  91·85

  84·95

  2050

  92·15

  85·35

  2051

  92·45

  85·70

  2052

  92·75

  86·10

  2053

  93·00

  86·40

  2054

  93·25

  86·75

  2055

  93·55

  87·10

  2056

  93·80

  87·45

  2057

  94·05

  87·75

  2058

  94·30

  88·10

  2059

  94·55

  88·40

  2060

  94·80

  88·70

  2061

  95·00

  89·00

  Benefits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the circumstances in which the social fund or any other benefits can be used to purchase services from the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund payments for medical items are specifically excluded from the scope of the fund. People in receipt of other social security benefits are free to choose how they wish to spend their money. Income support or family credit recipients are entitled to free prescriptions, optical tests and dental treatment.

  The provision of NHS services is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what policy he follows in exercising his discretion
  401
  to round benefit rates up or down under section 63(5) of the Social Security Act 1986; and what exceptions have occurred to that policy since 1986.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The rounding rules of all benefits are reviewed annually as part of the uprating exercise. No established practice exists which would pre-empt our discretion in this matter.

  SERPS
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals are in receipt of a state earnings-related pensions scheme pension higher than £60 a week.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The most recently available statistics, based on a 10 per cent. sample of those in receipt of retirement pensions in March 1991, indicate that no one in that sample was in receipt of an additional pension (SERPS) higher than £60 per week.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision his Department is making to provide for the shortfall between the fees charged by residential homes and nursing homes and the level of income support under community care; and what assistance his Department can give to those who meet the normal qualifying conditions but whose fees are above the benefit limit and who are unable to meet their charges in full.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The present system of income support limits will be preserved for existing recipients who are resident in homes when the new community care arrangements are introduced in April 1993. As now, under those arrangements there will be limits to the level of benefit available for different types of care and these will be reviewed regularly. Subject to the normal qualifying conditions, people whose fees are at or below the limit will have their charges met in full.

  The current income support limits for the various categories of residential and nursing home care represent the maximum amounts available. Any additional assistance—for example, that provided by relatives or charitable organizations—is, however, disregarded in the calculation of income support entitlement. This provision will continue under the new arrangements from April 1993.

  Under the present arrangements, as an alternative to placing people in their own residential accommodation, local authorities have powers to place people in private residential care homes and meet their fees in full, recouping from the resident an assessed amount towards the charge where appropriate. LAs can also make weekly cash payments in certain circumstances to people in independent homes where the fees are more than the appropriate income support limit. This provision will continue under the new community care arrangements after April 1993 for those residents with preserved income support rights.

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the current cost of providing funeral expenses to those pensioners on income support; and what is the number who have secured such help.

  Mr. Scott
  In the last full year for which records are available (1990–91) 12,702 awards of funeral payments were made totalling £7,631,107 to pensioners on income support; in the first six months of this year 6,015 awards have been made totalling £4,094,645. Funeral payments from the social fund are also paid to people who are receiving family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on how income support for the mentally handicapped is calculated regarding training, education, employment and other day care elements now; and how it is planned to be changed after 1 April 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Income support is calculated in accordance with the relevant regulations by reference to the individual's circumstances including any recognised extra expenses, and other income or capital. Mentally handicapped people undergoing training, education, employment or receiving day care are eligible for income support on the same terms as other disabled people. There are special rules to enable disabled people to retain the disability premium during training and to encourage them to take up employment or advanced education. Severely disabled young people may be entitled to income support while undertaking full-time non advanced education or if they are unable to participate in youth training. These special rules are likely to continue after April 1993. The provision of day care by local authority social services departments and community care arrangements from April 1993 are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Residential Care Allowance
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will detail expenditure on income support residential care allowances for the years 1988–89 and 1990–91 by the different residential and nursing home categories for each benefit area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Because of the sample size of the data collected on the number of residents and expenditure in residential care and nursing homes it is only statistically sound for the larger categories of care. Information is not available for expenditure split into areas. The available data are shown in the following table:

  Estimated expenditure

  £ million

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Residential care

  Elderly

  269

  301

  312

  346

  Very dependent elderly

  75

  114

  145

  184

  Mental handicap

  116

  126

  139

  187

  Physically handicapped below pension age

  33

  56

  68

  82

  403

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total (including other categories)

  556

  658

  740

  888

  Nursing homes

  Elderly and others

  201

  267

  230

  378

  Terminal illness

  17

  74

  168

  369

  Total (including other categories)

  322

  446

  529

  984

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase the amount of earnings disregard before benefits for lone parents are affected.

  Mr. Jack
  The earnings disregard for lone parents of £15 was increased in housing benefit and community charge benefit in October 1990 to £25. We have no plans for further change at present.

  Homeless Families
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account was taken of the need of children of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation to have a balanced diet in the review of the arrangements for income support of homeless families.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since April 1989 people in board and lodging accommodation have been treated in the same way as most other recipients of income support. They therefore now receive housing benefit to cover the cost of their accommodation and also standard income support personal allowances and premiums to meet their day-to-day living expenses.

  The income support rates, including premiums, are regularly reviewed and from April 1992 the Government propose to increase these by a full 7 per cent.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the service given to self-employed people seeking help through family credit.

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

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken to improve the working of the cold weather payments scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 7 November.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was paid out on cold weather payments over the last winter period; and what was the cost of administering these payments.

  Mr. Scott
  In 1990–91, 1,430,000 cold weather payments were made, at a cost of almost £8·6 million.404
  Administration costs were approximately £3.6 million last year, but they will reduce considerably this coming winter because payments will be made automatically by national computer rather than clerically.

  Child Support Act 1991
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration has been given to the impact on black communities of the provisions in the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  The provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 will apply equally and be administered equitably in respect of all persons who are habitually resident in the United Kingdom. The Government consulted widely on the proposals in the White Paper "Children Come First" including the Commission for Racial Equality. A consultation document containing details of the proposed contents of the regulations to be made under the Act, was published on 1 November. A copy has also been sent to the Commission for Racial Equality. A full list of all the organisations being consulted was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 7 November. The Government will consider carefully all comments on the consultation document before the regulations are finalised and laid before Parliament next year.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the service given to self-employed people seeking help through family credit.

  Mr. Jack
  There are already over 50,000 families on family credit, around 15 per cent. of the caseload, where the main earner is self-employed. The average payment of family credit in these cases is £44·10 a week, compared with £28 a week for families where the main earner is an employee.

  We have commissioned a research study, which is being carried out by the social policy research unit at the university of York, into family credit for the self-employed. The study, which is well advanced, with information due to become available during next year, will enable us to determine what changes in assessment and procedures are called for in order to further improve the way we handle claims from the self-employed.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimate for the number of people in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Derbyshire who will no longer be eligible for severe disability premium after 11 November.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The arrangements in Great Britain, including Derbyshire, should ensure that no one who has secured the premium prior to 21 October will lose it after 11 November. The arrangements made in Northern Ireland are the responsibility for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for severe disability premium
  405
  were made in each of the years since its conception, and at what cost; how many reviews for non-award were requested; and how many were accepted.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The severe disability premium is a component of income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit, and is not the subject of a separate claim. Information on the number of reviews for non-awards is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of people not receiving income support but receiving housing benefit and community charge benefit, which included the severe disability premium, is not available prior to May 1990. However, the figures for May 1990 are 9,000 people for housing benefit and 17,000 for community charge benefit. The number of people receiving income support which included the severe disability premium on a particular day is as follows:

  May

  Number

  1988

  35,000

  1989

  45,000

  1990

  62,000

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total full year cost of increases in income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes announced in the last two years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated full-year cost of the April 1991 increase in residential care and nursing home limits is £225 million and for the April 1992 increase, £190 million.

HEALTH

  Paediatric Pathologists
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric pathologists there are in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. All regions were required to have at least one paediatric pathologist in post by 31 March and to have conducted a review of the need for further posts by 1992. All regions have met these objectives except in one case where there has been difficulty in filling the post.

  National Health Service Charges
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the current average levels of charges for(a) glasses, (b) dental treatment, (c) eye tests and (d) dental checks; how many of each took place in each of the last five years in Nottingham health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since July 1986 all spectacle dispensings, and since April 1989 a large proportion of sight tests, have been carried out privately. No information is collected on the levels of private charges. The maximum charge for lenses prescribed by the hospital eye service is £63·15.

  The average patient charge for a course of dental treatment paid by patients paying the full charge in the
  406
  financial year 1990–91 was approximately £26. There are three levels of dental examination for which the associated patient's charge is £3·75, £5·25 and £12.

  It is not possible to provide figures on a comparable basis for the number of sight tests carried out over the period requested as figures are not collected on the number of sight tests carried out privately.

  The numbers of dental examinations and dental treatments provided under the general dental services in Nottinghamshire family health services authority in the last five years is shown in the table.

  Dental examinations

  Dental treatments

  1985

  635,560

  692,120

  1986–87

  652,660

  715,870

  1987–88

  651,480

  724,580

  1988–89

  671,930

  761,950

  1989–90

  623,049

  722,966

  The figures in 1988–89 were boosted by the announcement during the year of the proposed introduction of a charge for dental examinations from January 1989, and depressed in 1989–90 because people had brought forward their visits to the dentist. The evidence suggests that the number of dental examinations in England and Wales is now returning to the level it had reached before the announcement of the charge was made. The number of courses of dental treatment carried out in England has increased by 4·9 million, or 18 per cent., since 1979.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ring fence those resources his Department considers necessary for local authorities to meet the fees for those in residential and nursing homes either(a) to meet current demand or (b) the demand expected under community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. It is for the local authorities to decide on the right balance between spending on residential, day and domiciliary services in the light of the needs of people in their area and, where they support people in homes in the independent sector, to negotiate fees with home owners.

  Optical Charges Vouchers
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if will make it his policy to increase the value of vouchers for optical charges in line with charges made by manufacturers to opticians.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is already our policy to set voucher values with reference to nationwide average manufacturers' prices.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of extending to disability working allowance claimants entitlement to the remission of prescription charges.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimated cost would be about £2 million.

  Pharmaceutical Price Retail Scheme
  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the £4 million pharmaceutical price retail scheme ceiling over which an annual financial return was required from the pharmaceutical industry was last approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Pharmaceutical suppliers with sales of £4 million or more to the national health service have been required to submit annual financial returns to the Department under the terms of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme since 1984. The present scheme is due for renegotiation next year.

  Divorces
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the total number of children whose parents have been divorced in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of children of divorcing couples in England and Wales is shown in the table:

  Children aged under 16

  Children aged 16 or over

  1990

  152,877

  68,181

  1989

  148,162

  68,405

  1988

  150,176

  70,120

  1987

  148,911

  68,394

  1986

  151,964

  71,394

  1985

  155,740

  71,152

  1984

  148,600

  71,620

  1983

  155,562

  70,987

  1982

  158,268

  68,455

  1981

  159,403

  66,572

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total number of divorces in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the table.

  Divorces in England and Wales

  Number

  1990

  153,386

  1989

  150,872

  1988

  152,633

  1987

  151,007

  1986

  153,903

  1985

  160,300

  1984

  144,501

  1983

  147,479

  1982

  146,698

  1981

  145,713

  Disabled People
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friends the Members for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), on 22 March, at columns 254–55. 1 made it clear
  408
  that the community care reforms have largely overtaken the provisions of these sections. The Government intend to review the need to implement these sections after several years' experience of the community care arrangements.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between himself and representatives of the United Kingdom transplant authority about improving the system by which health regions exchange human organs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed this matter during a visit to the United Kingdom transplant support service authority on 7 November. Human organs for transplantation are allocated by the authority in accordance with criteria agreed by the medical profession. The authority has arranged for meetings with the profession to consider ways of improving the system to ensure that organs available for transplantation are distributed as effectively and equitably as possible.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new and additional resources he has committed to meeting the objectives of the patients charter, excluding from his reply the costs of the publication and its preparation and distribution.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Making services more responsive to patients, which is the key aim of the charter, means doing things differently and more effectively. All the charter standards are already being achieved somewhere in the NHS. We want to bring all parts of the service up to the standards of the best.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will outline the timetable from 1993 onwards for transferring to local authorities the moneys currently spent by the Benefits Agency on residential and nursing care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There will be a single formal transfer of resources from the Department of Social Security to local authorities in the 1992 public expenditure survey, covering the years 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96. Provision for both social security and local authorities in subsequent surveys will be determined in the light of the declining number of cases with preserved entitlement under social security rules and the rising demand for local authority services, including demographic changes.

  Nasogastric Feeding Tubes
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will arrange for nasogastric feeding tubes to be available on prescription from general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The resource and other implications of making nasogastric feeding tubes available on GP prescription are under consideration.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decisions he has taken about payments to general practitioners who achieved higher targets in health promotion clinics, minor surgery, immunisations and vaccinations and cervical cytology.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) on 7 November at columns 259–60.

  Bexley District Health Authority
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the funding of Bexley district health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since my previous reply to my hon. Friend on 14 May 1991 at column 134, we have received no representations.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when an official from his Department visited the Merseyside nursing home abortion clinic in Parkfield road, Liverpool, to inspect and approve its new method of disposing of the bodies of aborted unborn babies, introduced on 1 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No visit has been made in connection with this particular aspect of the clinic's operation.

  HIV
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-haemophiliacs in the United Kingdom 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.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: There have been 50 reports in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of HIV infections in people who received blood or tissue in the United Kingdom before screening of donations was introduced in 1985. There have been no reports of infection occurring due to blood transfusion since then. One HIV infection occurred in 1986 due to tissue transfer.

EMPLOYMENT

  Delta Programme
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, in relation to the European Commission's DELTA 91 programme(a) the names, organisations and areas of expertise of the members of each of the DELTA programme's technical evaluation committees, (b) the titles of the proposals which have been accepted for funding by the Commission and (c) the names of each organisation participating in each proposal.

  Mr. Forth
  The European Commission is responsible for the administration of the Telematics programme, of 410
  which DELTA 91 is a part. Member states have agreed to maintain confidentiality until the Commission publishes the results of the selection process. This is likely to be in December.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the organisation appointed to act as DELTA 91 United Kingdom technical assistance unit made any bids for funds under the programme, either as a main contractor or as a partner; and how much the organisation which acted as DELTA 91 United Kingdom technical assistance unit was paid to provide that service.

  Mr. Forth
  Member states have agreed to maintain confidentiality about all applications to the Telematics programme, of which DELTA is a part. The DELTA 91 United Kingdom technical assistance unit was appointed after full competitive tendering, in line with public purchasing policy. The value of contracts are commercial in confidence and are not disclosed.

  Special Needs Training
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show both at 1991 prices and as a percentage of the total training budget, the amount allocated for training for people with special needs for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on expenditure on training for people with special training needs is not separately identified.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show what proportion of the budget for the TECs is allocated to provide training for people with special needs.

  Mr. Jackson
  The proportion of training budgets allocated to provision for people with special training needs is the responsibility of individual training and enterprise councils and is determined by local needs and priorities.

  Wages Underpayment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers have been prosecuted for underpayment of employees in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of employers prosecuted for paying their employees less than the statutory minimum remuneration required by the appropriate wages council orders is detailed in the table.

  Year

  Number of employers prosecuted

  1980

  8

  1981

  8

  1982

  4

  1983

  2

  1984

  2

  1985

  2

  1986

  2

  1987

  3

  1988

  9

  1989

  9

  1990

  7

  1991

  112

  1 To date.

  411
  These figures include two prosecutions in Wales, one in 1987 and one in 1988.

  Hoiger Subir Majhi
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will obtain information from the Health and Safety Executive about the activities of the executive in connection with the accident to Hoiger Subir Majhi at Ambrosia creamery, Lifton, Devon, on 28 November 1990, and if he will make a statement on the reasons why it was decided not to undertake legal proceedings.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive were notified by telephone of the accident to Mr. Majhi at 3.35 pm on Thursday 29 November 1990. HSE determined the steps being taken by the company to carry out its own investigation into the accident and obtained an assurance that the machine would not be brought back into use until HSE were satisfied that it was safe to do so. The following day HSE obtained assurance that the necessary steps had been taken to safeguard the machine and that a thorough investigation was continuing. HSE therefore arranged to visit the factory on Tuesday 4 December to investigate the accident.

  HSE's inspector was given notes of the investigation undertaken by the company and copies of statements taken. He interviewed a number of people at the factory and saw a video recording of the machine taken by the company after the accident, and discussed the accident with the senior union representative on site. Safety representatives had been involved in the company's investigation from the outset. The inspector was not able to interview Mr. Majhi at that stage because he was in hospital.

  The company sent a memo on safety to all staff and introduced a new system of machine checks to prevent a recurrence of the accident.

  Having considered all the evidence, a prosecution was not brought by HSE because:

  (a) there was doubt whether danger which gave rise to the accident was reasonably foreseeable within the terms of the Factories Act.

  (b) it was not possible to determine how and whom might have been responsible for the damaged guard mechanism; and

  (c) the company has a generally good approach to health and safety and responded quickly and effectively to the accident.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Health and Safety Executive is satisfied that pneumatically operated safety screens now being installed on customer service counters by building societies can be operated with proper regard to the safety of staff and public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive's experience of this type of screen to date is not sufficient to allow them to comment on it. It is for employers and others with duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure that equipment used in their undertakings does not put the health and safety of their staff or the public at risk.

  Manual Handling
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the Health and Safety Commission to publish the consultative document on manual handling; what period will be allowed for consultation; and when he envisages the regulations will be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Commission's consultative document on the manual handling of loads was published on 7 November; a copy has been placed in the Library. The Commission has invited interested parties to comment on the proposals set out in that consultative document by 9 March next—that is, within four months. The European Community directive on manual handling requires member states to implement it by 31 December 1992; it is my intention that regulations will be made and brought into effect in time to meet that deadline.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current budget for overseas travel for the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Health and Safety Executive's expenditure on overseas travel is not a separate item, but is provided from within a general HSE travel and subsistence budget which takes account of the need for, for example, work in connection with EC matters. Some of HSE's overseas travel is reimbursed by the European Commission; that carried out by the nuclear installations inspectorate is charged out to the nuclear industry.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the number of health and safety inspectors employed by the executive in each division; how many are full time and part-time; what vacancies exist in each category; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows, at 1 November 1991:

  HSE Division

  Number of Inspectors

  Field Operations Division

  914·5

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate

  164·0

  Technology and Health Sciences Division

  136·5

  Inspectorate of Mines

  38·5

  Offshore Safety Division

  57·0

  Railway Inspectorate

  28·0

  Resources and Planning Division

  8·0

  Safety and General Policy Division

  12·5

  Special Hazards Division

  16·0

  Health Policy Division

  9·0

  Executive Support Branch

  13·0

  Hazardous Installations Policy Branch

  6·0

  Research and Laboratory Services Division

  1·0

  Of these, 1,387 worked full time and 34 part time, part-timers being counted as half units. Targets for each inspector category are set for the end of the planning year. The number of vacancies calculated against the 1 April 1992 targets are given in the table:
  413

  Inspector occupational grouping

  Number of vacancies

  Agricultural

  0·0

  Factory

  17·0

  Specialist

  0·5

  Mines

  0·0

  Quarries

  4·0

  Nuclear Installations

  10·0

  Railway

  7·0

  Offshore Safety

  61·0

  Considerable efforts are being made to fill inspector vacancies, particularly those for offshore safety inspectors. Thirty-four successful candidates have joined or are shortly expected to join HSE as offshore safety inspectors from a recruitment competition earlier this year. Two competitions are currently under way and 19 further successful candidates have already been selected from these. There are currently 12 successful candidates for factory inspector posts waiting to join the organisation and applicants for factory and nuclear installations inspector jobs will shortly be interviewed.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will obtain from the Health and Safety Executive information about the activities of the executive in connection with the crane failure at St. Mary's, Isles of Scilly, on 13 July 1991; and what steps have been taken to prosecute those persons responsible for overloading the crane and causing a crane to be operated without an effective safe load indicator.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive was informed about the accident by police a few hours after it happened on Saturday 13 July.

  The police told HSE's Plymouth office that the crane which had overturned while offloading a cargo container was in a dangerous condition with its rear wheels in the air and the jib resting on the jetty and the sea bed. HSE's inspector wished to visit the scene of the accident directly, but was prevented from doing so by heavy fog which had led to the suspension of commercial sailings and flights to the island. The inspector was not in the circumstances able to visit the scene until Monday 15 July.

  Police advice was that it was imperative that the crane should be made safe as the area surrounding it could not be closed off. HSE's inspector therefore briefed the police by telephone on how to ensure the crane's safe retrieval and the recording of the information needed to establish the cause of the accident.

  Making the crane safe involved some dismantling, and during this process part of the jib became detached and sank to the sea bed. This loss of part of the jib and damage to other parts of the crane sustained during the overturning meant that it was not possible for FISE to gather the evidence needed to establish if the crane was overloaded or not, and thus to mount any prosecution in this case. An automatic safeload indicator was, however, seen on the crane.

  Textile and Footwear Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the numbers employed in the textile and footwear industries per month, by industry, using the latest figures, for each month of 1991.
  414
  Mr. Jackson
  The number of employees in employment in the textile and footwear industries in Great Britain were as follows:

  Thousands

  Unadjusted for seasonal variations

  Footwear

  Textile

  SIC Group 451

  SIC Class 43

  1991

  January

  44·2

  185·4

  February

  44·0

  186·4

  March

  43·4

  182·6

  April

  42·6

  183·2

  May

  42·1

  182·2

  June

  41·7

  181·1

  July

  41·4

  183·7

  August

  40·6

  183·2

  EC Legislative Competence
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what legislative competence the EC has in respect of deciding, by majority voting, matters relating to(a) maternity leave and (b) the length of the working week, and under what legislative authority.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for the European Court of Justice in the final analysis to determine such matters.

  Existing directives which are concerned with terms and conditions of employment have been based on article 100 of the treaty of Rome—establishment or functioning of the common market—or article 235—measures necessary to achieve the objectives of the Community but which are not provided for elsewhere in the treaty. These articles require unanimity in the Council.

  The European Commission has cited article 118A—health and safety of workers—as the proposed legal base for its draft directives on pregnant workers and working time. Under article 118A, the Council may adopt directives through qualified majority voting.

  Building Industry
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has had concerning redundancies in the building industry.

  Mr. Forth
  This Department has had a number of representations about employment in the building industry. A wide range of training, enterprise and employment measures are available to help unemployed people.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of redundancies in the building industry for the first three quarters of 1991.

  Mr. Forth
  It is estimated that there were 3,066 confirmed redundancies in the construction industry in Great Britain in the first quarter of 1991, 3,423 in the second quarter and a provisional total of 2,079 in the third quarter of 1991.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Council of Ministers meeting on the draft directive on working time.

  Mr. Forth
  The Labour and Social Affairs Council met on 6 November 1991. The draft directive on working time was not discussed.

WALES

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received concerning the application for national health service trust status from Pembrokeshire health authority; how many have been in support of the application; and how many against.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A total of 101 representations have been received during the consultation period of which 50 did not support the establishment of the trust. I intend shortly to announce my decision having taken into account the comments received, alongside the individual merits of the application.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of providing nebulisers free of charge to all NHS patients requiring them in the present financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is not available centrally; this is a matter for individual health authorities. District general managers have been reminded of their duty under section 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to provide health service free at the point of delivery to NHS patients except where there is statutory provision for charging.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many long-term unemployed people there are in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 11 July 1991 there were in Wales 27,784 claimants who had been unemployed for more than 12 months.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount of unpaid uniform business rate in each of the counties of Wales since its inception.

  Mr. David Hunt
  National non-domestic rates came into force on 1 April 1990. The information available is given in the following table:

  Arrears of non-domestic rates at 31 March 19911

  County Area2

  Arrears

  Amount due3

  (£.000)

  (£.000)

  Clywd

  4,597

  51,292

  Dyfed

  2,202

  36,564

  Gwent

  4,039

  60,400

  Gwynedd

  1,378

  23,610

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,885

  55,589

  Powys

  393

  9,473

  South Glamorgan

  1,916

  59,217

  West Glamorgan

  2,111

  55,307

  Total Wales

  21,521

  351,452

  1 As reported by charging authorities.

  2 Charging authorities grouped in county areas.

  3 Gross amount due less discretionary reliefs. Figures shown are provisional.

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in relation to the Pembrokeshire health authority's application for trust status(a) the date on which he received the application, (b) the date on which he will announce his decision and (c) the criteria he will use to reach his decision.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The application was received on 16 July and the three months' public consultation commenced on 1 August. I expect shortly to announce my decision whether to establish the trust. This will take into account:

  (a) the comments received as a result of public consultation; and

  (b) the individual merits of the application in demonstrating the benefits and improved quality of services to patients; the involvement of professionals, especially consultants in senior management; management capability and capacity, and the financial soundness of the potential trust.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals in Wales that propose to opt out or establish a NHS trust or have expressed an interest in doing so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To date only Pembrokeshire has submitted an application to become an NHS trust. An announcement listing those units or hospitals invited to prepare an application to seek trust status in April 1993 will be made in a few weeks.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the financial contribution received by Pembrokeshire health authority, towards costs incurred through preparing an application for NHS trust status, has been used for public relations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The contribution made available to Pembrokeshire health authority was to help towards costs incurred in preparing the application, associated printing and during the consultation period.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to develop the provision of non-vocational adult education classes in Wales and increase the access to vocational classes for mature students in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The development of and access to adult education is currently the responsibility of the local education authorities, the university of Wales and a number of voluntary organisations.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new and additional resources he has committed to meeting the objectives of the patients charter in Wales, excluding from his reply the costs of the publication and its preparation and distribution.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The patients charter for Wales builds on existing good practice within the NHS. Some of
  417
  the guarantees and standards in the charter are already being achieved by health authorities in Wales. Where the objectives in the charter are not presently being achieved, health authorities will need to use the resources allocated to them.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of those GP fund-holding practices in Wales which have set up private companies for aspects of their patients' care.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There are none.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each family health service authority area in Wales(a) the total number of GP practices, (b) the number of fund-holding practices and (c) the percentage of Welsh patients registered with a GP who belong to a fund-holding practice.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is as follows:

  Family health service authority

  Number of GP practices

  Number of GP fund-holders

  Clwyd

  74

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  106

  4

  South Glamorgan

  76

  1

  West Glamorgan

  65

  1

  Gwent

  95

  —

  Gwynedd

  55

  —

  Powys

  19

  —

  Dyfed

  70

  —

  Some 3 per cent. of patients in Wales are covered by the seven fund-holding practices.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his practice to answer hon. Members to whom he has replied to a parliamentary question with an undertaking to write, within one week of his reply.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My practice is to write to hon. Members as soon as possible.

  Community Services Managers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give a list of community services managers, or their equivalents, within the health service in Wales, together with their grades and pay scales and any appropriate qualifications;

  (2) if he will give a list of unit general managers within the health service in Wales together with their grades and pay scales and any appropriate qualifications.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my letter of 7 November, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Unit General Managers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his practice to require health authorities to report to him the reasons for any dismissals from the post of unit general manager within hospitals in Wales.
  418
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No. As I said in my reply on 17 October 1991 contractual matters pertaining to general managers fall entirely within the operational responsibilities of the employing authority.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of small abattoirs currently not up to EC hygiene standards which will qualify for permanent derogation.

  Mr. Maclean
  All red meat abattoirs in Great Britain currently operate under licences granted by local authorities. With the exception of abattoirs approved for intra-Community trade, records are not routinely mentioned by the Department on the site of individual abattoirs. However, annual statistics derived from State Veterinary Service visits indicate that there are some 222 abattoirs in Great Britain which are eligible to qualify for a permanent structural derogation from the EC single market rules contained in Council directive 91/497/EEC. EC rules on hygiene and inspection apply to all abattoirs whether or not they qualify for a derogation.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of small slaughterhouses and cutting plants currently not up to European Community hygiene standards which will qualify for temporary derogation until the beginning of 1996.

  Mr. Maclean
  Council directive 91/498/EEC enables member states, subject to approval by the EC standing veterinary committee, to grant temporary structural derogations to red meat slaughterhouses, cutting premises and cold stores of all sizes which are unable to comply with single market rules by 1 January 1993. All premises not currently EC approved may apply for a temporary derogation. However, this is a commercial decision for individual businesses and it is not possible accurately to estimate the likely numbers. The Department has recently made available to businesses a detailed free information pack on the new rules, including an application form for temporary derogations.

  Wind Farms
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of grant aid which farmers can receive for the construction of wind farms from his Ministry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Grants are available only where the main purpose of the windmill is to serve the agricultural needs of the farm for electricity. The grant rate is 25 per cent. in the less-favoured areas and 15 per cent. elsewhere. Where the supply also serves a domestic dwelling or provides surplus power to another farm or an electricity company grant is paid on three quarters of the eligible costs.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the present restrictions on the use of Atrazine and Simazine pesticides.
  419
  Mr. Maclean
  United Kingdom use of Atrazine and Simazine are subject to statutory conditions of use such as maximum application rate, minimum harvest interval and operator protection requirements. Use of any pesticide in an unapproved manner is an offence under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funds he has set aside for 1991–92 to fund a decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  None, but as I indicated in reply to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 5 November, at column 77 the Government are ready to consider industry proposals for decommissioning and the necessary funding provided these form part of a wider conservation package aimed at reducing fishing effort.

  Food from Britain
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the level of funding given to Food from Britain in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Curry
  The information, which relates to the amount of Government grant for each financial year mentioned, is as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  6

  1986–87

  5

  1987–88

  4·1

  1988–89

  4·2

  1989–90

  4·5

  1990–91

  4·5

  Sheep Dips
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review his policy concerning the requirement of a single autumn dip for sheep; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Future arrangements will be considered when the results of this year's dip, which ended on 2 November, are available.

  Non-fat Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will place a copy of the European Commission reasoned opinion on regulation 164 relating to non-fat milk bulk distribution in the Library.

  Mr. Curry
  Reasoned opinions are confidential between the Commission and Government, being preparatory to possible court proceedings. It is established practice therefore not to publish their contents.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the new environmentally sensitive areas he intends to designate and how many existing environmentally sensitive areas he intends to expand; and if he will make a statement.
  420
  Mr. Curry
  I plan to increase expenditure on environmentally sensitive areas in England by £75 million over the next three years. I will be making announcements concerning the designation of new areas and the improvements in the existing ESAs shortly.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of recorded cases of spongiform encephalopathy in cats, with relevant dates.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of recorded cases of spongiform encephalopathy in cats in Great Britain listed by date or clinical onset of the disease is as follows:

  Number

  November 1989

  1

  January 1990

  1

  February 1990

  1

  March 1990

  2

  April 1990

  1

  May 1990

  1

  June 1990

  2

  July 1990

  1

  September 1990

  2

  October 1990

  4

  December 1990

  1

  March 1991

  1

  May 1991

  1

  June 1991

  1

  August 1991

  1

  Report not yet received

  1

  Total

  22

  Cymag and Spannit
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the agricultural uses of(a) sodium cyanide (Cymag) and (b) chlorpirifos (Spannit).

  Mr. Maclean
  Sodium cyanide (Cymag) is a vertebrate control agent. It is not approved for agricultural use in the United Kingdom.

  Chlorpirifos (Spannit) is approved for agricultural use on the following crops:

  Calabrese or

  Calabrese at drilling or transplanting

  Kale or

  Kale at drilling or transplanting

  Drilling Carrott Potato

  Swede or

  Swede at drilling or transplanting

  Turnip or

  Turnip at drilling or transplanting

  Plum

  Apple

  Pear

  Currants (black, white and red)

  Currants (bushes)

  after harvest

  Gooseberry

  Strawberry

  Strawberry (plants)

  421

  after cropping

  Raspberry

  Narcissus bulbs Forestry (cut logs)

  Winter wheat

  pre-emergence or

  post-emergence

  Barley

  Oats

  Spring wheat

  Grass

  Maize

  Sweetcorn

  Pea

  Oilseed rape or

  Oilseed rape at drilling

  Broccoli or

  Broccoli at drilling or transplanting

  Cabbage or

  Cabbage at drilling or transplanting

  Cauliflower or

  Cauliflower at drilling or transplanting

  Brussels sprout or

  Brussels sprout. at drilling or transplanting

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of cases of BSE in cows born after the ban on the inclusion of ruminant protein in cattle rations.

  Mr. Maclean
  Three.

  Sheep (Import Bans)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries presently operating an import ban on sheep from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Argentina

  Australia

  Austria

  Brazil

  Canada

  Chile

  Malaysia

  New Zealand

  Sweden

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  United States of America

  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Fanned Salmon
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government are taking to remedy the disturbance of the salmon market and to protect the farmed salmon industry from unfair competition.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC Commission adopted on Friday 8 November a regulation which introduces a scale of minimum import prices for imports into the European Community of fresh, chilled or frozen Atlantic salmon. The regulation came into force on 9 November, and will run until 29 February 1992.
  422
  I very much welcome this positive response by the Commission to the strenuous representations we have been making to secure a floor in the market, as protection against the threat of price collapse caused by unfair competition from Norwegian imports. Our producers have been left to struggle for too long, while huge stocks of frozen salmon have built up in Norway and consignments have been offered for sale at prices which have undermined the market. This has posed a severe threat to United Kingdom salmon farmers and to the economy of the rural areas where they operate.

  I hope the measures that have now been introduced will restore stability to the market during the important pre-Christmas period.

  Tecnazene
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward proposals to restrict the use of the fungicide Tecnazene.

  Mr. Maclean
  Tecnazene is under review by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Ministers in the six Departments responsible for pesticides will decide jointly on any appropriate regulatory action on the basis of expert advice from the ACP.

  Milk Marketing Boards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the monopoly powers of the milk marketing boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Under Community law the United Kingdom is authorised to grant the milk marketing boards the exclusive right to buy from producers in their area the milk which they produce and market without processing, provided it satisfies certain minimum requirements. This right is coupled with an obligation on the boards to purchase the milk in question.

  Farm Assistance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the proportion of the support provided by consumers/taxpayers directly and indirectly to farmers and horticulturalists which goes to the 1,000 largest owners of agricultural land, excluding woodland and rough grazing.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) on 6 November, (Official Report, columns 165–66).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give for England and Wales the amount of aid distributed to hill farmers under each category of assistance for each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Curry
  This information can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Wyandotte Birds
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the destruction of rare Wyandotte birds following a court case brought against their owner, Mr. Clem Shaw, by Shropshire trading standards department.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware of any destruction of Wyandotte birds owned by Mr. Shaw; nor has the Department issued any instructions for their slaughter.

  Cattle
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will encourage a system of passports for finished cattle at auction;

  (2) what information he has of the present usage of the system of passports for finished cattle at auction.

  Mr. Curry
  I understand that a "passport" system for cattle is operated in a number of member states of the European Community. Proposals for a common system of livestock identification are expected to be put forward by 424
  the European Commission to the Council of Agriculture Ministers. I have no plans to introduce changes to the system of cattle identification in the United Kingdom in advance of agreement on those proposals.

  Rapeseed
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much rapeseed in the EC is used for animal feed; what is the cost to EC funds of using this feed; and if he will publish a table showing the total subsidies paid by the EC on ingredients to animal feed and the total value of feed produced.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1990–91, around 6 million tonnes of rapeseed were processed in the EC. The majority was crushed for oil and meal. Only the meal, which makes up around 60 per cent. of the seed by weight, is used in animal feeds. Some 290,000 tonnes of rapeseed were directly incorporated into animal feed. Expenditure on EC support subsidies for rapeseed in 1989, the latest year for which final figures are available, was 1,288 mecu—£843 million.

  The other information requested is not available.

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

Lyme Disease
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to arrest the spread of Lyme disease within the United Kingdom.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should say first that there is no evidence of natural transmission of Lyme disease from person to person. It is acquired by humans from ticks carried by deer, wild rodents and other animals. A leaflet and notices have been prepared to draw the disease to the attention of workers in areas where it is prevalent.
Lord Erroll: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that the tick can be carried by dogs as well as by deer? Although the disease is not widespread at the moment, will he consider the preparation now of contingency plans to deal with the spread of the disease should the need arise?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the disease can be carried by ticks on dogs, although a dog could not give the disease to a human. As regards my noble friend's second question about a contingency plan, the Public Health Laboratory Service keeps the disease under very close review and can always be called upon for help and advice on any communicable disease. However, at present there is no evidence of an increase in the disease among the population of this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the parasite which is the vector of the disease has spread to Richmond Park and to other suburban areas near London? What advice have the Government for persons frequenting those places, especially when they go there with their dogs?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. The disease has spread to those areas although it may have been present for centuries. We advise that the presence of the disease should not spoil people's recreational enjoyment of the parks. The advice is not to expose flesh, and to wear long socks and long trousers. If symptoms are noticed one should tell the doctor that one has been in a tick-infested area. If the disease manifests itself, which is not always the case, it is easily treated with antibiotics.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the Minister give figures on how many people have been affected by the disease? Can he also say what research has been carried out to ensure that it does not become a serious problem?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my records show that the highest number of reported cases occurred in 1988 when 23 cases were reported. Last year there were 19 cases and in the current year there have been 19 cases to date. I would not expect many new cases this year because the tick feeds only in May and June and again in September and October, although I gather that there are some ticks about. We feel that the current level of research is adequate.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what was the outcome in the cases of the people who caught the disease and were treated medically?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, those people who have caught the disease and suffered advanced symptoms have been cured.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the disease and what happens to you if you catch it?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is a rare disease which is caused by bacteria which can be transmitted to people and animals as the result of a bite from a tick. The name is taken from a place in Connecticut in the United States where a number of cases were discovered. It has probably been present in this country for a very long time. The symptoms are those normally associated with flu. There can be complications which involve arthritis, slight paralysis and cardiac problems.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has engaged the interest of the House. He referred to areas where the disease is prevalent. Interestingly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred to one of those, which is in the London area. Can the noble Lord say where the disease is prevalent, apart from parks in this city?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there are very few cases, although the figures I gave could be an underestimate because many people may have the disease without developing symptoms. There is a tick in this country called Ixodes ricinus. Wherever it is present and there are rodents the disease could exist. I should point out that if one is bitten by a tick the tick should be removed quickly because infection is unlikely to occur in less than two hours. Therefore vigilance when having a bath is sensible.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many of the cases reported in this country were late effect cases which were not treated immediately the person was infected with the disease? I ask that because the symptoms can take some time to develop and may not appear until 10 years after a person has been infected by the tick. In such cases the effects can be very much more serious and include arthritis and neurological symptoms.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the more serious effects are invariably the later effects. Most people would not notice that they had had the disease and perhaps would have thought that they had a mild form of flu. I was not aware that the effects could be apparent for up to 10 years. A feature of the disease is

401
that it is detectable through the antibody that goes for the bacteria rather than through the presence of the bacteria itself.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Lord ensure that instructions are issued on how to remove ticks? Those of us who have encountered ticks in our previous careers are aware that there are difficulties and that it is quite a serious problem.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that advice has been given and that the important point is not to pull the tick out too quickly, leaving the mouth behind.

No. 2 Marsham Street
2.44 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future of No. 2 Marsham Street.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, No. 2 Marsham Street is in need of major repair. Arup Associates were commissioned by the Department of the Environment to produce a study identifying a range of options for the future of the Marsham Street site. That study was completed earlier this year and the logistical and financial aspects of its options are now being evaluated. A decision on the future of the site will be announced once that evaluation is complete.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am moderately grateful to my noble friend for her reply, but will she urge upon her colleagues the desirability of resisting the temptation to spend a great deal of money on repairing that graceless and hideous building?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall take back that message from my noble friend with some enthusiasm. He is knocking at an open door when he implores me to join him in his description of the building at No. 2 Marsham Street.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it correct, as was reported, that the Secretary of State wanted to go to Docklands and that that proposal was resisted by, for want of a better phrase, the "Yes, Minister" attitude of the Civil Service? Will my noble friend bear in mind that office space in London is now cheaper than it has ever been because there is a vast glut and renting that space would be much cheaper than restoring the abomination in Marsham Street?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to confirm that that view was taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State because the evaluation is not yet complete. If relocation in London should become necessary, it will feature as part of the evaluation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the ideal use for the site would be
402
as an urban park and adventure playground? Is she deterred from that ideal view by the fact that the site is above the regional seat of government?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards what was originally on the site, if we then had the listing procedure that we have now, we would see on that site the first of the public gasworks, which was built in 1813, and I suspect that my department would not allow the demolition of the first public gasworks. However, if it were ever to be demolished, whatever takes its place on the site must be the outcome of the evaluation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that a public gasworks is rather a good description of No. 2 Marsham Street?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I suppose that it is no understatement to say that there is not a great deal to choose between them.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend encourage her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to look at No. 2 Marsham Street in a rather wider context and perhaps produce a plan for enhancing the beauty of London by removing as many of the post-war eyesores as possible, of which No. 2 Marsham Street should clearly be high on the list?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. It is not just a case of the future of the building, nor of the future of government demand for offices. What should be done aesthetically for this part of London will feature as part of the appraisal.

British Exports: Incidents in France
2.48 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many attacks have been made in the past year on consignments of British exports in France, what was the total damage inflicted, and whether full compensation has been paid.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, since 6th November 1990 there have been eight reported incidents involving consignments of British exports of meat and livestock into France. Four of those attacks resulted in damage estimated at around £100,000 in total. We have not received an assessment of damage in other cases. So far, one claim for compensation has been submitted and this has been paid.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is it not nonsense to talk, on the one hand, about economic and trade union and, on the other, about allowing the exports of one country to be mobbed by people in one's own country who find them over-competitive? Have Her Majesty's Government represented this matter to the French Government and pointed out to them that to any gourmet English lamb is infinitely preferable to French lamb?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government thoroughly deplore incidents in France involving attacks on imported lamb, beef and live sheep. We have taken every opportunity to make our views known to the French authorities. We are determined that everything possible should be done to ensure the safety of British drivers, livestock and vehicles and we shall continue to press this point with the French authorities. We have made it clear to them that a fundamental principle of EC freedom of trade is at issue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the estimate which the noble Earl has given to the House based upon claims submitted by the farmers and hauliers concerned or is it a conjectural figure which has been arrived at by the Government themselves? On the assumption, which on the face of it seems to be established, that those claims have any validity, will the Government give the farmers, the hauliers and all concerned in the United Kingdom the utmost assistance in pursuing repayment to them of the sums involved, with interest?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as for the noble Lord's first point, I understand that the figure of £100,000 that I gave in my original Answer is not conjectural. The French Government have given assurances on several occasions that compensation for losses arising as a direct result of incidents will be paid. Indeed, the French Prime Minister gave precisely that commitment to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in September. Those wishing to make claims should contact officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the French authorities have prosecuted the offenders and, if so, in how many cases?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we understand that four people involved in an incident in Bourges have been prosecuted. They have received fines and suspended prison sentences.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether in respect of the claim paid and the claims pending regard has been paid to the position of the drivers of those vehicles? In particular, where injury has been suffered, has it been included in the compensation claim? Where stress has also been involved, will that too be taken into account?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, there are at present no cases in which an individual driver is applying for compensation for physical injury. The attacks have been aimed only at livestock. However, in the event of any incident, the driver should report any problems to the local prefecture and local 13ritish consulate. Any subsequent claim for compensation should be directed, as I said, to the Ministry.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the French Government have given any indication of action taken by them to prevent repetition of such attacks?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said in an earlier answer; namely, that the French Prime Minister gave a specific assurance to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate for Northern Ireland certain enactments relating to the administration of social security and related matters, with corrections and minor improvements under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate for Northern Ireland certain enactments relating to social security contributions and benefits, with corrections and minor improvements under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for repeals, consequential amendments, transitional and transitory matters and savings in connection with the consolidation of enactments in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1991 and the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1991, with corrections and minor improvements under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name concerning Standing Orders (Public Business), I should like also to speak to the second Motion concerning the Offices Committee.
Noble Lords will recall that in the last Session the House agreed to the second report of the Offices Committee which reorganised the committee itself and reduced the numbers from 55 to a maximum of 30, with four new technical sub-committees. In future, one of those sub-committees will deal with the work of the Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses Committee and therefore Standing Order 62 is no longer apposite.
I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:

Standing Order 62
Leave out the following:
"Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses Committee".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices be appointed; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee—

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Dainton, L.

Denham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Gibson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Hampton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Kimball, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Serota, B.

Tordoff, L.

Waddington, L. (L. Privy Seal)

406

Williams of Elvel, L.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on broadcasting be appointed; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee—

Aylestone, L.

Davidson, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Phillips, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Committee Work of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Select Committee appointed to consider the committee work of the House—

Bancroft, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jellicoe, E. (Chairman)

Kearton, L.

Pym, L.

Thurlow, L.

Tordoff, L.

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time be printed and if the committee thinks fit delivered out;
That the proceedings of the Select Committee on the committee work of the House in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee do meet on Tuesday, 12th November at 3.30 p.m. in Committee Room 4.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Energy and the Environment: ECC Report
2.56 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Energy and the Environment (13th Report, Session 1990–91, H.L. Paper 62).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving that the House takes note of the Report on Energy and the Environment, I wish to declare an interest as I am chairman of a group of companies concerned with the distribution and usage of energy. I have in fact been continuously involved in the energy sector since 1947.
This report is the result of a five-month study by Sub-Committee B. Four documents were under scrutiny: a Commission discussion paper on Energy and the Environment, from which the report derives its title; a proposal for a SAVE programme (SAVE stands for Specific. Actions for Vigorous Energy Efficiency) on which the inquiry concentrated; and two specific directives on energy requirements for hot water boilers and for a labelling scheme on the energy consumption of household appliances. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the many witnesses who gave evidence to our committee. I also thank our specialist adviser, Professor Ian Fells, Professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, for his valuable assistance, and our clerk, Mr. Edward Wells, for his effective organisation of our work and the preparation of drafts.
In its communication, the Commission claims that:
"issues of energy and environment policy have become inextricably linked".
Energy efficiency is identified as:
"perhaps the single most influential aspect of energy policy".
That viewpoint is also contained within the Government's environmental strategy document which was issued last year, known as This Common Inheritance, and this debate coincides with a major publicity campaign just launched by the Government emphasising the importance of increased energy efficiency in the face of the threat of global warming. Today's debate is therefore very timely.
The SAVE programme includes a series of directives to be introduced over the next two years as part of a five-year programme to help the Community achieve its stated objective of a 20 per cent. improvement in energy intensity (the ratio of energy consumption to GDP) by 1995-so a 20 per cent. saving by the year 1995. The committee gathered evidence, from a wide range of individuals and organisations with experience in this field. They were particularly impressed by witnesses from the Danish energy ministry, which has a first-rate record on energy efficiency and has invested a great deal in developing such techniques as combined heat and power or co-generation schemes which are efficient in
408
both demand and supply. The evidence that the committee received focused largely on demand-side measures. However, I emphasise that there is still an important contribution to be made by improvements in efficiency of supply.
The committee was invited to visit the Electricity Research and Development Centre at Gapenhurst and wishes to thank its hosts for their hospitality and for the opportunity to see some of the innovative work carried out.
The report includes a prediction by the World Energy Council that energy demand will double by the year 2020 and treble by the year 2030 even after taking account of a significant element of energy efficiency. Recent events in the Middle East have demonstrated the importance of protecting the security of future supplies. Although the rapidly expanding economies of the developing world will make an increasing contribution, the figures show that the industrialised OECD countries dominate world production of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas. It is right then that the member states of the European Community should take this initiative to promote energy efficiency which has the leading role to play in the medium term to cut such emissions. Witnesses claimed that there is now an environmental imperative to save energy. The committee agrees.
Without further action, the Community will fall well short of its efficiency targets. The United Kingdom is committed to stabilising its CO2, emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2005. By contrast the Dutch aim is to reach this target by 1995. Therefore we are lagging a little behind some of our European partners.
Between 1982 and 1988 Britain's record on reducing energy intensity was ahead of the Community average, but much of the improvement was due to the contraction of energy intensive industry. The market for energy-saving equipment has suffered a recent serious and dramatic decline. For example, companies selling double glazing, heating controls and cavity wall insulation have not enjoyed a single quarter's upturn for a number of years. The recession explains some of that decline. But perhaps of greater significance are the relatively low energy prices in real terms. There is also evidence of a short-term approach to energy saving investments which inhibits long-term investment for that purpose.
It soon became clear to the committee that, in terms of final energy consumption, buildings and transport are the two largest areas in which savings can be made. Because of time constraints we did not examine the transport sector, but considerable savings can clearly be made there. The witnesses said that the retrofitting of existing buildings—improving insulation standards for buildings—offered one of the greatest potentials for savings. We were told that about 5 million homes in Britain have little or no insulation. While it is estimated that some 90 per cent. of homes now have loft insulation, much of it is inadequate by present day standards.
Building regulations, which have been tightened recently, are of limited significance since new building in Britain represents less than 1 per cent. of total

409
building stock, and the regulations are still below those of other European countries. Indeed, in Britain we are only now reaching standards achieved in Sweden in the 1930s.
Many on low incomes are most vulnerable to fuel poverty and do not possess the necessary capital to invest in efficiency. They are more likely to rely on electric heating, which tends to have a lower capital cost than gas but which costs more to run. The Government's home energy efficiency scheme, recently transferred to the Energy Efficiency Office, is designed to help such people. Its current budget of £27 million has been increased to £40 million for 1992–93 and we are told that there will be further increases in the following two years. Those increases will allow 250,000 homes to be insulated next year compared with 200,000 at present. I am very interested in that effort as I am connected with an organisation known as Neighbourhood Energy Action which carries out that insulation. I am glad to say that other Members of your Lordships' House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, are also involved. That increased effort is much to be welcomed, especially since the committee was concerned that the Government appeared to be cutting the overall budget of the Energy Efficiency Office.
One way of stimulating energy efficiency in existing homes would be by a system of energy rating or certification. That is widely practised in Denmark. We understand that there are two systems under consideration in Britain. The committee considered it important that a single system should soon emerge and be applied. The Government have said that they will consider,
"any EC proposals for home energy certification when they are made".
It therefore looks as though such a system is a practicable possibility.
Much of the Government's efforts to date have been directed towards removing the barriers to the market in energy saving. The increased resources put into the home energy efficiency scheme represent a more positive measure. More such measures are required. We were told by the overwhelming majority of our witnesses that market forces alone would not produce a level of saving sufficient to meet the agreed objectives. The Community's SAVE programme proposes three categories of positive action: technical measures, financial measures and measures to influence consumer behaviour. We agree that all three are needed. Much of the responsibility for energy saving rests with individual consumers. The advertising campaign launched on 6th November demonstrates that the Government are now making a major effort to get the message across. However, people still do not sufficiently recognise the link between protecting the environment and energy efficiency.
More also needs to be done by the energy supply industries to stimulate energy saving. The committee was concerned that the way in which the gas and electricity industries were privatised did not enable the
410
concept of least cost planning, which is extensively practised in the United States, to be applied in this country. However, there is some evidence that the energy supply enterprises are beginning to provide a better service to consumers on energy saving. The electricity companies are introducing on a voluntary basis labelling schemes for the white goods that they sell; and British Gas now labels its appliances. The controversial boilers directive has now been amended to take account of the unusual nature of the United Kingdom domestic heating market, and that should make a significant contribution to improved efficiency.
The committee also took evidence on combined heat and power. The Government have said that that technology has an extremely promising future. They expect CHP use to double by the year 2000. However, that will still mean that only 6 per cent. of total generated capacity is derived from that technique compared with, for example, 38 per cent. in Denmark which arguably leads the world in that technology. The Committee would like to see very much more effort put into this area. I wish to refer to an issue currently with the Secretary of State for Energy which could have a major impact on the future development of CHP generation. It concerns the way in which charges for on-site generation will be fixed in relation to the electricity pool. It is a complex issue but if the charges are fixed too high, an undue burden could be imposed on CHP generators.
The committee was also told about the potential for third-party financing or contract energy management especially in the public sector. This can help investment by reducing the risk element. In their response to our report the Government say that Treasury approval is still required for all such investment in the public sector of more than £250,000. We would welcome an assurance that the Treasury will not seek to obstruct future schemes, even if they exceed the proposed level. Such schemes can offer great advantages to hospitals, schools and other public buildings.
We understand that the Commission has recently put forward proposals for an energy tax as part of its strategy for limiting carbon dioxide emissions. In our report we rejected the introduction of such a tax as a blunt instrument which would hit all consumers indiscriminately. That is the case whether those consumers are intensive energy users, such as the chemical and steel industries, or people receiving low incomes. The committee will wish to look carefully at any such proposals once they are formally submitted. It will favour a more specific use of fiscal measures; for example, the removal of VAT from energy-saving equipment and materials on a Community-wide basis to remove the anomaly which exists whereby energy efficiency is taxed and energy consumption is zero-rated. We are aware that the sixth VAT directive restricts additional zero-rating but we believe that the environmental imperative, which the Commission fully supports, demands such action. Another fiscal measure that we would support would be special depreciation allowances for capital investment in energy-saving plant applying in particular to industry.
I believe that we can reach four broad conclusions as a result of our report. First, there is undoubtedly an energy efficiency gap—certainly of the order of 20 per cent. and probably considerably more. Secondly, it is now increasingly urgent that this gap should be closed. Energy saving was previously an option. With the risk of global warming it has become an imperative. Thirdly, market pressures can go only part of the way to close the gap. They will need to be buttressed by measures of a fiscal and regulatory nature. Fourthly, the main effort will need to be undertaken at national level. But because of the international implications of much in the energy sector and with the advent of the single market there will also be a major role for the European Community. The SAVE programme, which is the subject of this report, describes that role and is generally to he welcomed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Energy and the Environment (13th Report, Session 1990–91, H.L. Paper 62).—(Lord Ezra).
3.14 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I imagine that the reason why I have been given so prominent a position in the list of speakers is that I am not a member of the committee. Therefore, perhaps I may be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the commit tee on a valuable, thorough and workmanlike report.
The report arises as a result of the environmental imperative. However, that ought not to blind us to the enormous economic advantages of efficiency in the production and use of energy as regards efficiency in the industry, the reduction in investment required to support the production of energy and not least in reducing the world dependence on Middle Eastern sources of oil. I hope that concentration on environmental issues, the importance of which I do not deprecate in any sense does not lead us to overlook those other matters.
There is a particular point on which I part company with the noble Lord and the committee. I am sceptical about fiscal incentives. It is one thing to remove fiscal barriers but all experience shows that the moment that one introduces fiscal incentives, one incentive leads to another. Finally, one has a tax system which is encumbered by large numbers of incentives, tax havens, special provisions and so forth. The net result is a much higher nominal rate of tax than would otherwise be necessary. The experience of the 1980s has moved in the opposite direction; namely, removing incentives, tax shelters and other special provisions in order to bring down the overall rate of taxation.
The issue to which I wish to refer in particular was lightly touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra; it is the Commission's recent proposal for an energy tax. Perhaps it is unfortunate that the report deals primarily with a communication from the Commission to the council in 1989. The report of the committee is dated June 1991 and we are now discussing it at the beginning of November.
412
Only a few weeks ago the Commission produced a detailed document on an energy tax in this connection. There has been difficulty in laying one's hands on the document. On Tuesday of last week—appropriately 5th November—my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked a Question relating to it. Afterwards he told me that he had not seen the document, and from the nature of the replies given by the Minister I imagine that he had not seen it either. Nevertheless, it is a formidable document amounting to about 50 pages. It is of great importance not least in relation to this report. The conclusion of the communication—which appears to be dated the end of September or early in October, although I cannot quote the date because I have been unable to lay my hands on a copy of the document—is that the measures suggested in the report are insufficient to meet the targets that have been set, in particular on carbon dioxide emissions.
I noted that in the report and in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rejected what he described as a carbon tax. The tax now suggested by the Commission—and it is important to point out that its status is only that of a suggestion because no formal proposal has been put forward—is a combined energy-cum-carbon dioxide tax modulated in various ways according to the extent to which one directs the tax to the energy or the carbon content.
The really important point is that in the report the committee dismissed what it described as a carbon tax—I must repeat the point that the tax proposed by the Commission is not a pure carbon tax—on the ground that it would be indiscriminate. The trouble with the proposal now put forward by the Commission in its latest paper is not that it is indiscriminate but, on the contrary, it discriminates very heavily, and in particular it discriminates against coal and industries such as the chemical industry which rely heavily on the consumption of energy. In fact, as I understand the proposals, the effect on the coal industry would be disastrous in terms of prices, relative prices and output.
As no doubt noble Lords are aware, only two member states of the Community now produce coal on a significant scale: the Federal Republic of Germany and the UK. The difference between us is that the Federal Republic heavily subsidises its coal production while we do not. It would be a very unfortunate effect if, as a result of imposing a tax of the kind which is now suggested by the Commission, we find ourselves back to believing that we have to subsidise coal production. That would be absurd.
I mention that point because I believe that it is very urgent that the Select Committee should examine those proposals at the earliest possible date. I am not suggesting that my interpretation of what is put forward is necessarily complete or even accurate, but the proposals raise serious questions which would have an important effect on one of this country's major industries.
Having said that, once again I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the Select Committee on the papers which were put before them.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I am pleased to have an opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, because he has raised important points about the so-called carbon tax. I hope to mention those later in my remarks.
I too begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for the clear and cogent manner in which he introduced the report and presented it to the House. It has left little to say for the rest of us who were Members of the committee. However, I congratulate him and can testify that his chairmanship was superb and carried out with great skill—skill which I expect having known him for over 25 years.
There is no doubt that governments of both major political parties over the past few years have made a substantial contribution to the better use of energy and its conservation, certainly over the past 17 years. Over the weekend I thought that I would refresh my memory about what the Government said in 1974 about energy conservation. Your Lordships will recall the last three months of 1973 following the Yom Kippur war. The two previous decades of easily obtainable cheap oil was not only drastically restricted but its price was quadrupled. At that time not a drop of our own oil was coming from the North Sea. Seventeen years ago the Department of Energy set up an advisory committee on energy conservation under the distinguished chairmanship of the Cambridge professor, Sir William Hawthorne. The Central Policy Review Staff under the guidance of Lord Rothschild was asked to produce a detailed study and publish a report on energy conservation. The Department of Energy and the advisory council together with the CPRS, all those years ago, produced reports and recommendations which, with some minor exceptions, would sit very well alongside the Select Committee's report and the European Commission's proposals which we are considering today.
I looked at the Statement I made to Parliament on 25th June 1974 about setting up the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation. The major difference between the aims and aspirations then and now is that I did not mention the word "environment" once. At that time the preoccupation or starting point for conservation was all about security of supply and trying to contain price.
As your Lordships' Select Committee rightly highlights, the environmental imperative, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is to save energy. That is the top of the list of priorities. In fact, as the noble Lord said, there has been a fall in the real price of energy since the mid-1970s plus the fact that we have had the tremendous benefit of our own North Sea oil.
The Commission's target to reduce energy intensity over the next four years by 20 per cent., and a further 12 per cent. over the following 15 years, is extremely ambitious for an industrial country like our own, as is the UK's commitment to stabilise carbon dioxide levels and emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2005. If both those targets are to be achieved, very bold and imaginative measures are needed.
414
A whole range of measures are proposed which basically fall into two categories: the easy decisions (and there are always easy decisions); and the difficult and potentially politically unpopular decisions. I see no great problem in regulating for efficiency standards for heat generators, labelling domestic appliances, periodic inspections of boiler efficiency and tightening new building regulations. In many respects such measures will be regarded as overdue, worthwhile and sensible. For example, tightening new building regulations would touch upon only 1 per cent. per year of our building stock out of a total of 15 million houses in Britain. That is a minute proportion. Therefore, the real contribution to energy saving will come through the potentially unpopular and costly political decisions by the Commission and the member states.
Of course, those decisions will contribute most to energy saving and environmental improvement. They are the most controversial. As has been said, transport was excluded from the Select Committee's inquiry although it is included in the Commission's SAVE programme. As I understand it, it was excluded from the Select Committee because of the time factor involved. Nearly half our country's energy bill is spent on transport, and 76 per cent. of that on the road sector. Governments can fiddle around with petrol and diesel taxes, vehicle excise duties, speed limits and company car taxation; but in the context of a rapid reduction in that huge bill, that is all peripheral. I do not know many managing directors or company directors of large firms who have taken smaller company cars as a result of the reduction in company car taxation. However, I know many people who ' witness the increasing chaos on our roads and who wish that there were massively increased expenditure on public transport, particularly British Rail and the London Underground.
Another area which was given great consideration by the Select Committee was the potential energy saving in buildings, especially our existing housing stock. The evidence given to the committee by Professor Smith of the Royal Institute of British Architects was devastating. The RIBA estimates that there are still 5 million homes in Britain needing quite rudimentary treatment. For example, the stopping up of draughts around windows and doors, and loft insulation. The RIBA concluded that it could not be done, "without substantial subsidies".
Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, the worst insulated homes in Britain are those occupied by people living on low incomes. It is not only poor insulation that they experience. They are the people most likely to use portable electric heaters. Of course portable electric heaters, while cheaper to buy, are the most expensive to run.
I hope therefore that the ministerial group on energy efficiency, which has just produced what I consider to be an excellent first annual report, will turn its attention to that vitally urgent problem. The group met on four occasions last year. I have some experience of ministerial committees. They start with tremendous experience and enthusiasm; everyone turns up for the first few meetings. After a while

415
excuses are given and members send either a substitute or an official, and sometimes the committees do not meet at all. I hope that this ministerial committee will have the power and enthusiasm to meet more regularly than some in the past.
One of the first tasks of the ministerial group should be to tackle the bizarre situation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in which fuel energy for domestic use is zero rated for VAT—I am not advocating that domestic fuel should bear that tax—and the ludicrous anomaly that energy-saving equipment and materials carry VAT at 17½ per cent. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, regarding fiscal disincentives. A real incentive would be for either the ministerial group or eventually the Chancellor to do something about removing the VAT impost on energy-saving equipment and materials. It would also considerably help the low income groups.
Should the Government choose to help our depressed building and construction centre and reduce the number of workers with experience in the building trade who are unemployed, they could follow the advice of the Select Committee contained in paragraph 91 and do something in a concerted and systematic manner with regard to the 5 million dwellings in the UK which need major attention. Huge savings can be made. Something like one quarter of all energy used in this country is consumed in homes. I believe that paragraph 91 is the most important section of the report.
I wish to refer briefly to one other matter. It is the proposal already mentioned and increasingly heard that a carbon tax should be introduced. I understand that the commission formally proposed such a tax quite recently. I believe that the Select Committee was right to reject the introduction of a carbon tax which would be indiscriminate. As I understand it at the moment, it would discriminate differently against different fuels and certainly bear on the individual house owner and those least able to afford it. I hope that the Ministers who still bear the scars of the indiscriminate poll tax will give the carbon tax short shrift if and when it comes before them.
The other impact of that tax would be to finish off forever the British coal industry. The proposal for a 30 per cent. increase in coal prices over the next four years and a 58 per cent. increase by the end of the century would wipe out British coal. It would not matter whether the coal industry was in public or private ownership; the impact would be the same. I believe that the coal industry is already in danger of falling below a level of production which would not be in our national interest.
The answer to problems of CO2 emissions from coal can only be tackled, as the Select Committee on Energy reported in another place, by the greater and consistent research and development on clean coal technology where great strides have been made and where we are capable of leading the world. Coal is still the country's largest and longest life fuel reserve. The technology exists to deal with it and with the problems of burning it.
416
I believe that the Select Committee made a useful contribution to the energy conservation and environmental debate. I have no doubt that when the commission produce the proposals for carbon tax, Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Committee will turn its attention to it. However, the committee made a good start; given the experience of the past 17 years or so, I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall return again and again.
3.35 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I should first like to summarise the thrust of what I want to say today. It is this: in future we must pay more for our energy. That will have two advantages. First, if we paid more we would use less and conserve. Secondly, if we paid more cleaner supply systems would become competitive. I speak of wind, tidal and solar power. I must declare an interest: I am president of the Combined Heat and Power Association. I shall therefore be making a special plea for clean and efficient technology.
First, I turn to the question of paying more for energy. I had in mind the introduction of a carbon tax. That puts me at odds with the rest of my committee for at paragraph 86 of the report we reject the carbon tax as too blunt an instrument. However, the Government in their reply disagree with that. They regard a carbon tax as an option, provided other European Community countries are equally taxed at the same time. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield said, the European Energy Commission proposes a carbon tax and requires three groups of Ministers from each country to discuss it. Indeed, a joint council of environmental Ministers will meet to do so on 10th and 11th December immediately after Maastricht.
In the debate so far it has been said that perhaps a change in VAT would be a better idea. That is fine by me; that would be just as welcome provided it had the right effect. Either tax would fall in with the committee's main recommendation that energy efficiency should be demand led. At the moment we in the United Kingdom use energy comparatively inefficiently. A government poster of trying to fill a sieve with boiling water just about sums it up.
If we are to attack global warming the solution is not so much a fancy tidal barrage as better loft insulation, a thicker sweater or switching off a light, a photocopier or a fire. The solution to the greenhouse effect is rather mundane. It is not a mighty wind farm on the Pennines. It is more thermal underwear. At the moment we in the United Kingdom treat energy almost as though it were free. As our committee so ably puts it in paragraph 65, "Cheap energy encourages waste". If it cost more we would not waste it and that is the justification for some form of tax. Tax the cheaper creators, which are the dirty ones, and the expensive ones will become more competitive.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, the most interesting country in the Community from the energy point of view is Denmark. It is both less and more fortunate than we. It is less fortunate in that it has never had cheap fossil fuel and power. It is more

417
fortunate in that that has resulted in the cleanest technology in Europe. Thirty-eight per cent. of Jutland has combined heat and power. The new CHP plant in Copenhagen is the finest in the world. The pipe insulation is so fine that it is possible to run out 40 kilometres of loop pipe and only lose 6ºC when the water returns.
The cost of electricity is around 9p per kilowatt hour. Electricity in Denmark has always been expensive. Thus the Danes use it with care: they do not waste it and they put up with considerable inconvenience. A new district heating loop was being laid in the town of Herning when I was over there. That is a big operation. The pipes are around two feet in diameter. Not a lot was left of people's front gardens after the pipes had been dug into place. I admired the tolerance of the Danes and wondered whether the British would put up with such inconvenience, used as we are to cheap and easy fossil fuel.
There is a strange caveat about Denmark; it comes from Sweden. It is that energy is so expensive in Denmark that heavy industry does not locate there. It locates instead in Sweden where there is cheap nuclear power combined with excellent insulation. This is no moment to enter the nuclear debate, but Denmark did strike me as being a slightly poorer country than Sweden. The conclusion I draw at least is that our Government are prudent when they reply to our report saying that we could only introduce a tax if all other countries introduced the same tax at the same time; otherwise we would be at a grave disadvantage.
Denmark has the highest proportion of CHP in Europe. The rest of Scandinavia also has schemes on a scale unheard of in this country. Most of the stations powering them are clean and small. For example, near Helsinki I looked over a power station of around 8 megawatts that was portable. There were three or four Portakabins and a gas turbine. You put it on lorries and take it wherever it is needed. You then just hook it up to the nearest Russian natural gas outlet.
However, I cannot claim that CHP is a panacea. In Poland its scale is huge and wasteful. The pipes leak and that makes it essential to heat the water to a colossal 200ºC, which is double the Danish temperature. Steam jets out everywhere. The system breaks down, quite likely in January. Then it starts up suddenly and room temperatures surge to 40ºC. The frozen Poles quickly become roasted Poles and throw wide their windows in the bleak mid-winter. Polish heating is by tradition free. There is no incentive to save or to make it efficient. It is not even metered. I mention that only to show that CHP itself can become a nightmare.
That reminds me of a very big problem. In Eastern Europe and Russia the problem with energy and the environment is so vast that even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to zero the greenhouse effect would still continue. That is another can of worms that I would rather not open today. I would rather paraphrase Burke and say "The fact that we in the United Kingdom can do comparatively little to reduce global warming is a terrible excuse for doing nothing".
418
Our Government see a good future in combined heat and power, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said. They hope that we shall have around 4,000 megawatts by the turn of the century. That is not very much. I doubt that we shall even have that without government intervention. I have seen a smallish refuse burning scheme in Sheffield. I was told that it was more expensive to burn refuse than coal. But in Lyons a large part of the town to the east of the Rhône, has refuse fuelled combined heat and power. The French tell me that rubbish is cheaper than fossil fuel as it costs money to dispose of rubbish by landfill. That cost should be properly taken into account when working out the comparative costs of refuse and fossil fuels, which I believe is reasonable.
Interestingly, France also has few cheap fossil fuels. It is amazing how economic arguments can be tailored to suit the status quo.
We have a proposed refuse burning power station in Lewisham. At the moment it is no more than a hole in the ground for I understand that the area board is being offered extraordinarily cheap electricity by one of the two big generating companies. It is making an offer, so to speak, that cannot be refused. Here I shall be grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench can tell us more about the situation in Lewisham and perhaps give us an undertaking that this refuse burning power station will come on stream in the very near future.
Most of our CHP schemes are at the factory, school or hospital level. Though such very small schemes are not to be sneezed at, they are dwarfed by French schemes in Lyons and Nice, just as those French schemes are in turn dwarfed by the area schemes of Sweden, Finland and Denmark. We are at the bottom of the European CHP league.
CHP is expensive to install, but it will become affordable in the United Kingdom, along with other clean technologies, if our factories and our dwellings are made energy efficient. That, as has been said by many noble Lords, is big money. We say so in our report in paragraph 91. There are 5 million dwellings requiring major retrofitting and another 10 million requiring lesser works. The average cost per dwelling is £2,500. The total is between £40 billion and £45 billion. The introduction of energy efficiency would be an act of great political courage; it would be inflationary. But we believe that the environmental imperative demands that consideration should now be given to action on this scale. It could be funded by some form of new tax.
There is a Murphy's law of energy. It is that the less you need it the more you waste it. Thus it would be reasonable to think that a Finn spent more on heating his house than a Sicilian simply because the temperature falls to minus 36° in Helsinki but does not do so in Palermo. In fact both spend the same amount. If you draw a line between Helsinki and Palermo, through Copenhagen, Hamburg, Munich, Zurich and Milan, it will be found that everyone spends around the same. As the need for heat decreases, so inefficiency increases. That is Murphy's law of energy. But we in the United Kingdom break that law. In terms of energy efficiency we should be level with

419
Antwerp, but we are not: we are much worse than that. We are level with Tunis. We really are not efficient enough yet. I urge the Government to take aboard at least our paragraph 91. That is the last paragraph of Sub-Committee B's opinion and it is the most important one.
3.46 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I was a Member of the ECC Committee which produced this report. It is commendably brief, but it is of great importance to the future reduction of carbon dioxide emissions—vital now at a time when the spectre of the greenhouse effect looms before us. How drastic it will be we do not yet know, but the message that we must do something now ought to be heard loudly and clearly by everyone.
Before carrying on, I should like to thank the chairman for an excellent report. While not in any way wishing to detract from those thanks, it seems to me that acknowledgements usually only go to chairmen when equal thanks should on many occasions be offered to the clerks to the committees and to other clerks who frequently manage to make a convincing and useful report of what might otherwise be termed a dog's breakfast. I myself wonder whether even in my younger days I could have approached their performance.
I return to the point of the debate. What the report calls the "savage" proposals seem to be very important for the future. However, in some areas nations could usefully implement them individually without waiting. Already Holland and Denmark have done that on matters where they can go ahead in advance of the EC directive. That is because, for example, a method of assessing house insulation may be part of their national policy which need not be held up during the certain delay implicit in getting an EC standard. Do not let the ideal be the enemy of the good.
In the circumstances one must ask the Government to be more forward looking. They should not simply rely on the EC proposals while other nations press ahead. There seems to be something wrong with the thinking of the Department of Energy. For example, I vividly remember that all my efforts to promote increased house insulation in new houses were simply dismissed as a matter for the market place. No, the importance of energy conservation means that the Government have an obligation to go down that path and to lead the market instead of being dominated by it. Market forces alone cannot make the policy that we need. I am afraid that the Government have really done nothing to encourage ignorant buyers who need to realise the merits of a more fully insulated home. There is no need to wait for internationally agreed methods of measurement on this simple matter as long as we agree on one, and only one, method of assessment for the UK.
I deplore the fact that the new Government building regulations have not taken underfloor insulation as a firm requirement for all new construction because it cannot easily be refitted. It can represent as much as 20 per cent. of heat losses from a house. Future generations will not thank us for this omission.
420
The SAVE programme talks about energy labelling. There are three appliances which consume a lot of energy; television sets, refrigerators and freezers, because they are used so frequently. All those are easy to assess. Washing machines are not so simple. Why do we not consider having even a minimum efficiency requirement for the first three? Once again, we should not wait for the EC proposals. We should be trying to promote the use of fluorescent light fittings in the household. Twenty watts are capable of giving the equivalent of a tungsten 100-watt bulb, with a life of over 10,000 hours. I know that the available types have not been designed to be compatible with the light fittings of many houses. The manufacturers need to consider this problem and design cheaper and more suitable alternatives.
Some people talk about increased expenditure on research and development for renewable energy. That may be very desirable—for example, the clean use of coal. But there is nothing on the horizon—apart from coal—to make this a major factor in the energy equation. Moreover, other countries are spending money on R&D. Always provided that we keep a small team in being here, we could, if necessary, take advantage of developments from neighbouring countries. In the meantime, many other useful things could be done pending EC legislation.
To conclude, I submit that a large proportion of our energy problems could be solved by nuclear generation. Why is it that so many people are so emotionally opposed to that solution? To me it is strange, for life is not safe, and the 60,000 deaths per annum on the roads in Europe far exceed the likely effect of any possible Chernobyl disaster. The disposal of nuclear waste is not a problem unless we try and make it so and talk about 1,000 years or more guaranteed containment. If the nuclear option is not accepted, then I suggest that the Government should be pressed to give financial guarantees to make the construction of the Severn Barrage a possibility and to promote combined heat and power for at least one large city demonstration project. Both of those are long term projects—hence they require Government help.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, the wonderful advantage of speaking last in a debate such as this is that one can disregard entirely what one has prepared because it has all been said. It has been an interesting debate and I should like to pick up one or two points. I should, first, like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on his magnificent chairmanship of our committee, and on the way in which he made the proceedings so interesting. Also, I believe we worked at quite a rapid pace, because there was some imminence in the SAVE programme going before the Council of Ministers. In this respect I should like to thank and congratulate our clerks who advised us. I found the proceedings most interesting. In fact, the SAVE programme was delayed and I believe it was only in the last few days of October that it received the approval of the Council of Ministers.

421
We were expecting up to six directives by the end of this year. The fact that we have received only two may be because there is not a very large staff. That may be explained by the fact that it is intended that the SAVE programme should operate by delegating a lot of activities to member states. Perhaps my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be glad that the SAVE programme itself will not be delving into the nooks and crannies but will operate by delegation.
Britain's two-year exemption from the directive on gas boilers is a little worrying. I am quite convinced that we can produce the best and most efficient boilers in the world because we have that technology. However, we also insist on producing less efficient boilers. I wonder whether a directive from the Commission is needed to prevent that? I understand that our accredited export of these less efficient boilers has been curtailed for two years, especially in the eastern part of Germany where they did not want such inefficient and environmentally unfriendly boilers.
Quite rightly, mention was made about the CO2 reduction strategy document. My noble friend Lord Cockfield suggested that our sub-committee should look at this. It is only a strategy document; nevertheless anything that comes from the Commission should be looked at as soon as it is conceived. I am sure that we shall keep a strict eye on this as a proposal before it becomes a directive.
The second directive is on energy labelling. I think it is worth putting in perspective for noble Lords who have been listening to this debate that some freezers actually use 50 per cent. less electricity than others of a similar capacity. I do not believe that that has been mentioned. Something else that has not been mentioned is that saving electricity really does have an effect because electricity is mostly generated at 35 per cent. efficiency. That means that three units of coal are used to produce one unit of electricity. Therefore every unit saved is magnified at the generating end by a factor of three. So there really is an imperative to be successful in the various programmes before us.
My noble friend Lord Mersey touched on a programme, which was mentioned in a debate in another place last week, on 5th November. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy produced the second stage of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Renewables Order. The fuel derived from waste at Lewisham will come under that obligation. My honourable friend's statement was well received in another place, and we should be impressed that the Government are acting in this way to encourage renewables. About 50 per cent. of the renewable allocation was for fuel derived from waste. I was sorry to see that wave power was not one of the six bands and is being introduced among the others. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether all the 10 projects concerned with fuel derived from waste which are contracted with regional electricity companies under the NFFO have waste available under contract. Are all 10 projects able to meet the financial requirements of investors at the slight price
422
of 6.55p per kilowatt hour until 1998? It is a short time in which to complete the construction of the plants and to have a financial return.
We have all come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the gap should be closed as a matter of urgency and we wonder whether the market and fiscal incentives as proclaimed will be enough. We have the environmental imperative to save energy—I believe that that lovely phrase came from the Friends of the Earth—but I am going to suggest that we also need a psychological imperative. I hope that I can do something to counter the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Mersey that we must pay more to save more or to use less. I take his point that we regard energy almost as if it were free. However, I submit that we do that because we do not know what energy costs. I am talking about householders, small businesses and also larger businesses even when they have an energy manager.
Nearly two and a half years ago I had an idea when I was visiting the manufacturers of energy efficient bulbs. From that moment onwards I have nursed that idea which I believe would have a profound effect on energy conservation attitudes in this country. My idea comes not under technical or financial measures of the SAVE programme but under the measures which affect human behaviour. I looked, in vain as it happened, at the evidence given not only to this inquiry but to the previous inquiries of our committee into the efficient use of energy and so on. I found not one suggestion which encompassed my idea.
The first person I discussed my idea with was the late and highly respected Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. He advised me to look into the matter in terms of patenting the idea, and that I did. I hoped to be able to develop the product so that there would be one in every home, but after making various inquiries I found a brochure with just such a product in it. It is, I am glad to say, a brochure of an English company. The technologies involved have been part of a framework programme of the EC and therefore there is nothing much I can patent. However, I should like to share the idea with the House and with my noble friend on the Front Bench. If people knew on a day-to-day basis or on a week-to-week basis what the energy used in their homes was costing them, their efforts in energy conservation and their take-up of government schemes such as the one announced last week—Helping the Earth begins at Home—would be far greater. What I suggest is something very like a taxi meter. It would show on a small appliance that could easily be installed in kitchens the daily cost of the energy being consumed in that house. Such an appliance could also be installed in small and larger businesses. It would mean that the housewife, the managing director of a small company or the manager of a shop could all become energy managers. They would have something to manage. The meters under our stairs are all very well if one can find them and see what they read. However, I defy most people to convert such readings on a daily, weekly or monthly basis into pounds and pence. I believe that the meter I am suggesting would have a profound effect on the conservation attitude of all who have them.

423
On a slightly different point, I know that the sub-committee did not handle transport, but the other day I was lent a car by my garage. It was an energy efficient car which I am afraid was not British. It had a computer attached to it which, every time one was in the wrong gear or accelerated or braked too fast, caused a series of red lights to come on. Thank goodness it did not bleep, but I am sure it could have done. I found it remarkable how in a short time I was driving to avoid the red lights coming on. In doing so I was far more relaxed and reached my destination just as quickly; but in doing so I know that I was saving money. Perhaps my noble friend could discuss this matter with his colleagues in the Department of Transport. I believe that the fitting of such a computer would be far less onerous than the fitting of speed limiters on heavy goods vehicles, coaches and buses, and it would be far more effective. It would be a psychological imperative.
I take the point of my noble friend Lord Cockfield about applying fiscal incentives. It is not my intention—I refer again to an appliance fitted in households—that such a monitor should be developed with government money. The units currently cost around £250. Development would be needed to bring the cost down to £20 or £25 so that they could be available in every house. The cost of computer technology and microchip technology is very much dependent on the numbers involved. I believe that there might be a vast export market for this equipment, especially in the Americas. Such appliances could be calibrated not only from kilowatt hours to pounds and pence but also to deutschmarks, French francs and US dollars. It would be a very simple matter to bring them down to a price level which we could all afford. Moreover, the regional electricity companies, which have an obligation to encourage energy conservation, could be required to make them a standard fitting, especially in new houses.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the committee on its report and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on introducing it so succinctly and authoritatively. As other noble Lords have said, it is an excellent report. I say that as one of the small minority of speakers who are not actually members of the committee. It is also, in the general thread of its argument and in many of its specific recommendations, comfortingly close to the Labour Party's policy on energy and the environment. It is reassuring on that, as it is on many other policy areas, to be part of the majority consensus.
In relation to the European Community, I should like to add that we often hear complaints in your Lordships' House about the bureaucratic interference from Brussels. But in this area of energy conservation we surly welcome the EC initiatives and co-ordination. In the broader international context, we must stress the need for even wider action. The world's atmosphere knows no national boundaries. Eastern Europe, which is on our doorstep, produces up to one quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Moreover, as China and India industrialise, the
424
pollution threat is terrifying. We look forward to receiving reassurance form the Minister that the United Kingdom Government will press other nations to join with the EC in co-ordinated action to limit carbon dioxide emissions. In particular, I believe that economic assistance to Eastern Europe should be linked to investment in clean combustion and energy saving.
We note that two areas crucial to energy conservation are deliberately not covered in the report. The first is transport. That is because of the time factor. It is one of the four main areas of CO2 emissions. The other is renewable energy, which offers great scope for limiting CO2 emissions, where the Government's research initiatives until recently have been sadly puny. However, I know that that will be the subject of the Commission's ALTENER programme report. We look forward to future opportunities to debate such issues. We hope that we will not have to wait too long to do so.
In the short time available I shall not attempt to deal with the whole field covered in the report. Broadly, it looks at ways either to encourage cleaner combustion or to reduce energy consumption. I prefer to select certain areas of the greatest urgency. In each area I have specific questions. The noble Lord is always among the most courteous and helpful of Ministers. His department has recently made some positive statements. We look forward to hearing his specific replies.
I should like to begin with two areas where I imagine that we all broadly agree. I refer to labelling and third-party finance. As regards the labelling of domestic appliances to provide clear information about the energy efficiency of the equipment, will the Minister confirm that the Government support mandatory labelling against the reluctance, as I understand it, expressed by some parts of British industry? On third-party financing—that is, contract energy management—which offers great encouragement and financial facility to install energy saving equipment, is the alleged relaxation of the Treasury's hostility to such, as it calls it, unconventional financing, real? Moreover, how many schemes above £250,000 have been approved by the Treasury in the past two years?
I turn now to the central problem of buildings. According to the report, buildings offer the "greatest scope for energy saving". Indeed, half the total energy consumed in the United Kingdom is in buildings and I believe that over a quarter of that amount is consumed in domestic housing. The problem varies between new and old buildings, but, as my noble friend Lord Varley said, it is more acute in the latter. But the report states that, even in new buildings, our standards of energy efficiency are much too low. British building regulations need to be tighter. In response to the report of the Energy Select Committee in another place, the Secretary of State appeared to concede that point. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government's view that the existing UK building regulations need to be tightened? Further, what precise proposals does he have for tightening them?

425
As regards the existing building stock, the problem is much greater and the scope for energy saving is also much greater. Let us take, for example, housing, where 50 per cent. is pre-1960 construction. We have heard how the committee estimates that 5 million dwellings require "retrofitting". That is an ugly word, but I think that we know what it means. Indeed, many noble Lords might personally welcome some of it. In total, such a project is estimated to cost about £40 billion but the potential savings are huge. I believe that the committee's estimate of 10 per cent. is probably conservative and that the savings would be between £4 billion and £8 billion annually.
That is a tremendous challenge which offers tremendous rewards. We must ask what the Government are doing. What would their response be to the crucial paragraph 91? Of course what they actually did was to demolish the Labour Government's energy programme, which insulated a million houses in 1979 alone. Moreover, local authorities, which are responsible for 10 per cent. of energy consumption in this country, have suffered drastic reductions in expenditure on energy conservation. Indeed, the report suggests that the amount involved is down by about three quarters since 1983. Overall, at paragraph 35, the committee notes a,
"marked decline in government expenditure on retrofitting since the mid-1980s".
In that context I should like to ask the Minister whether he will treat paragraph 91 on retrofitting as a top government priority for response. Moreover, does he accept the committee's conclusion in paragraph 73 of the report that without a major programme of retrofitting there is no hope of achieving a significant energy saving? If that is so, can he tell us where the programme is?
I should like now to turn especially to the plight of the energy saving equipment sector. The decline in sales in that area is very worrying. The sector lost a quarter of its market during the late 1980s. That was not just because of the present recession; indeed, the numbers show that the sector has been in decline since 1982. I believe that the heart of the problem lies in the Government's excessive reliance on market forces. It means that when the general economy slows down, investment in energy conservation equipment declines along with other investment. When the real price of energy falls—that is, lower oil prices and cheaper coal imports—the market incentive to invest in energy conservation falls with it. Hence the committee concludes at paragraph 58 that,
"a market led strategy has meant a decline in investment".
We note that the country with the best energy conservation record—namely, Japan—does not rely on market economics; it uses the intervention of MITI and, through a rigorous programme of regulations and fiscal incentives, it achieves one of the lowest energy ratios in the world.
The committee recommends stimulation of the energy equipment industry by fiscal and other means (paragraph 75), and I am sure feels that the extra expenditure on advertising promotion announced—and very welcome and well-directed—is not enough. Will the Minister explain why the Government are not
426
doing more in that area? I hardly need to add that we on this side of the House favour fiscal stimulation and financial incentives.
On that I should like to say a few words about the carbon tax proposals and the helpful update given by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. This side of the House of course welcomes the EC's demonstration of a radical concern for the environment and the need to reduce CO2 emissions. We are not opposed to energy taxes in principle. My view is that the relative prices of fossil fuels must, over time, rise; but we understand the caution expressed by the committee and the Government, as shown by the Minister's answers to questions last week, that the proposal needs close examination. We need to establish the price elasticity of energy, especially in the UK. We need to ensure that that proposal is not regressive, punishing the poor, and does not also merely lead to a switch from coal and oil to gas, which is in limited supply, and to nuclear fuel, which we know has other problems. That would, as my noble friend Lord Varley pointed out, threaten to finish off the British coal industry. A carbon tax alone, even in its updated form, is no substitute for other measures, such as greater regulation and financial incentives and the development of better cleanburn technology.
I should like to conclude on a more general theme: the crucial differences in political philosophy which still underlie the approaches to this topic involving the importance we attach to market forces, to government intervention to achieve energy conservation and to the role of the privatised power supply industries. The Government's position through the 1980s has been made clear. In 1982, Mr. Lawson, the Secretary of State for Energy, said:
"energy is a traded good. Our task is to set a framework which will ensure that the market operates in the energy sector with the minimum of distortion".
The present Secretary of State appeared to restate that position to the Select Committee on Energy of another place.
In line with that, the Government have privatised the power supply utilities; but the committee, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, emphasised and as we on this side of the House agree, rejects that view. The energy market is imperfect and may require some further helpful distortions. If made more perfect, it may not help, as it says in paragraph 61 of the report:
"Market forces lead to minimising costs … This does not necessarily mean saving energy".
As is stated:
"The overwhelming majority of witnesses took the view that market forces alone would not produce a sufficient level of … energy saving."
Moreover, the role of the privatised industries has been negative and obstructive towards energy conservation. Their priority is to maximise sales and not to conserve energy. They prefer switching to the gas fire rather than developing the clean burning of coal; and they are hostile to renewable energy sources and to CHP. Have the Government, along with other pre-election conversions, retreated from the Lawson doctrine of market forces? Will the Government press the Commission to allow zero rating of VAT on energy saving equipment? Will the Government consider increased depreciation allowances for such

427
Equipment—all recommended in the report—and will they regulate the power suppliers to ensure that conservation is a top priority and that they invest more in cleanburn technology?
The committee, like the Commission, fears that the targets set by the Commission and the Government for CO2 emissions will not be met under present policies. Do the Government share or reject those concerns? The report argues that success, "demands a coherent energy strategy". I am sure that the Minister will put that strategy before us today. Will he also say something about the exciting new discovery on fusion about which we read over the weekend? We congratulate British scientists on that achievement.
The report and some recent encouraging government statements show that we are moving towards agreement on what should be done. The report suggests that we have a broad consensus on words. We must now have more action or we put at risk the future of our children and the whole planet. The report puts the environmental imperative firmly on the agenda, and we welcome that.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to this interesting debate on the report of the European Communities Committee on Energy and the Environment. The Government have welcomed the report as a valuable and timely contribution to the continuing and developing debate on energy efficiency, particularly in view of the acknowledged role of energy efficiency in combating the threat of global warming. Your Lordships will wish me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, chairman of Sub-Committee B, and the members of that committee. I take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord for acknowledging some of the Government's work on this issue. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to the Front Bench. I wish him a happy and long occupancy of that position. I thank all the noble Lords who have participated in the debate, perhaps especially the noble Lord, Lord Varley, who was closely involved with one of the earliest energy efficiency campaigns, under the logo Save It. I understand that the head of information in the Department of Energy at that time was one Bernard Ingham, whose name may be familiar to your Lordships from an occupation other than the promotion of energy efficiency!
Although the United Kingdom produces only a small proportion of the total of the world's CO2 emissions, it is important that we do not sit on our hands and do nothing. As we made clear in the White Paper on the environment last year, improvements in energy efficiency offer the cheapest and quickest way of combating the threat of global warming. That is why the Government take the report seriously, take energy efficiency seriously, and will continue to promote it energetically.
The Government have of course taken the promotion of energy efficiency seriously for a number of years, offering encouragement to consumers to invest in energy efficiency measures for the economic and environmental benefits that they offer. We have a
428
good record, with EEO programmes alone generating recurrent annual savings now worth £500 million per year; but far from being complacent, we continue to develop our programmes to encourage cost-effective energy efficiency improvements. We do that through the programmes operated by the EEO and other government departments in the United Kingdom; and in the context of EC measures, under the SAVE programme, which has been mentioned today.
It is rather hard to keep pace with the recent developments in energy efficiency initiatives, so fast have they been coming forward: so fast, in fact, that it might be helpful if I give a summary of current programmes and recent initiatives before responding to the other points raised in the debate. In doing this, I recognise that most of it has been covered, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
The EEO of course continues with its main programmes which concentrate on tackling the barriers that prevent cost-effective energy efficiency measures from being adopted. I am talking of the low priority given to energy efficiency and customers' lack of expertise or information. This has come up at various stages of the debate. The home energy efficiency scheme has now been in operation for almost a year, offering grants with the primary purpose of increasing the take-up of basic energy efficiency measures in low income households. The best practice programme continues to provide independent and authoritative information on energy efficiency; the regional energy efficiency officers lead the drive to publicise our programmes directed at particular industrial sectors and visit main energy users to assist them in developing their energy management programmes.
Over the past year we have also taken forward a number of other measures which clearly show our determination to continue our campaign. The ministerial group on energy efficiency, which has been mentioned, works to raise the profile of energy efficiency and has published its first annual report which details and reviews our energy efficiency initiatives right across government.
The group also keeps under consideration the scope for further initiatives to stimulate energy efficiency improvements throughout the economy. I think that the importance that members of the group attach to their work is clearly demonstrated in their annual report. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Reay who was in his place for part of the debate, and who was a member of that committee.
The evidence of the group's work is clear from the further initiatives we have recently announced. We have launched a new energy management campaign, entitled Making a Corporate Commitment, which is designed to motivate senior management in UK industrial and commercial companies. The EEO plans to persuade boardrooms that energy efficiency is one of the more important management priorities on their agenda, given the link between energy use and global warming, and the economic benefits that energy efficiency improvements can also provide at minimal risk.

429
In the domestic sector, the EEO and the Department of the Environment last week launched the campaign Helping the Earth begins at Home. The three-year campaign, which will cost £10 million, is aimed at improving householders' understanding of the contribution that domestic energy use makes towards global warming and at increasing the take-up of energy efficiency measures and behaviour in the home.
The campaign will encourage consumers to make use of another initiative: the energy efficiency advice services that have been put in place this year by the regional electricity companies, British Gas and British Coal. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will note that. These can help people to use energy wisely and advise on energy efficient appliances.
On the subject of appliances, I am also pleased that tomorrow will see the launch of an appliance labelling scheme by the regional electricity companies. This is a voluntary scheme, which we have helped develop and very much welcome, which will fill the void before a mandatory EC scheme becomes operational. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked whether we would support mandatory appliance labelling. The Commission's proposal for a directive on appliance labelling has been submitted to the council. We support the proposal; but implementation will not commence until late next year at the earliest—hence our interim approach to it.
The European Community scheme is being brought forward under the SAVE programme, the objectives of which are supported by the Government and the committee. The Government were pleased that last month's Energy Council adopted the SAVE decision. We will consider the specific measures under SAVE as they are proposed by the Commission.
One measure has now been agreed in principle: the introduction of standards for gas and liquid central heating boilers. Like the committee, the Government have always supported the aims of this directive but we have been concerned to ensure that the standards set took full account of the particular circumstances of UK domestic installations and thus encouraged cost-effective energy efficiency improvements, rather than discouraging them. We are glad that last month's Energy Council was able to reach agreement in principle on an amended text which reflects the circumstances of the UK domestic heating market.
It is therefore evident that we have continued to press forward with targeted and effective programmes, and to introduce new initiatives where appropriate.
All of these initiatives have been launched since the Government provided their response to the committee's report. Since then, the Autumn Statement has also confirmed our increasing financial commitment to energy efficiency. The EEO budget for 1992–93 will be £59 million—a 40 per cent. increase in resources for EEO programmes from the £42 million available this year. Further increases are planned—to £70 million in 1993–94, and to £75 million in 1994–95. I hardly think it fair to say, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that we were doing very little. The noble
430
Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked why we do not do more; and he will therefore be pleased that we are doing more.
These increases will allow our existing well-targeted programmes to develop and new ones to be introduced. The money provides for a 50 per cent. increase in resources next year for the home energy efficiency scheme. Additional resources are also being made available for the best practice programme and our regional and publicity activities.
In addition, the EEO budget includes provision for expenditure on the first year of the new energy management assistance scheme, following up a commitment to the scheme made in the environment White Paper last year.
The scheme, offering financial support for project management assistance with the implementation of energy measures, will be targeted on enterprises with fewer than 500 employees. It is to come into operation on 1st April 1992 and will subsidise the use of consultants for energy auditing, investment feasibility studies and the project management of investments devoted to improving energy efficiency.
A number of points were raised during the debate. I have not been able to study the matter of fusion very deeply which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. We must accept that it is extremely exciting and I join him in congratulating the scientists. No doubt we will hear more of it before long.
The noble Lord, Lord Varley, spoke of the state of domestic architecture. I tend to agree that it is important that we should encourage more architects to adopt energy efficiency design measures. We have developed a new strategy under the best practice programme which involves working with the professional institutions to encourage building professionals such as architects to take full account of energy efficiency in new buildings.
We are also currently working with the Royal Institute of British Architects on production of client guides on energy efficiency designs. In addition we are working with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors on the production of best practice literature.
A number of other initiatives to encourage energy efficiency designs include recent seminars on achieving low energy costs in offices, aimed at architects, designers and developers; and a series of energy efficiency workshops which will be held in each of the RIBA's 14 regions. Workshops will cover the Building Research Establishment's domestic energy model.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House have mentioned carbon tax, its merits and disadvantages, as well as the anxieties that the concept produces. The Government accepted the comment in the White Paper on the environment that in the long term the relative price of energy will have to rise to provide a stimulus to energy efficiency and hence reduce CO, emissions. I believe that that is a straight answer to the question put by my noble friend Lord Mersey.
The Government will study the Commission's proposals carefully and contribute constructively to the debate. However, as all noble Lords have recognised, the proposals need thorough examination.

431
Questions which must be addressed will include: first, will the Commission's ideas increase prospects for international agreement on effective arrangements for limiting CO2 emission? It must be remembered that the Community cannot solve climate change questions on its own. Secondly, if the Community sets the lead on energy taxes, will other industrialised countries follow? I have in mind particularly the United States and Japan. What will be the consequences of unilateral action for the competitive position of member states of the European Community?
A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Varley, and my noble friends Lord Mersey and Lord Cockfield, spoke about VAT and fiscal measures generally. The Government have stated, and it continues to be our view, that VAT will not be imposed on the domestic use of fuel and power during the lifetime of this Parliament. So far as concerns the zero rating of energy efficient products, the European Commission's sixth directive does not allow extensions of zero rating. However, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the anxieties which have been expressed.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield took me rather unawares by referring to a paper which I have not seen. The document has been delayed in translation, and whether my noble friend has seen it first because he is bilingual I am unable to say. Copies are at present being distributed from Brussels.
The noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Ezra, spoke of contract energy management, and they asked about the number of schemes approved under the £250,000 limit. There are no schemes in the government estate above the £250,000 limit. However, there are a small number in the NHS and among local authorities. The EEO is working with the contract energy management industry to encourage adoption in the public sector. It published an applications manual last month under the best practices programme to tackle the problem of lack of information. That is a major barrier to contract energy management in the public sector. The Treasury will naturally be looking for good value for money in proposals, whatever their size.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that building regulations should be tightened. It was only last year that the latest improvements to the thermal insulation requirements of the building regulations came into effect, introducing a 20 per cent. improvement over the previous requirements. However, the Government accept that the timetable for the further review of the regulations should reflect increased anxiety about global warming. We are therefore monitoring how the new regulations operate in practice, carrying out research which will help to inform the next revisions and reviewing options for further changes in the requirements. That should lead to new regulations becoming operational in 1993–94, a significant acceleration in the timetable compared with the past.
A number of noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised the question of retrofitting. A major programme to retrofit all homes in the United Kingdom would take many years and
432
might cost up to £45 billion—the equivalent of one year's energy bill. That rough illustration suggests that overall the cost of retrofitted energy efficiency measures are recovered in only 10 years. However, the EEO estimates that there is a potential to save 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of total building energy consumption through the adoption of highly cost-effective energy efficiency measures which pay for themselves within three years. The EEO concentrates its efforts on encouraging the take up of cost-effective measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about market economics. Current Government initiatives already include a mix of financial measures, measures to encourage technological improvements and measures aimed at tackling consumer behaviour. The Government believe that the market and market-based measures have a central role to play in realising the potential energy efficiency improvements which are available. However, we do not rule out other measures, including regulation, subsidy or taxation, where those offer the most cost-effective options for overcoming barriers to take up. There is no dogma on our part in this matter.
I understood the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to suggest that privatisation has hindered energy efficiency. If customers are properly informed about energy efficiency, and prices properly reflect cost, consumers can make the right decisions about their energy usage. Both utilities are obliged by regulatory regime to set prices to reflect costs. In addition, the RECs have a statutory obligation to provide advice on energy efficiency to customers, and their licences oblige them to provide a code of practice on energy efficiency. Those codes have now all been approved by OFFER. British Gas has produced its own voluntary code of practice; and under the Citizen's Charter Bill currently being drafted it is proposed to give OFGAS similar powers to determine standards in relation to the promotion of energy efficiency as exist in the Electricity Act.
As regards the Government's estate, one of the key objectives of the ministerial group which I mentioned is to lead by example. For that reason it has set a very demanding target for the Government's estate of 15 per cent. savings in energy consumption over the five years 1990–91 to 1995–96. Each Minister has responsibility for ensuring that his department carries forward work to meet the target and for monitoring the department's progress. I am confident that the new arrangements put in place by departments as a result of the campaign will enable targets to be met.
All departments now have energy managers and are putting in place energy strategies and work programmes. The ministerial group has agreed to the setting up of an official working party to monitor progress and to advise on the departments' programmes. Last year departments spent over £20 million on energy efficiency measures.
My noble friend Lord Mersey asked about the Danish programmes for CHP. Comparisons are difficult because of the different climate and energy infrastructure. Cost-effectiveness will dictate different

433
solutions in different circumstances. My noble friend asked about the South East London CHP scheme, which is a project initiated by Southwark, Lewisham and Greenwich councils with a private contractor to produce 30 megawatts of electricity a year from 400,000 tonnes of solid waste. That is an example of how the non-fossil fuel obligation is working to promote environmentally desirable measures. I am told that the scheme is proceeding.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked about home energy labelling. He said that we should not wait for EC proposals. I have already dealt with that point. The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, advocated a device for showing the daily cost of energy and altering the psychological approach of consumers. We welcome any proposals that will strike a chord with consumers. Enhanced metering in the home is the subject of active consideration by the utilities and regulators, OFFER and OFGAS. I shall pass on my noble friend's comments on transport to my colleagues.
Energy efficiency is good for business for everyone in the UK, as well as bringing with it the environmental benefits of which we are increasingly aware. As the EEO's current logo says:
"It pays to be energy friendly".
I am very pleased that so many noble Lords have participated in or attended the debate recognising the importance of the subject. I have been speaking for 21 minutes; if there are any points which I have not covered I shall write to noble Lords, but I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to the House the level of the Government's commitment to the subject.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this very important and informative debate. I am particularly pleased that there has been general agreement that the Community's SAVE programme is desirable and that we should give it as much support as possible. I am also pleased that there has also been approval of the committee's report thereon.
The committee has received some very good guidance from those who have spoken today. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, whose knowledge of Community affairs is unrivalled, has pointed out the vital importance of any prospective energy tax or carbon tax which might be proposed. Many noble Lords referred to that and it is a subject to which the committee should quickly turn its attention. Like the noble Lord, I found it difficult to get hold of the document that sets out the Commission's proposals. I received only a truncated version of the document at an energy conference. The normal parliamentary processes have so far been unable to divulge that document. It would be helpful if all those concerned could get hold of that document and we could then start to study it quickly.
I was delighted at the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Varley. I almost referred to him as my noble friend because we are old friends. We have been connected in energy for many years. The noble Lord was Secretary of State for Energy when I was at the
434
Coal Board. I well remember him setting up the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation with Sir William Hawthorne. I was a member of that body and we recommended many of the points that are now being considered for energy efficiency. The noble Lord is right to say that the question of the environment did not arise. We were concerned with energy saving, mainly in the light of what had happened to the price of oil, but the measures proposed were similar to those that we are now contemplating.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who spoke to us about CHP, is an expert on the subject. He has been to Denmark and has seen it in operation and he was most helpful to our committee in what he told us about it. My noble friend Lord Hanworth, who spoke to us particularly about the examples in Holland and Denmark and about questions of energy labelling was a great asset to our committee. I am sorry to say that he is now leaving us. I am most grateful to him for his contribution over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, who is also a great contributor to our debates, came forward with the interesting proposition of an energy-saving meter. I am delighted to hear that the Government are seriously considering that proposal.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, I should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in joining the energy club. Bearing in mind that he is an expert on financial services, I am sure that anything that goes on in the energy field will be child's play to him; but we look forward to his contributions in his new capacity.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for the support that he gave our report. There are differences of emphasis between the committee's report and a number of noble Lords who spoke; but, as a result of the debate, the Commission's proposals and the committee's report, there is a developing consensus on the way in which we should deal with the question of energy efficiency, which now has a much larger environmental dimension. Our well-informed debate today is a further step in the right direction and I thank all noble Lords who have participated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Young People in the EC: ECC Report
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Young People in the European Community (14th Report, Session 1990–91, HL Paper 63).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, many of the reports that the Select Committee brings before the House relate to specific Community policy instruments dealing with specialised subject areas. This one is somewhat different. Although part of the report is taken up with an assessment of a number of Community action programmes aimed at young people, its prime intention is to serve as a contribution

435
to a Community-wide debate aimed at the formulation and co-ordination of policy for young people throughout the Community and for more effective ways of associating them with the development of the European Community.
The report entailed a long inquiry by Sub-Committee C, covering a wide area of Community and national activity. In that, we were greatly helped by the co-operation of witnesses from both home and overseas. I should like to thank also members of the sub-committee for their support throughout the inquiry. I should particularly like to thank Michael Pownall, who acted as clerk to the committee at a time when he was also undertaking new responsibilities on behalf of the House. Perhaps I may also thank the Government for the consideration given to the report and for the detailed written response which has been made available in time for today's debate.
There are within the Community 130 million young people under the age of 25—that is the Community definition of young people—out of a total population of 340 million. Yet, as the report states in paragraph 1:
"neither in the European Community nor in Member States have coordinated policies been developed towards young people because their needs invariably cover a great diversity of policy areas which are often the responsibility of different departments".
The Commission memorandum Young People in the European Community—one of the three main documents on which the inquiry was based—had as its objective to stimulate a debate on young people and in particular to focus on the disadvantaged. Consequently, an important section of the report is concerned with problems facing that group. That is to be found in Part 4 of the report to which I shall return later.
The two other documents on which the inquiry is based are draft decisions for a second phase of the Youth for Europe programme and a new three-year phase for the PETRA programme. Both those proposals are designed to encourage the mobility of young people and to increase the opportunities available to them as the single market nears completion.
The first phase of the Youth for Europe programme from 1989 to 1991 enables young people to take part in a wide range of project-based exchange activities, examples of which are given in the report. The proposed second phase from 1992 to 1994 extends the programme to include support for voluntary service activity, which the committee welcomed. More significantly, it proposed that an increased proportion of the extended budget—not less than 30 per cent.—should be reserved for disadvantaged young people, again a move welcomed by the committee.
The PETRA programme is concerned with vocational training. The first phase started in 1988 and will run until 1992. The main element is to establish a European-wide network of training partnerships involving the exchange of young people and staff. Currently, there are 250 partnership projects across the Community. The programme also funds small-scale projects which are initiated and managed by the young people themselves. The proposed extension of
436
PETRA would enhance the programme considerably and aims to achieve 100,000 exchanges between 1992 and 1994.
The committee supports both those two programmes in general terms and particularly welcomes the increased opportunities that they provide, especially for those young people who left education at an early age. Nevertheless, we enter a caveat: the Commission does not appear to have received an evaluation of those programmes before proposing a second phase. In the case of the PETRA programme, the committee understands that the Commission was responding to a request from the Council of Ministers for the existing programme to be extended. However, in general, the committee takes the view that, wherever possible, existing programmes should be evaluated before new and extended programmes are introduced—a matter on which I understand the Government have very strong views and which is referred to in their response.
There is a whole range of community programmes directed at young people. They are listed in Appendix 3. Several of the better known projects, especially those with substantial budgets, are directed to those in higher education. The new PETRA programme, with its now large budget, goes some way to redress the balance toward those less fortunate people in the Community.
Not all the programmes were examined by the committee. But on the basis of the few at which we looked and on the evidence from witnesses, it became clear that young people and organisations have difficulty in finding their way through the complex mass of programmes. In the view of the committee, as much support as possible should be available, particularly to those small groups or individuals who are negotiating contracts directly with Europe from their local base. We also recommend that, where possible, programmes should be consolidated and the procedures simplified. However, the committee recognizes—as the Government again point out in their response—that many of the programmes are directed to specific problems and needs.
Despite the range of activities set out in Appendix 3, by far the most significant funding for projects involving young people comes from the European structural funds. One of its five priority objectives is to help young people into the labour market. In 1989 some 73 per cent. of Social Fund expenditure benefited young people, much of it in training initiatives. Since then the greater flexibility allowed under the rules governing the fund has led the UK Government to reduce the proportion spent on young people. As reasons for that, the Department of Employment refers to the increased amount of funding, the declining number of young people and the need for greater support for the long-term unemployed. But given that young people themselves regard unemployment as their major problem and given the fact that unemployment among the young is rising at a tremendous rate, one is bound to have reservations about the Government's strategy.
That brings me to Part 4 of the report which deals with a range of problems facing young people in the Community. They are examined under the headings

437
of: mobility and demography; unemployment; education and training; homelessness; and family change and the transition to adulthood. I hope that some of those issues will be more fully covered by colleagues on the sub-committee.
Many of the problems arise from the transition to adulthood and as such affect all young people to some extent. I was particularly struck by the evidence that we received from the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, referred to in paragraph 79. The witness told the committee that the increasing demands for qualified and better educated young people meant that more young people remained longer in education or were involved in a process of to-ing and fro-ing between work and education and were therefore more dependent on parental support for longer, often into their twenties. Increasing reliance on family support inevitably favours those young people in families in the strongest social and economic circumstances.
The point was underlined by Ms. McKechnie from Shelter, who stated that for a whole variety of reasons, social and economic, many young people could not use the family as a base and for them the transition from dependence to independence was very difficult. Yet, as she said, for young people who go to university a highly supportive system is provided which helps them in that transition.
Perhaps the system is not as supportive as it was, as we have debated before in this House. Nevertheless, the difference in support levels for those in higher education and the remainder is quite considerable.
Much of the evidence, received from a wide variety of organisations, focused on what some see as a small (but nevertheless growing) number of disadvantaged young people who face a whole range of interconnected situations. They affect young people across the Community as a whole. Their intensity depends on the extent of the services and institutions available to deal with them, which differ from country to country and arise from different traditions and values. As such, they are problems which must largely be tackled by individual member states.
The committee by no means recommends an extension of Community competence to deal with housing and such problems. Nevertheless, it feels that there is a role for the Community. The Commission could play a clearer role in co-ordination and the dissemination of information about young people. For example, the committee found contradictory views on the likely increase in the movement of young people across borders after 1992. Whether there will be an increase in numbers, especially of the young unemployed and homeless, with a consequent exacerbation of social problems, we were unable to judge. Consequently we felt that to be an area in need of urgent study by the Commission—a view not shared by the Government.
We also felt that both in the Commission and within the UK Government there is a need for greater co-ordination of youth policies. At home we modestly suggested that that might be done through regular
438
ministerial involvement, either by a steering committee of Ministers or a single Minister of State, whose responsibility would include youth matters. I was a little surprised at some of the press reaction to that suggestion, particularly, as the evidence makes clear, since it is something that the young people themselves would like. Evidence from the Commission indicated that 10 out of 12 member states have such a Minister.
As we said in paragraph 92, the demand from witnesses for more co-ordination among government departments was widespread. Mr. Donoghue, the chairperson of the British Youth Council and the UK representative on the European youth forum, clearly felt the need for a single Minister, not an assortment of departmental Ministers, to speak for British youth in the Council of Ministers.
The committee found the evidence disturbing. It seemed to us that the approach of the Government when we met the Minister, if I may say so to him, was somewhat complacent. Nevertheless there is much common ground between the Government and the committee, as the response makes clear, despite some areas of difference to which I have already referred. Other areas, such as support and funding for the youth services, still seem to us to remain vulnerable despite the Government's response. If our youth service is to give the lead which the young witnesses demonstrated to the committee that it could do, then its resource base must be secure.
However, our purpose in recommending this report for debate was not to recommend simple solutions to complex problems. It was to contribute to the Community's debate on the position and needs of young people and to raise the profile of those needs in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Young People in the European Community (14th Report, Session 1990–91, HL Paper 63).—(Baroness Lockwood.)
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I wish to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for her leadership and guidance of Sub-Committee C and for her clear exposition today of the many issues that were raised at the meetings.
I had the privilege of becoming a member of Sub-Committee C half-way through its consideration on Young People in the European Community. It was my first introduction to the work of committees in your Lordships' House and it certainly extended my education and training. Although I had been a teacher for 40 years, a headmistress for 25 years, and president of Bishop Creighton House, a settlement in Fulham with a major concern for youth training and employment in that borough, for 10 years, I am ashamed to say that I had little idea of the range of education, training, voluntary service and exchange programmes available to the young people in the European Community.
That leads me to my first point. What is the use of having the opportunities available if teachers in schools, further education colleges, universities and

439
polytechnics, parents, employers, youth workers and, most important, the young people themselves are unaware of their existence? Our report draws attention to the fact that some organisations have appointed a member of staff to learn how, as it were, to work the system to his or her personal benefit. That should not be. Such programmes must be made public. Applying for a place on them should be simple and straightforward, not shrouded in seemingly foreign mystery.
Two programmes in particular interest me. The noble Baroness has already mentioned the PETRA scheme. It gives young workers technical and vocational education and initial training, often involving exchanges. The PETRA scheme started in 1989 and is due to be revised. It does, however, need careful monitoring and attention must be given not only to publicising it but also to giving enough back up and support to the young trainees during and after their courses.
The ERASMUS programme also deserves to be better known. I have personal experience of its effectiveness. While visiting Prague in February this year, I met three young men who were clearly enjoying their tour of this historic city. I heard them talking in German to a waitress—I thought that it was rather good German—and then realised that they were British. I learned that all three were engineering students at London's South Bank Polytechnic whose director, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is a Member of your Lordships' House.
As part of their Bachelor of Engineering course in electrical engineering, the three students were spending a year at the Hochschule in Bremen where for the first few months they had been learning German. None had studied German at school. They were now working in industrial firms in Bremen. Throughout their ERASMUS year they were being encouraged to travel in Europe; hence their weekend visit to Czechoslovakia from Germany. Erasmus himself would surely have approved.
Evidently the South Bank Polytechnic sends mechanical engineering students to Mannheim on the same ERASMUS scheme and is attempting to establish a similar exchange programme in France—with greater difficulty. At a time when there are so many problems facing young people, and so much criticism—not always well founded—of the education and training standards in this country, I am delighted to offer some good news. Those young engineering students of ours are welcomed with enthusiasm in Bremen and Mannheim—to such an extent, so the dean of the engineering department tells me, that the Germans guarantee all of them employment in an industrial company in Germany once they have qualified. Germany is working positively towards 1993, appreciating the value of workers who will have gained double award accreditation: the B.Eng. in Britain and the Dipl.Ing.—the equivalent of our M.Eng. degree—in Germany.
I hope for the development and expansion of ERASMUS and I beg deans, senior tutors and others in responsible positions to make sure that they publicise the scheme on noticeboards and in students'
440
magazines. Schools too can help. I have great hopes for the newly formed ESHA—the European Secondary Heads Association. It has titles in German and French too which I shall not attempt to pronounce. It is based in the Netherlands. It will link with other educational organisations representing teachers, governors, officials and parents under the umbrella of the Permanent Liaison Committee of European Associations in Europe—charmingly known as PLEASE.
My final point touches on an aspect of the development and encouragement of young people which has not, so far as I know, been touched on in the Commission memorandum. Museums have an important role in helping people, especially young people, to explore their own identity and place in society. Those young people who do not qualify for PETRA or ERASMUS can be helped greatly by hands-on courses in their local museums. For example, the Geffrye museum in Shoreditch—I have to declare an interest; I am chairman of the trustees —runs popular and successful craft courses for young housebound mothers, most of whom are well under 25, and gives them a step up the ladder of confidence.
I have touched on some of the positive aspects of youth in the Community. Others will talk of the downside: the thousands of disadvantaged young men and women, some homeless, who are marginalised and demoralised. They will talk of those young people's worrying plight far more tellingly than I can. Let us do our utmost in the Community to help the young people who are disadvantaged. However, let us also do our very best to nourish and develop the talents of our gifted young throughout Europe, many of whom may also be socially disadvantaged. Many of the gifted young are the hope of future peace and understanding.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I speak in the debate with a certain amount of anxiety because I was not lucky enough to be a member of the committee. As I am one of the younger Members of this House that was rather remiss of me. Furthermore, I feel a little abashed about speaking so early in the debate but, as my noble friend Lord Ross is unable to be present, I am the first person to speak from these Benches.
I am impressed by the quality of work that has gone into the report. I congratulate all those involved in its preparation. In particular I am impressed by the fact that the report concentrates on people at the lower end of the education and opportunities ladder. Surely they need the most help and always will. The two main integration programmes, PETRA and the Youth Forum, are excellent and overdue ideas. If we are to have an integrated labour market we must ensure that a country such as ours, which has a tradition of being bad at languages and thus at integrating, must take steps forward. The people who are traditionally the educational failures—those who have failed inside the education system—usually dropped the study of languages or failed also in that area. Therefore it is important that they are exposed to another language outside the system. It will be easier for them then to

441
pick up the rudimentary workings of another language; for instance, the verbal skills of asking directions, ordering a cup of tea and so forth. They are vital skills for living in a society, but those people will not have learnt them at school. One can hope only that exposure to another culture will give them an advantage over someone who has merely book-learned the language.
The report points to the many problems of youth, whose existence is reasonably well accepted, but one must put them in proper context as regards Europe as a whole. We must quickly address the problem of the further education and training of the mass of people who have been through the school system. Again, I refer to those who have not done well at school and who have not obtained the greater benefit of the higher education system and the support available in it. As noble Lords who attended our debates on the student loans legislation will know, I do not believe that the Government's record on providing assistance and support through higher education is good. However, one can safely say that the people who have contact with it are a thousand times better off than those people who come nowhere near that stage.
The whole issue appears to be interrelated to our social security system. The people who traditionally do not enter the higher education system are often those who are highly dependent on the social security system. There are the problems of housing and claiming social security benefits. Largely through the accident of social upbringing, and to a personal extent, some people are alienated from the system. I shall not bore noble Lords by going into the long pseudo-sociological argument about expectations generating their own degree of reality; but people from a non-educational background are not high educational achievers.
People who are least equipped with academic qualifications find themselves having to deal with the job market. Invariably they come from family groups which are the least financially well off and socially acclimatised to supporting people in their late teens and early 20s. Increasingly, such young people must be supported and helped for a longer period. That is difficult for someone in receipt of a grant, particularly in view of the new loans system. It is almost impossible to find families from what was traditionally called the blue-collar section, with a lower income, able to support a young person through higher education and training, especially for longer periods. We must look for a way of supporting young people through this difficult time.
It is unfortunate that the social security system appears to be weighted heavily against the young. There is in particular a ludicrous anomaly that I have never been able to understand. Young people between the ages of 16 and 17 will receive about £22 per week, between the ages of 18 and 24 about £29 per week and over 25 almost £37. They are not large amounts, but it is odd that they discriminate against the young. Young men between, say, 16 and 17 years are still growing and therefore they need a better diet and new clothing. The Government should look into the
442
system. The young appear to be discriminated against probably for traditional reasons; I do not suggest that the Government have consciously decided to discriminate against them. However, there is pressure on them at home because they are a financial burden. When considering the problem of the young it is increasingly obvious that they face a variety of problems at one time. There is a transitional period during which they are trying to find a direction in their lives and also the means to pursue it.
I was interested in particular in paragraph 35 of the report dealing with the setting up of advice shops for the young and the introduction of a new youth card. There has for some time been a requirement for advice shops for the young. Many schemes are available to help young people, assuming that we have overcome the financial difficulties but, unfortunately, they are difficult to track down. If we accept that such young people will not be used to dealing with forms and so forth in classrooms—and I accept that many people will not agree—they must be assisted through the complications of finding help. To a degree schools can provide such assistance, but people who have not done well at school will not have taken full advantage of the careers advice service. Once one has left school, one's situation changes.
Greater emphasis should be placed on providing a centre of information for the young. It is hoped that they will then be able to find their own way onto the various schemes that have been mentioned. If they can go on one of the many government training schemes, the PETRA programme or the European youth scheme, they will be better placed to take advantage of employment opportunities throughout the Community.
I repeat that I was not a member of the original committee. But I believe that unless a co-ordinated approach is taken to help young people in that way, whether through a ministry or some sort of glorified committee, the problem will never be properly solved. Most people waste a great deal of energy chasing around in circles trying to find answers. They become dispirited and they give up, but the problem could be dealt with through the existing mechanisms. I ask the Government to help young people to use the existing machinery.
5.30 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the kindly way in which she chaired the committee. Not only the committee but the whole House is indebted to her for the very hard work which she put into steering the committee through an enormous amount of evidence, both written and oral, which provides the resultant report before your Lordships today.
I fully agree with the recommendations of the report but I trust that some means may be evolved for co-ordinating the different government departments in this country which deal with youth problems. One problem raised by the 1992 single market is how much the mobility of young people in Europe will increase from this country and the other way round. On the whole witnesses agreed that disadvantaged young

443
people would lack the resources to move much or to travel in search of employment and accommodation. Obviously, they will not be able to sustain a job or training if they are searching for somewhere to live.
In her evidence, the director of the national bureau said that in recent discussion in Brussels young people with physical disabilities have been highlighted. The national bureau wished to ensure that any special provision or modifications would be built in to the design of buildings and would include the special needs of the blind, deaf and otherwise disabled. The needs of the disabled, whether in terms of sight, hearing or physical mobility, are often forgotten, even now.
Another point of anxiety which emerged from several of the witnesses was how little available information there was about the likelihood of young people moving in Europe in the 1990s. Apparently we have no idea how many young people from EC countries can be expected to come here. It appears that many member states of the EC have problems with small groups of disadvantaged young people who form an isolated element in society. The existence of that group as revealed by the evidence given to the committee may have serious implications for integration into Europe.
In evidence from Shelter, we were told in particular of the French foyer system. That is a form of hostel but different from the English meaning of "hostel". The system is education and training centred and led. Shelter is trying to establish a similar system in this country but adapted to local needs. The foyer is essentially a young person's hostel which provides link training employment and housing with a large element of social education and development of social skills within the foyer. Thus, a young person when leaving afoyer will have made friends and will not feel lonely or isolated. The foyer system does not cover all needs; but if developed, it could go a long way towards integrating young people into society.
From some of the evidence which the committee heard, it was evident that the profusion of qualifications is confusing to young people and the various opportunities on offer are as muddling as Hampton Court's maze when trying to take advantage of training in Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has already explained the PETRA programme. The intention to extend and revise that programme is to be welcomed in particular for those young people who have left education at an early age and are not qualified to attend programmes for those in higher education. The overall objective is to increase the European dimension for technical and vocational education leading to a recognised qualification.
To conclude, I wish to mention that Shelter reports that the Department of Employment has expressed an interest and I understand that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Jackson, proposes to visit some French schemes later this year. The department has also seconded a civil servant to investigate the links to training agencies. That is very much to be welcomed.
444
I am delighted to know also that the Commissioner, Madame Papandreou, is particularly interested in the European foyer scheme which would provide the means for young people in Europe to be mobile without being at risk of exploitation and homelessness. I hope very much that that scheme succeeds.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, my concern is not with the majority of young people in the European Community but with those that this report describes as the:
"small but significant group of especially disadvantaged young people who form an isolated or 'marginalised' element of society"
in all the member states of the European Community.
This disadvantaged and alienated section of our society has been particularly visible in our cities this last summer—stealing cars; wrecking, burning and looting houses and shops; and fighting with police officers. Particularly shocking this last few years have been the huddled shapes of children sleeping in doorways and the young beggars in the subways of the London Underground. Indeed, we seem to have returned to the standards of Victorian England.
These unhappy young people seem to have become more visible. That is partly because of the vivid images we all see on television, partly because different groups in society are much more intermingled than they were even as little as 30 years ago when I first started work in the East End of London. The East End of London used to be a vast foreign country stretching from Aldgate Pump to beyond the Royal Group of Docks with its own, often violent, culture but with its own values and a considerable degree of homogeneity. That culture has fragmented and has not only become more multi-cultural but also has rich and poor living cheek by jowl in close proximity where the affluence and possessions of one inevitably increase the envy and despair of the other. This is true not only of the Docklands development area but also of the so-called "crescent of deprivation" of Islington, Hackney and Tower Hamlets which lies around the eastern fringes of that symbol of money-making—the City of London.
Other cities of the United Kingdom are subject to the same phenomenon as we have seen in Oxford, Cardiff and in Newcastle this summer. Indeed, I understand there is a luxury development being built within sight of the Meadow Wall Estate which, moreover, has had no effect on the appalling rate of unemployment—85 per cent.—among the young people there.
In London in March this year—and the number must have increased since then—there were calculated to be 40 unemployed for every advertised vacancy. Few of the unemployed, especially from places like Islington and Hackney, will have the necessary skills to succeed against this level of competition. Quite rightly a great deal of emphasis has been placed on training people in vocational skills so that they can enter the job market. However, for those with no hope of getting a job such training must seem a hollow mockery.

445
There used to be intermediary rungs on the ladder between the affluent and the less well-off in our society, which gave young people hope and the incentive to work hard to improve their position in life. Now, for perhaps 10 per cent. of our population, 5 million or more people, the gap appears to be unbridgeable between their own situation of damp and decaying, or non-existent, housing, on featureless estates, with struggling schools and closing factories, and the situation of their near neighbours with their cars, centrally heated homes and foreign holidays. That impression of what constitutes a normal family life in Britain today is confirmed by endless glossy images on television. As Professor Ashton said in his evidence to the European Communities Committee, there is a real danger of a group of young people being "trapped" below the base of the labour market.
Young people whose lives are empty and who can make no plans for their future will inevitably become bored and depressed (indeed, boredom is often a symptom of depression) and so they seek interest and excitement wherever it may be found, often by turning to crime. As the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said last week:
"thousands of youngsters … get into trouble because they are bored and say that they have nothing to do".
She advocated more opportunities for young people to take part in sport and I would not disagree with that, but we need to do far more if we are not to have a large and permanently disadvantaged underclass increasingly prone to crime and violence as the gap between themselves and the rest of society widens.
First, we need long-term strategic planning on a regional basis to provide the necessary consistent framework for local authorities so that they can improve the infrastructure of housing, employment and education. Those cannot be left to the vagaries of market forces or quickly scrambled-together inner city initiatives imposed by central government. The Government also must delegate more real power to local authorities to enable them to respond directly to the local problems with which they are familiar. For example, by being allowed to spend their capital receipts from the sale of council houses on further house building.
Currently, European Community grants for declining industrial areas tend to be absorbed into central government funds. EC funding should be additional to existing funding and not be subject to the expenditure controls imposed on local authorities. In another part of Europe (France) the mayor of even the tiniest commune of 100 people is a discretionary budget holder. We need to learn to have that sort of commitment to local knowledge and autonomy.
Secondly, there needs to be more immediate support for youth workers and other agencies in both the voluntary and statutory sector that can introduce different dimensions and some hope into the lives of our young people. As my noble friend Lord Richard pointed out last week, two-thirds of local authorities had to cut back on their youth provision last year. It
446
is possible that that might in part be connected with the problems that we have seen with disenchanted and antagonistic youth.
Education can take many forms, in addition to the purely academic or vocational. In the absence of any reasonable prospect of obtaining a job, as in parts of London or Newcastle, it may be that not vocational education but education to develop self confidence and social skills is what is required to enable young people to escape from the trap to which they are condemned. For some of them crimes against property must have a symbolic significance as well as providing excitement and a means to acquiring consumer goods or ready cash. Urgent action is of course needed to reduce the current high level of property crime.
The recent Home Office report on crime prevention —the Morgan Report—refers to the need for durable long-term schemes to divert young people from crime. The words "durable" and "long-term" are very important. Policy, as many witnesses to the European Communities Committee testified, must be coherent and co-ordinated between different agencies. Without those requisites, we will continue to be surprised by the wholly predictable responses of young people to feelings of despair and entrapment.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, yesterday throughout the country we spent time remembering the young people killed in two successive world wars. I therefore particularly welcome the opportunity today to debate in your Lordships' House the prospect of the future of our present young people who, we believe, will not face the trauma of going to war. Nevertheless, they experience other kinds of problems which we must attempt to solve with the co-operation of the Community, governments and voluntary organisations.
The programmes initiated by the Commission in favour of young people seek to provide models of good practice with a European dimension in matters of education and training, leaving national, regional and local authorities the task of implementing and running the programmes. To my mind, among its many other duties, that is an ideal role for the Commission, with the co-operation of governments and voluntary agencies. I particularly welcome the report coming from Sub-Committee C and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on producing the document which is so full of information. It covers a wide range of matters. In fact, the wide range of its contents reflects to a large extent the many problems which affect youth and which cannot be given a blanket overall solution. Each problem must be dealt with separately, carefully and looked at on its own. We must have the sense and understanding to say, "This is a problem here. It will not be the same as elsewhere and the solution will not be the same". That is an important aspect that comes out of the document.
Among the three documents which form the basis of the report, there is a list of a wide range of European Community activities relating to youth.

447
They all give opportunities to young people who would otherwise not be able to benefit from local initialives.
I should like to make a few points arising from the report itself. In paragraphs 102 and 103 I was somewhat surprised and rather sad to see no mention of the role of Members of the European Parliament in acting either as a source of information to their constituents or as a connection between their constituents and the European Commission. That is part of their job. I hope that out of this debate will come an understanding by the British public that that is what MEPs are elected for. It is their job to act as a link between the central authority in Brussels and their constituents.
Another point which concerned me was the number of departments involved in dealing with any specific subject. I know that it is difficult in an administration for one Minister to be responsible for one subject. However, in one programme to which I shall turn later we had to deal with the DTI, the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science. One never really understands to whom one is meant to speak and what the result will be. That is a failure to recognise the need for one contact to deal with one specific problem.
Another point I wish to make concerns a statement by Professor Brimmer, who speaks of young people not being able to move south due to high rents. At one stage Reading and the area around the Thames Valley had an unemployment rate of only 2 per cent. Firms were desperate to obtain young people from the North of England—or anywhere in the United Kingdom. Housing, flats and every conceivable kind of amenity were offered. Either the young would not come at all or, if they did come, they would stay only a few days or a maximum of a week. They returned home because they were happier at home without a job than being in what was to them an alien culture. They may have missed their girl friend or the shops that they knew, spoke a different kind of language or had different interests. My point is not that the children went home; I can understand that. But to say houses are more expensive in the south and therefore young people will not come south is not the easy answer. It is a more fundamental and difficult human problem.
The other point I wish to make concerns evidence given by Professor Ashton in paragraph 67. He gives a variety of reasons why some young people do not appreciate the value of education. He mentioned matters such as the national core curriculum. I am certain that those young people not interested in education have never heard of the national core curriculum. In any case, that is a comparatively new episode in our educational history. I suggest that it is more the attitude of the parents. They believe that education is free; they go away for the day and leave their children at school. It does not matter what happens to them. However, those of us who for many years have dealt with members of the Asian community, for instance, know full well that the vast majority of those parents, and certainly those I have had the honour and pleasure of knowing, pay the most tremendous attention not only to education but also
448
to the success of their children. In the Thames Valley schools one will always find Asian children doing extremely well in their work. That has nothing to do with being less deprived or more deprived or having less or more money. The value that parents attach to the importance of education for their children and that they should prosper in a British society affects the child's attitude. That is probably more fundamental than the national core curriculum.
The head master's approach to education and the value he attaches to it is also important. Within the space of 10 miles one can have 200 children leaving a school's sixth form where every child obtains a job of some kind, training or a place within a college of education. Yet a few miles down the road the headmaster of another school will say, "I tell my children that if 50 per cent. obtain a job they will be lucky". The attitude of the headmaster has a tremendous effect on education. I do not believe that I can go along with some of the easy answers which are given as regards some aspects of the report.
I wish to mention three youth programmes, two of which are mentioned in the report. I have had the honour of being connected with them both in their foundation and in their running as either the chairman or in some other capacity. The first is the COMETT programme which has proved to be an invaluable tool. It was started in 1985 at Windsor by the then commissioner, Mr. Peter Sutherland. It has stimulated links between industry, colleges of education and universities which certainly did not exist at the time. That was through the establishment of what is known as UETPs, which are university educational links. TARGET in the Thames Valley was one of the first.
These bodies are concerned specifically with advanced technological training, especially information technology, resulting in the sharing of experience; effective technological transfer from research to industry, the setting up of training projects on a trans-national basis, and thereby giving young people opportunities for work placements. The level of student placements on the Continent has been outstanding. In the first COMETT programme which ran for between three and five years, 4,000 young people throughout Europe exchanged work experience in different parts of the Community. If one can measure success in terms of statistics, within its first year COMETT II, the second stage of the programme, has benefited 4,000 students with the possibility of exchange.
Therefore, not only are young people being encouraged and enabled to learn about the other countries of the EC; they also acquire other languages and technical skills. The exchanges have proved beneficial not only to the young themselves but also to the companies. They have started contacts and learnt themselves. Many of the companies in the Thames Valley which received young French and German students are very loath to see them return home. Links have been built up. One noble Lord has already mentioned that these young people will return to the firms where they received the work experience. That can only be to the good.

449
The other side of the matter is that it makes young people, who would perhaps not be prepared to look at their local industry or go to a local firm because it is a "dirty job" being an engineer, go abroad and suddenly see a new aspect of industry; they return with a completely different outlook. As can be seen, the COMETT programme has been a considerable success. It has had a multiplier effect. The task force of DG V in the Commission is to be warmly congratulated on the initiative and stimulus that it has given to making the project so successful throughout the Community. I very much hope that the Government will put all their weight behind seeing that the COMETT programme is continued when COMETT II comes to an end.
There is another initiative which has had considerable support from DG X. That is the information and cultural directorate headed by Commissioner Dondelinger. It has given very great help to the European Community Youth Orchestra. That is in quite a different field. It was launched in 1975 by Mr. Heath. It has been in operation since 1977. Over 1,200 young musicians from all the 12 member states have played in that orchestra throughout the Community and outside in countries such as India, China and the United States. That orchestra has played under the batons of the world's leading conductors. From the beginning Claudio Abbado has been its musical director. That of itself draws support not only from the Commission, but from governments and from private sector financiers. In my view that is the ideal trio for financing any projects of this kind. The orchestra has played under the batons of Herbert von Karajan, Sir Georg Solti and Vladimir Ashkenazy during this year. They are just a few of the very distinguished conductors who have given their time.
This activity is a model that we should follow in other fields. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, mentioned that sport was a good idea but perhaps did not put too much stress on it. Leading sportsmen could give of their time to help young people, particularly the disadvantaged and the disabled, to run sports meetings, or motor racing drivers might work out some of the terrible complexes that we now see in joy riding. If sportsmen who lead in playing football, rugby or tennis were to give of their time, they could do a tremendous amount to attract young people into a world of leisure which is not connected with crime, but with enjoyment, skill and leadership. The sports leaders in this country and throughout the Community could do a great deal to change the attitude of so many of our young people who lead such disadvantaged, unhappy and sometimes dangerous lives.
Without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, I wish to mention an organisation because of the comments made about the Youth Forum that consists of people who are no longer young. A European youth parliament has recently been established. It met for the first time this year at Oxford. It gives an opportunity for young people to discuss national political issues at EC level. The youth parliament will
450
be meeting regularly. It has already arranged for a session in April 1992. That will unite young people of all backgrounds, creeds, religions and race to discuss European matters with a European dimension.
These programmes give an example of excellent co-operation with the Commission, stimulating and co-ordinating national action and encouraging both national, regional and local initiatives in order to give opportunities for young people to benefit from membership of the EC. That includes all those whether disadvantaged or not.
I wish to comment on the point which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly made as regards information reaching the young. What is necessary is not so much a meeting of the members of the steering committee of ministers, because they speak only to themselves or to their civil servants, but conferences of voluntary organisations. They are the bodies which are in touch with the recipients and those at the grass roots who need the information and who can use it. From time to time meetings of voluntary agencies attended by the Commission and a representative of the Government might go at least some way to bringing this information to the young so that they know what opportunities are available to them.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I shall speak only briefly because so much of the ground has already been eloquently covered by our chairman. I wish to make two points. There must be few reports before this House to which a dozen or more government departments have contributed responses. That illustrates not only the quality of the report and of our chairman, but also the widespread concern and commitment of many government departments as regards the problems of young people.
On many occasions the Government have said that all young people should have the opportunity to take part in education and training until they are at least 18 years of age. There is a substantial commitment to this end contained in the White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century. As has been said, the committee's principal finding was that many young people in the Community face multiple problems. Those with minimal education and training are likely to have difficulty in obtaining permanent employment. Apart from those about whom I wish to speak in more detail, the committee also concluded that there exists in many member states a small but significant group of specially disadvantaged young people who form an isolated or marginalised element of society. They have been eloquently spoken about by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. They have been called by the media deprived or depraved. The conflict goes on in this country as to which is the cause of the situation.
The existence of this group and the many facets revealed by the evidence we received has profound implications for integration in Europe. The factors have been very well summarised by Shelter: the failure of the housing system to meet the needs of the young; the level of unemployment and the stagnation of wages in real terms; the progressive withdrawal and

451
reduce ion of benefits; and the complexities of benefits, relationship breakdown with parents and the decline of the extended family and community support, the relative failure of education and training systems to prepare young people for their role in society—something more than technical training—and the general social pressures giving rise to expectation of both economic and social independence. Many voluntary and statutory organisations have described these problems and the wide contribution of government departments to this response indicates an anxiety to contribute to the solution.
Another approach referred to by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, is to look at the experience of the young in the 16 to 25 year-old age group in terms of transition from dependence to independence. How does one facilitate the integration of the young into society? It was argued in evidence to us that other models in Europe may offer the young better opportunities of achieving independence—for example, in France. But transferring systems from one culture to another can be fraught with difficulties. Therefore, because of the complex and multi-faceted nature of this problem, the committee recommended that the Commission itself should draw up a general report on the situation of young people throughout the Community.
Some would argue that this could be an important development in 1992, when Britain assumes the presidency of the Community. In this area the role of the current president could be vitally important and the nature of the problem and the responsibilities involved would make the president a central focus. Such a policy would fit in with the declared intentions of the Community.
I ask the Government whether under these circumstances they would not reconsider the question of having a minister for the young or some other co-ordination role. Are the Government prepared to depart from the view expressed in their response that young people can best be served through actions which address specific issues rather than treating them as a minority group?
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships of a recent report which has given rise to anxiety. It is a report by the Children's Society which I think must be considered. It is a report based on 72 individual cases from five district health authorities in Wales and the West of England. They found that young people were being admitted to mental hospitals because of difficult behaviour at school or at home, problems with their friends, aggressive behaviour, or stealing. Once in psychiatric care there were no legal safeguards to protect their rights. Drugs, physical restraint and confinement in "time out" rooms were all used to control their behaviour.
Hearing this, one can understand the anxiety that is being expressed. I believe that in such a situation, there usually will be a lead department in government. However, the evidence that we have received suggests the problem is more complex and requires a different solution. Addressing specific issues when certain important aspects are not covered by those issues could in some cases lead to failure and a waste of
452
resources. One feels that under these circumstances we cannot avoid the responsibility of co-ordinating the whole field in this country and in Europe. Such a role seems to me to be an ideal opportunity for the British presidency in 1992.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I speak as a member of the committee whose report is before the House and therefore, with your Lordships' leave, from the Back-Benches.
I commend the report to your Lordships. It is the result of much painstaking work in which we were helped by a large number of people and institutions, including voluntary organisations who made representations to us, and of course by our invaluable staff. I join many of your Lordships who have spoken in the debate in commending the work and the leadership given to us by our chairman the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
There is no doubt that for some young people 1992, and all it stands for, is an exciting challenge. I have spoken to many young undergraduates who relish the idea of working elsewhere in the Community and who are confident of their ability to do so, equipped as they intend to be with good degrees and language skills. They are the fortunate ones. In the main, they come from relatively privileged backgrounds and stable family situations. Sadly, that is not the case for a number of young people. That was why the committee was right, in my view, to concentrate on the plight of the disadvantaged and the underprivileged.
However, the programmes embarked upon by the Community were criticised by a number of those who made representations to us on the basis that insufficient had been done to reach disadvantaged young people. The Commission is apparently aware of this, and it is now proposed that in the extension of the Youth for Europe programme at least a third of the appropriation will be set-aside to assist those from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is to be welcomed.
There is the further problem that youth organisations are not always run by young people but often by adult professionals in the field. There appear to be real difficulties in involving young people themselves. We discovered as a result of the evidence submitted to us that unemployment among young people is now perceived as a major problem—not just in the UK, it must be said. In Spain and Southern Italy, it actually appears to be worse. Nevertheless, it is quite a significant problem in the UK. Then there is family breakdown—as one witness put it to us, it is not much good wishing that we could go back to some mythical Victorian era. After all, not everyone had stable family backgrounds then. Dickens and Disraeli both knew about that and described it in their novels.
We have to face present-day conditions when one in three marriages ends in divorce, and there is a substantial increase in single parent families in households often headed by women working on low pay. Then there are often difficulties with step-parents. Many young people leave home because they no longer feel at home there. Sometimes they suffer physical or sexual abuse. As the Director of Shelter

453
put it to us, "It is not possible to turn back the tide. History is against you. Policy you can change in terms of housing and in other ways. Individual behaviour is somewhat more intransigent."
Thus some young people are caught up in a vicious circle—without a job they cannot get housing, without an address they will not get a job. It must be said that on this score we had some very pessimistic evidence. For example, NACRO said that there was "a revolving door syndrome—no home, no job, no money, crime, increasing isolation from society, imprisonment, no home on release and so on, back again in prison not long afterwards." The Director of Shelter also warned us that once young people are sleeping rough they can become a law and order problem.
Homelessness among the young is a problem not only in the UK, although it seems to have become worse here in recent years. We were interested to try to find out how our neighbours in the EC, whose societies face much the same kind of strains as our own, were coping. It seems that in Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium special facilities are available; and in France, as we have heard from the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, there is apparent provision of low-rental hostel accommodation. These seemed ways of coping with the situation to some extent.
The Low Pay Unit stated without equivocation that the reason for homelessness among young people was that they could not afford anywhere to live. The Wages Act 1986 has had the effect of excluding young people from the protection of wages councils with the result that there has been an overall fall in the pay of young people in the relevant industries. Moreover, it was alleged that there are 62,000 16 and 17 year-olds out of work but not included in the unemployment statistics since as a result of recent legislation, such young people cannot claim unemployment pay, and the promises about places on youth training schemes have not all been fulfilled. It is scarcely surprising that in such circumstances some young people eventually land up on the streets. I do not believe that many can be there by choice. The other day I gave money to a young man who was begging in Holborn. He was clearly shivering with cold, and he looked as though he had been there all night. If there was any other option, I cannot believe that people would choose to live like that.
We have all seen examples of lawlessness on the part of a minority of young people—so much so that the Government are to bring forward a Bill to deal with what is wrongly termed "joyriding", although there can be nothing particularly joyful about an activity which results in deaths and injuries and in widespread public disquiet. It has been strongly denied by some spokespersons on behalf of the Government that this kind of activity results from deprivation, and there is a tendency to blame the parents. The young people concerned may not be homeless, and some—but by no means all—appear to have jobs. But I recall those television interviews with some of the youths—not themselves involved but supporters of those who were—which took place
454
against the background of the gaunt and dismal housing estates where they lived. "Well, everyone does it", they said; "What else is there to do around here?" Surely that is evidence of deprivation of a kind. It indicates educational and cultural disadvantage if nothing else.
The Government are now putting a good deal of emphasis on training, and of course they are right to do so. Far fewer young people in the UK are in full-time education or vocational training between the ages of 16 and 18 than in other European countries, particularly Germany. The committee therefore, rightly in my view, strongly reiterated the recommendation that it made in its report on vocational training —that all young people in the United Kingdom between the ages of 16 and 18 should either be in full-time education or undergoing approved vocational training. They should not be in dead-end jobs, or unemployed on the streets.
The committee also believed that there was a need for more co-ordination between Ministers on youth problems—either a steering committee of Ministers or a single Minister of State. We felt that the educationally underprivileged and seriously disadvantaged young represent a special problem to which particular attention should be given. We were made fully aware, if we did not know already, of the extremely worthy activities of many voluntary organisations, without whose involvement things would undoubtedly be a great deal worse and far more hopeless for many disadvantaged young people. Nevertheless, this is an area where the Government should take a lead and where the expenditure of money should be regarded as an investment, rather than simply expenditure. We were repeatedly warned by witnesses about the possibility of the creation of an underclass, alienated and dangerous. I hope and believe that the report of our committee makes a valuable contribution to the discussion of the very complex questions involved.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I join earlier speakers in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on the admirable way in which she guided us through this difficult inquiry. It will scarcely come as a surprise to my colleagues on the committee if I say that I shall concentrate on only two paragraphs of the report, paragraphs 110 and 111, which have already been referred to by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. Those paragraphs refer in particular to the small but significant group of especially disadvantaged young people who form an isolated or marginalised element of society. The report goes on to state that it is not possible to identify a single cause for that situation. I want to discuss just one aspect of the problem and one possible solution. I should like to look at one of the most common causes of poverty and deprivation—the inability to cope with the pressures of modern life, especially in the inner city. That inability is very often caused by a history of inadequate parenting.

455
It is a natural instinct in children to love and admire their parents. When a parent lets a child down by deserting him, beating him or abusing him, the child, because the parent is his hero, will blame himself. Such children are left with a terrible feeling of guilt and inadequacy. I believe that such a child is handicapped just as much as one who is born with a physical disability. This emotional handicap often leads to disruptive behaviour and showing off, poor performance at school which then leads to boredom and truanting, and a feeling of alienation and rejection from society.
Unless such children are helped they will arrive at the age of 16 partially uneducated—sometimes unable to read or write—and with deep feelings of rejection and resentment against society. Then, at 16, that same young person is expected to go out into the world and find himself a training place, and to stick to it living on £27 a week. That may be possible if the young person is living at home but an increasing number of 16 year olds are being thrown out of their homes, either, as one noble Lord said, by their step-parent, or their mother's lover, or because there is not room in what is perhaps only a two-bedroomed apartment or house. How can a young person live without accommodation on £27 a week?
In practice, many have neither the motivation nor the education to seek a training place; and if they do they sometimes do not have the guts to stay with it when the going becomes a little rough. They get irregular low-paid jobs when they can, and for the rest of the time depend on crime or prostitution, living rough or dossing with friends. Under those circumstances they are at high risk of being drawn into drugs or alcohol abuse. What is frightening is that very soon those same young people begin to breed children. Those children are likely to become another generation in the same cycle of inadequate parenting.
The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, have suggested, in different contexts, that we should blame the parents. I do not believe that to do so is realistic when one bears in mind that most of those parents were probably also emotionally handicapped as children and were brought up without satisfactory parental role models or any experience of a supportive family. They had no opportunity to learn how to relate to one another, to build a home and to rear children. And so the cycle continues.
Can this cycle of poor parenting be broken? I believe that it can, and I believe that it must. If it is not, we shall see a continuation of the rapidly increasing levels of juvenile crime and of rioting and disaffection in our inner cities. The cost of maintaining law and order will escalate. No society can afford to have a disaffected and disillusioned underclass who resent and reject the values which hold that society together.
It is important to realise that I am here talking about only a relatively small number of young people. The cost of helping this small group would be relatively low. The cost of not helping them could in time to come be disproportionately high. What this group needs is to have restored their self-respect and
456
confidence that they can relate to a society which they feel has rejected them. That can be done only by rebuilding their self-confidence and providing them with ongoing support.
Over the past five years I have been privileged to work under the auspices of the Children's Department of Toynbee Hall for a couple of weeks each year, with young people who fall into this category. The greatest revelation which has come to me—and this may be naive—is that these children are not bad people; they are potentially nice and lovable young people who have just had a terrible experience in their life which has screwed them up inside. They need help. To anyone who is prepared to accept and like them, "warts and all", I find that there is always a warm and positive response. Their great need is to have the affection of adults whom they can respect and trust. The ways in which that can be achieved will obviously vary according to the age of the child.
Up to the age of 16, the child's main contact with the adult world outside the immediate family is the extended family. Grandparents have an important role to play. It is encouraging to see that the Children Act gives a voice to grandparents.
Another point of contact is the teacher. If we are serious in wanting to tackle the problems of insecure children in inner-city schools, action must be taken to stabilise the teaching team. Children simply cannot relate to teachers, however good, if they are changing every year—sometimes every term or even more frequently. It seems to me that special action needs to be taken to create a corps d'élite of dedicated teachers who are prepared to stay in inner-city schools and give time and care to befriending children who need it. There is also a need for the curriculum to include such subjects as homemaking and parenting, and to give guidance and offer discussion on human relationships and decision making.
For those children who are in the care of the local authority, there is an urgent need for a major improvement in the provision of social workers in some inner cities. The report of the Social Services Inspectorate dated September 1990 shows that in March of that year there were 7,600 children on the child protection registers in the 32 London boroughs. Of those, 820 were unallocated to any social worker, due to staff shortages. That seems to me to be a crazy situation in areas where there are many vulnerable and deprived children. Obviously, because our inner cities are not the most attractive areas in which to work, all but the most dedicated social workers tend to leave as soon as a better job is offered. Like teachers, social workers need to be sufficiently permanent to enable stable and supportive relationships to be formed with emotionally handicapped young people.
In the context of the under-16s, youth workers and voluntary organisations also have a significant part to play. Children can go to them of their own free will. That helps to create access to supportive adults for children who resent authority. It provides such children with activities which occupy them, give them a sense of inclusion and offer them the possibility of proving themselves. Volunteers make excellent befrienders, but they need professional back-up,

457
screening and training. There is a need for a relatively foolproof system of vetting for both voluntary and professional youth workers. Modest amounts of additional financial support are essential to supplement all the excellent voluntary work which is being carried out.
Then, at the age of 16, we come to the transition from school to work. At 16, our emotionally handicapped young person is exposed to a new set of problems. Therefore, new sorts of help are needed. Several noble Lords have spoken about the complexity of the facilities which are made available by the Government. Last week I visited Tower Hamlets to try to find out what would be available to me if I was a 16 year-old. I could not actually fool the authorities that I was of that age; but I asked them to pretend that I was and to tell me what was available. While the "high-ups" to whom I subsequently spoke were most helpful to me, the staff at the counter, although equally helpful, did not have, in many cases, the information that a young person would have needed. I went first to the Stop-shop and then to the careers centre and finally to the Jobcentre. Information was difficult to obtain. I could expand upon that experience, but I shall leave it for another occasion.
The sort of help needed by young people from the age of 16 is careers guidance and counselling. I must say that the careers service I visited was very positive. There is a need for an opportunity to brush up on the three Rs without loss of face. Therefore, the course must be called something like "Business Studies" otherwise such young people will not attend. There must also be appropriate training opportunities, supervision and encouragement, with perhaps a tutor to persuade them to continue. These young people do not have great moral fibre. It is necessary to build up their self-confidence if they are to continue with a training course and then perhaps obtain starter jobs which are easy to get into. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to advice shops. I believe that, if such shops were properly staffed and equipped with the right information, they would prove to be an extraordinarily good idea.
Finally, I turn to the question of accommodation. There are many young people who have been turned out of their home for whom there is really no accommodation which offers them the kind of protection, advice and support that they need—certainly none that they can afford. Three or four weeks ago, I visited a Foyer Jeune Travailleurs in Beauvais. There are two of them in that city. The one I saw had 120 places and was of the standard of a first-class university hostel. In addition, it had an animateur who was concerned to offer activities, advice, suggestions and counselling to the young people. I believe that I am correct in saying that the cost of that facility was about £80 per week, which was paid by the social services for young people with problems or who were coming out of care. I made inquiries in Tower Hamlets this afternoon and was
458
informed that there are only two medium stay hostels. They have a total of 37 beds, whereas approximately 20 inquiries are received each day.
I should like to continue discussing the problems of the over 16 year-olds but I believe that I have probably already spoken for too long. I have just one further point to make. In my view there is an urgent need for a change of attitude in our society towards children. There must be a recognition that, whatever changes in sexual morality or behaviour may become acceptable, one principle must remain: "a child is for life"—not just for Christmas, not just for kicks and not just for personal gratification or to obtain a council flat. We have a duty as trustees of the children of the future to establish the principle that "a child is for life".
6.29 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of the House and for the first time in 20 years, I shall try to speak in the gap of a debate. For the benefit of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I shall also try to be brief.
I was inspired during the debate not just by the general tone, as well as the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, introduced the work of her committee, but also by the excellent speech, if I may say so, of my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. I apologise to her for making a comment of approval as she rose to her feet. It seemed to me that it was worthy of my approval and that of your Lordships. I was much inspired by what my noble friend said about the ERASMUS programme, together with her mention of the German city of Mannheim. I was in that city exactly seven days ago while accompanying a committee from the other place. During the visit we had six lectures from six young doctors and scientists involved with the pharmaceutical industry. They gave us lectures on heart problems (myocardial diseases) in flawless English. There was one young lady, and five young men. When I asked them where they learnt their English, they told me that their fluency was normal because they regarded language tuition as part of their general education. At least four of them had taken part in programmes similar to the ERASMUS programme described by my noble friends Lady Brigstocke and Lady Elles. That showed that such programmes can have practical benefits.
I think I understood the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to say that those who drop languages early in their education tend to regret it later. When I was 15 I was recommended to drop science. I am not sure what that meant for languages. I was told at my school—an educational establishment not unknown to noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Brigstocke —to learn another language. That taught me a great deal. Great sporting skills, such as those of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, combined with a knowledge of languages, would do much for young people. My knowledge of French, German and Italian has been considerably improved through reading sporting newspapers. Without that the touch paper of my mind would not have been lit. Studying languages at school can often involve learning verbs one to 33 until one is

459
blue in the face. One is then taught about a wonderful author who brings out whatever wonderful culture he is describing.
Languages are a living thing. That has been the thread running through the debate. I hope that it is a relevant thread. If the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the committee helps to move forward one iota the study of languages and the friendship of young people—I do not know what the age limit is, because, although I look young, I am still benefiting from many of the topics that have been discussed this evening—then this evening's debate will have been one of the best debates I have heard during my 20-year career in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I join the many noble Lords who have congratulated my noble friend Lady Lockwood on producing an excellent report. The task facing us is complex. The report goes a long way towards making an analysis and finding a solution. My remarks are further informed by the fact that I happen to be the father of three teenage children who have been educated in inner city comprehensive schools. One learns a great deal as a parent when one's children are in such a situation.
I shall divide my remarks into three parts: what is the problem? What solution is currently being tried? What more can we do? The problem of young people comes in two parts. There are those who are not within the disadvantaged minority, and I shall deal with them first. Their problem lies in meeting the challenge of 1993 and beyond. Can we somehow increase the mobility of young people? Can we ensure that they have adequate education and training to meet the challenge which will face them when they become adults and enter the job market? In that respect I must welcome, as have many noble Lords, the considerable progress made by polytechnics and universities in encouraging intra-country co-operation with France, Germany, Spain and so on. Many degrees and courses are new available to our young people of 18 years and over. There are combined English-French, English-German courses and other combined courses. That commendable achievement has happened recently. A great deal of work has been put into that by the about-to-be-abolished CNAA and by some universities, and we should welcome it.
With such courses and the ERASMUS programme difficulties arise because our students who go to university at the age of 18 have had woefully inadequate language training. Matters are improving, but one big problem I have in placing my undergraduate students into the ERASMUS programme is that they do not want to go abroad because they do not know the language. I currently have a German undergraduate student who took advantage of the ERASMUS programme to go to Italy. He thought that he should know Italian as well as German and English. He spent the summer in Brazil because he wanted to learn Portuguese. British youth lacks that attitude towards language learning. We
460
should do something about it, although I do not know what. They may be encouraged to learn a language by playing, watching or reading about sports, films and television. We should encourage them to have a much more positive attitude towards languages because they will be the key to their survival in the job market. I reiterate that any money spent in that way is an investment and is not merely expenditure.
I turn now to the disadvantaged, about whom many noble Lords have spoken. I was struck by what my noble friend Lady Hilton said about the dreadful situation, especially in the inner cities, that those young people face. No firm line can be drawn between who is disadvantaged and who is not. If the family breaks up, or there is unemployment or some other rude financial shock, someone who was not brought up to think himself or herself as disadvantaged suddenly becomes so. If there is a disagreement within the family, the young person may have to leave home and he or she then becomes disadvantaged. There is no firm way of classifying who is disadvantaged. However there is one simple criterion: many disadvantaged young persons are those—if I may put it this way—whom the schools have failed. As a result we must watch for the big black hole which arises between 16 and 18 years in our education and industrial training. If young people fall into the black hole, it is hard for them to get out, especially if they have left school without any qualifications and are unfit even to take unskilled jobs. It is that group upon which we should concentrate when we look for solutions. Thankfully, it involves a few young people only. We should not therefore believe that we should spend only a little money on them. We shall be spending a great deal on them if they turn out badly. They cost a great deal of money in a variety of different ways. For them, the system has not functioned. We should put a great deal of effort into doing something for them.
The committee's excellent report describes many of the things that are being done by the Community and the Government in co-operation with the Community. However, several problems still exist. The programmes, although interesting and reasonably well-funded, are complex. As many noble Lords have pointed out, the young person has no clear idea of what is available. The programmes are so complex that specialist officers are needed to work them out. If it is necessary for adults to work out the system on behalf of young people so that they can obtain a little more money, I wonder how much of the money available goes to the young people whom it is meant to benefit. We ought to ask ourselves: what trickle-down from each pound spent goes to the youth for whom it is meant? How much goes to the interstices of the various levels of bureaucracy? I was talking to someone in an active agency in these efforts, the CSV, who pointed out that in many cases often about 60 to 80 per cent. goes towards setting up the intergovernmental or international co-operative deal, and about 20 to 40 per cent. may benefit the programme. This is a severe problem. It is not just that we need more co-ordination among the agencies at various levels.

461
but we need simplification and clarity. We need less bureaucracy in the arrangements so that the money goes directly to the person concerned.
I ask the Government to take the matter of the youth card seriously. If we can get the money out to the individual young people, if they can benefit from it, if only we can know that 5 million youth cards have been used, we do not need an elaborate evaluation of who benefits from them. The people who benefit are those using the youth card. Just as the concession on rail travel across Europe with the European railcard has been immensely successful among young people, I believe that the youth card will give them access to concessionary fees across a vast number of activities. That would be greatly welcomed by young people and it would be a good way of spending the money.
Similarly, if we are to give advice to young people, not only must we have advice shops but young people must have easier access to Ceefax rather than those shops. We must find out the ways in which youth gets the information and not impose our own ideas on how information can be provided by us. As the report points out, far too many people who are concerned with the work are themselves not young, they just happen to represent youth. We need to find out what the customer wants and how he behaves in order that he should benefit.
I wish to raise one question. I am not clear; I need clarification about additionality. Is it the case that money that the Government receive from the Community for youth spending is regarded as a substitute for what we will spend, or is it additional to what we spend? That is an important point. I was not clear about it from the report. It would be terrible if money received from Europe were regarded as a pound for pound substitute for money which we should be spending. It should be regarded as additional, as pump-priming money on the basis of which we shall have a better resourced programme. I should like clarification on that.
By the same token, we should have a clear indication that the Government intend to do something fairly drastic about youth unemployment, especially the somewhat alarming rise in the long-term unemployed among the youth. It is a serious problem which we ought to address. It exists at the other end of the age scale, from the ages of 21 to 25, rather than from 16 to 18, but we must examine it.
One problem which has arisen in this regard is the abridgement of the entitlements which young people used to have, especially the 16 and 17 year-olds. They have lost some of their entitlements in recent times. It would be desirable that young people aged from 16 to 25 should have equal entitlement as far as possible so that by giving them money, by decentralising and by reaching out to them we enable them to benefit from the programmes rather than that we should paternalistically design programmes for them.
6.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, first I wish to say how much the Government
462
welcome the Select Committee's study of this important subject. I know that its fourteenth report, Young People in the European Community, is the result of a painstaking and detailed examination of a number of wide-ranging and difficult issues. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and Sub-Comittee C on the results of their work. The report itself and the points raised during this debate help to emphasise the wide measure of consensus on the subject.
I have no doubt about the concern in all parts of this House, and indeed on the part of all interested parties both in the United Kingdom and across the European Community, to ensure that young people have the best possible start in life. This concern is based upon a common understanding that our future depends upon ensuring that young people receive the formal and informal education and training they need to develop their full potential and to meet the challenges that will face them in the 21st century. Each of us believes that it is vital not to fail them.
Hence, where differences about this subject exist, they are about means rather than overall aims. Indeed, as the Government made clear in their written response, we share many of the views expressed in the committee's opinion. We agree entirely with the committee that Community training and exchange programmes can contribute to the vocational and personal development of young people and that exchanges of young people between the member states can contribute to the encouragement of their awareness of the Community.
We also welcome the focus of the PETRA and Youth for Europe programmes on disadvantaged young people and those who have left full-time education at an early age. However, like the committee, the Government have substantial concerns about agreeing to European Commission proposals for large-scale expansion of programmes before full evaluation of existing initiatives takes place.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, suggested, the Government believe it to be essential to secure value for money from European Community expenditure, which is paid for by the taxpayer in just the same way as domestic public expenditure. This means there should be no less rigorous an approach to the evaluation of EC policies than there is to our own. We have therefore argued consistently in Brussels that adequate evaluation is needed before proposals are put to the Council of Ministers to renew and expand programmes. Nevertheless, we are making some progress. For example, the Council decision setting up the new PETRA programme makes specific reference to "objective and external" assessment, which will take place twice during the life of the programme.
We also note the committee's support for the inclusion of the voluntary sector in the Youth for Europe programme. The United Kingdom is particularly well placed to benefit because of our strong and flourishing voluntary bodies. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to their invaluable work with young people. We share the Select Committee's hope that they will play their full part in this new development of Youth for Europe.

463
However, we would prefer that any expansion through Community programmes takes place after evaluation of the achievements of the experimental phase Of the programme. This seems the right way to ensure that we build on solid foundations.
The Government also recognise fully the concerns expressed in the report about the number and complexity of vocational training programmes. We agree that Community expenditure, whether on training or in the youth information and related areas covered in the Commission memorandum, Young People in the European Community, needs to be co-ordinated effectively to achieve the best possible value for money.
We would very much welcome moves to improve co-ordination between different Community programmes, to improve the flow of information to their target groups and to improve and simplify administrative procedures. The concerns expressed in paragraph 103 of the report are an excellent illustration of why this is another area where we will continue to look for every opportunity to improve value for money. I think this message was not only repeated in your Lordships' House but is now being understood in Brussels.
The committee expressed the hope that there will be a formal council of Community youth ministers in the near future. Each presidency of the Community determines the number and type of meetings of ministers during their term. We have welcomed and participated fully in Community meetings of officials and of ministers responsible for youth matters but we do not believe that the need for a formal council of youth ministers has been demonstrated. Programmes such as PETRA, ERASMUS and COMETT, which are lo Diced after by the Commission Task Force for Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth, are operated effectively under the aegis of existing specialist councils.
One point on which we disagree with the committee is whether the appointment of a single minister for youth in Britain would improve co-ordination among departments on policies which affect young people. I am sorry if inadvertently I gave the sub-committee any appearance of complacency. However, I must emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, that we believe that young people can best be served through actions which tackle specific issues. Most problems and opportunities faced by many young people are not exclusive to that age group. A young person can be a 15 year-old still at school or a person of 24 who may be married with three children. They have little in common.
However, I agree with the committee that where policy issues cut across departmental responsibilities it is essential to ensure a common approach. I cannot agree with my noble friend Lady Elles that that poses a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, drew attention to the number of departments involved in the evidence given to the sub-committee. Your Lordships will have noted that our recent White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century was the result of joint work by my department and the Department of Education and Science and was presented by both Secretaries of State
464
and the Prime Minister. That is one excellent example of the co-operation which exists across Whitehall, and I could quote many others.
I now turn to issues raised which impinge more directly on domestic policy matters. Your Lordships have emphasised the importance of ensuring that young people are properly prepared for adult and working life. For the vast majority of young people a major concern is to ensure that they are able to gain entry to productive and satisfying employment.
There should be no doubt about this Government's commitment to continuing to improve vocational education and training arrangements. That was again confirmed by last week's Autumn Statement. My own department's total planned expenditure in the field of training, enterprise and vocational education next year will be £2.7 billion, two and a half times as much in real terms as that spent in 1978–79. In addition, almost £8 billion is available for expenditure on education and science next year—an increase of nearly 9 per cent. over likely expenditure this year.
The recent White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century will build on the achievements of the past decade so that high quality education and training for 16 and 17 year-olds becomes the norm. It sets out policies to build on the successful contribution of the technical and vocational education initiative to curriculum changes for 14 to 19 year-olds in full-time education; to strengthen links between schools and employers through compacts and education business partnerships; to ensure the availability of appropriate and relevant careers advice to young people; and it underpins the radical new approach with the national record of achievement and the framework of national vocational qualifications.
The bedrock of a qualified population is, of course, the education system. My noble friend Lady Elles highlighted the importance of involving the parents in education where there is some doubt about participation. The Government are committed to continuing to increase participation rates. There is a wide range of policies and initiatives aimed at improving the quality of education and raising participation.
The Further and Higher Education Bill, introduced into this House on 4th November, includes measures to enable colleges to respond to the needs of their customers more flexibly and efficiently. Those measures will provide further incentives to continue to increase student numbers.
The Schools Examination and Assessment Council has recently presented advice to the Secretary of State for Education as to how core skills for 16 to 19 year-olds could be incorporated into A and AS levels. Core skills include communication, problem solving, personal skills, numeracy, information technology and foreign language competence.
Education and training is also becoming more outward looking. That is not just the result of EC initiatives such as the PETRA and COMETT programmes but is also the direct result of government policies here. The Government have been and will

465
continue to be active in promoting the objectives of the European Community resolution on the European dimension in education.
My noble friend Lady Brigstocke was concerned about the complexity of programmes being run from Brussels and mentioned her personal experience of some of the programmes, including the PETRA and ERASMUS programmes. I understand the difficulty, but European awareness is being built into curriculum developments in schools and in colleges of further education. Together with language learning and the increase in opportunities for young people to experience training and work placements in other member states, we can look to our young people to take full advantage of the opportunities offered in the European Community in 1993 and beyond.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, drew our attention to the problem of young people who have not done well at school and painted a picture of discrimination against them. I do not believe that to be true. Youth training is a very important element of our strategy to produce better qualified labour market entrants. About 261,000 young people are now on YT compared with only some 7,000 young people in training in 1978–79. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that the Government guarantee to offer a suitable place to all 16 and 17 year-olds not in full-time education or work and to 18 year-olds whose entry into YT has been delayed, for example, by disability, ill health, pregnancy or custodial sentence. We stand by that guarantee.
A further improvement which I am sure will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is the development of training credits. We believe that training credits will encourage and motivate young people to enter training and secure higher levels of skills and qualifications and that they will also encourage more employers to provide training for young employees.
However, we are also concerned for older young people who become unemployed. Planned expenditure on employment training will increase next year to provide a total of a quarter of a million places. The Government guarantee to offer a place on employment training, enterprise allowance, employment action, the job interview guarantee or a job club to everyone aged 18 to 24 who has been unemployed for between six and 12 months.
I know that during the course of its inquiry the Committee became concerned about a number of issues affecting the care and welfare of small minorities of young people. The Government recognise and share your Lordships' concerns for those young people with specific problems which might prevent them from taking a full and economically active part in society.
Mobility of young people in itself is no bad thing. Indeed, much European Community activity is designed to encourage such movement. For example, youth tourism was a key aim of the European Tourism Year in 1990, and the COMETT, ERASMUS, PETRA and Youth for Europe programmes each include elements which involve exchanges targeted at
466
different categories of young people. Other European Community initiatives seek to remove barriers to mobility for all sections of the population in line with the completion of the internal market.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, was worried about the difficulties that the disadvantaged would have with mobility. I must stress that, although there are European programmes as I have outlined, we also encourage a wide variety of bilateral exchange activity from within the United Kingdom through organisations such as the Youth Exchange Centre and the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges. A number of voluntary organisations such as the Girl Guides Association, the YMCA and Youth Clubs UK have international links through which they organise exchanges. The Government recognise the value of involving young people in international activity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, drew on her long experience of dealing with young people with a deprived background to remind the House of some of the problems faced by the young unemployed. She vividly contrasted the living standards of those, if I may paraphrase, who have with those who have not and warned us of some of the consequences of not tackling them. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, dwelt on the problems that young people face when they are homeless. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, highlighted various problems, including the inadequacy of parents, and suggested that the problem could be inherited.
We recognise that a small proportion of young people enter so-called vicious circles through movement to inner city areas causing homelessness, which in turn results in unemployment and a spiral of associated problems. There are problems in some of our larger cities and we are addressing them. For instance, the Employment Service runs HELP, a mobile jobsearch facility, special jobclub and drop-in centre together with a scheme to place the young jobless in catering jobs with accommodation. The single homeless initiative is helping young people sleeping rough in London through the provision of direct access hostel accommodation plus longer term accommodation for those currently in hostels. The Children Act enables local authorities to help young people in their area who may be homeless and whose welfare is at risk from lack of accommodation either by providing accommodation themselves or with the assistance of other housing agencies.
The committee's report recorded that a witness had pointed to a danger that some young people could become trapped at the base of the labour market and so become marginalised in terms of unemployment and housing. As we said in our response to the committee and as I have explained tonight, we recognise the need to provide support for those young people who have problems competing in the labour and housing markets and we believe that our policies are proving effective.
Britain's labour market and system of vocational education and training are more flexible than those in many other European countries. Young people most at risk of becoming marginalised have, because of our policies, a wider range of opportunities open to them

467
than their counterparts elsewhere. Despite some of the fears expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, the situation which faces such young people in Britain compares well with other countries. Despite recent rises, tie rate of unemployment among under 25s in the United Kingdom remains below that in most other European countries, and the latest European Community unemployment comparison for the under 25s across the Community shows that the United Kingdom is well below the average. Nearly 30 per cent. of under 25 year-olds are unemployed in Italy and Spain, over 25 per cent. in Ireland and nearly 25 per cont. in France and Belgium. The United Kingdom figure is currently 13.7 per cent.
I should like to deal with one or two of the points raised by noble Lords in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred to the national voluntary youth organisations and their funding. The Department of Education and Science grant-aids directly some 70 national voluntary youth organisations for programmes of work involving personal and social education. Some small increases in cash terms have been made in recent years and grants in the presen: financial year amount to some £2.2 million. They will rise to £2.3 million in 1992–93 and further increases are anticipated from 1993–94 onwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to information shops for young people. Central government have provided the National Youth Agency with pump-priming support to develop a pilot project of about 10 information shops. The Department of Education and Science has met its agreed commitment to the initiative by providing £1 70,000 over two years 1990–91 and 1991–92, although pressure on budgets may mean that up to? 15,000 of that will be paid in the 1992–93 financial year. The Home Office has also met its agreed commitment by providing £232,000 over the three years 1989–90 through to 1991–92.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, mentioned the French foyer system. I understand that an official from the employment service is seconded to the London and Quadrant Housing Trust which has links with that French initiative. We welcome the opportunity to learn from the experience of others and I know that my honourable friend Mr Jackson has taken a personal interest in that link.
My noble friend Lady Elles drew our attention to three programmes concerning music and sport, and to the implementation of a Youth Parliament. It is the variety of opportunities to which my noble friend referred that makes the debate so wide-ranging and interesting. All the examples that she quoted are of great interest to young people.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made an eloquent analysis of marginalisation and what he termed the cycle of poor parenting. I agree that that must be broken. The answer lies in action across a whole range of policies. It would be difficult to identify one t tat would take care of it. Education for citizenship is a theme in the national curriculum and the problem of teacher shortage and turnover is being successfully addressed.
468
My noble friend Lord Lyell and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Desai, drew our attention to language learning and the participation of young people in learning a language. We agree that language learning in schools should be valued. Provisional 1991 statistics show a continuing increase in the number of pupils taking examinations in modern foreign languages and indicate improvements in standards. The establishment of a foreign language in secondary schools as a compulsory subject in the national curriculum will increase the status of the subject.
I have dealt with a number of points brought to my attention by noble Lords during the debate. If I have not dealt with some points, I should be happy to write to noble Lords. The issues raised by the subject of this debate are both important and wide-ranging. The Government are committed to investment in the young people who are Britain's future. That was a major element of the increased funding for public services announced in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement last week.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred to the increase in information and chided the Government for not supporting that. That point was also raised by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke and by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Desai. Last week, the Prime Minister launched the Under 26 youth card for young people in England and Wales. Under 26 is a discount card with a regularly updated information system on domestic and international services for young people. The Prime Minister welcomed the international dimension of the youth card, as I am sure will many noble Lords. It is available in 15 countries and, as the Prime Minister said,
"The more people who can see Europe, the more people will understand it".
Those are sentiments with which I heartily concur.
We are doing much to provide young people from all walks of life with an appreciation of Europe, from the provision of information, not only to the young but to all sections of the community, to curriculum development in our schools and colleges. But we must also be sure that our own house is in order.
There is great value in the European dimension but our young people deserve more than fine words. Our future prosperity depends upon their skills and abilities. We must provide them with the foundations from which each can achieve his or her potential. I believe that we have the right policies in place to ensure that young people can acquire the foundation on which to build their adult life.
Those policies are working. The proportion of 16 year-olds in education or training rose 23 per cent. during the 1980s. The number of further education students rose 25 per cent. also in the 1980s and between 1979 and 1988 the number of people gaining degrees or their equivalents rose by some 31 per cent., which is one of the highest success rates in higher education compared with our major Western competitors. With support for the Government's policies, I believe that young people can look to the future with confidence.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in it. Every issue which is contained either explicitly or even implicitly in the report and the evidence has been raised. The debate has been very wide-ranging and I know that the Minister will consider carefully what has been said.
I do not want to cover the ground that he covered in mentioning points made by different Ministers. I should just like to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who quite rightly took the committee to task for not including a reference to the role of MEPs and the part that they can play in assisting young people and citizens generally. That underlines the fact that, even as a committee, we are not yet geared to accepting completely the European as well as the national identification. No doubt that will take time.
I should like to thank the Minister for the way in which he and the Government have received our report. As he said, there is a wide measure of consensus not only between the committee and the Government but in all parts of the House. Differences are often about means rather than ends. I should like to echo the tribute that he paid to young people in the youth sector and in the voluntary sector. The committee was most impressed by the evidence that it received from those young people and by their dedication to other young people in trying to solve their problems.
I am sorry that we have not persuaded the Minister of the need for a formal meeting of youth Ministers or
470
even for the need for greater co-ordination at national level. Again, I should like to ask him to look very carefully at what has been said and perhaps to re-examine the evidence that the committee received from those involved in youth organisations in the country.
The Minister dealt at some length with the various domestic matters that were raised in the committee. From time to time we shall come back to those matters in the House in the context of the specific problem and not just in the context of youth issues. I underline the fact that, although the committee recommended setting up either a Minister for youth or a committee of Ministers involved in these affairs, it by no means said that the issues should not be looked at in depth by the department concerned. The committee said that we need a focal point and somebody to identify the issues and to make sure that they are not in any way overlooked as well as somebody who can speak for British youth in the councils in the European Community.
Once again, I thank all who have participated and given their support by listening to the debate. I hope that the discussion will continue and that as a result of the Europe-wide debate there will be a solution to some of the difficult problems which our young people currently face.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  KATYN MASSACRE
  KATYN MASSACRE
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 4th NOVEMBER
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 4th NOVEMBER
  POLITICAL UNION: MINISTERIAL MEETING, 4th NOVEMBER
  POLITICAL UNION: MINISTERIAL MEETING, 4th NOVEMBER
  VIETNAMESE MIGRANTS TO HONG KONG
  VIETNAMESE MIGRANTS TO HONG KONG
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED
  ROAD SAFETY
  ROAD SAFETY
  TRANSPORT SCHEMES: EC INTERVENTION
  TRANSPORT SCHEMES: EC INTERVENTION
  NON-FOOD USES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS: RESPONSE TO REPORT
  NON-FOOD USES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS: RESPONSE TO REPORT
  RURAL ENTERPRISE PROGRAMME BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SCHEME
  RURAL ENTERPRISE PROGRAMME BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SCHEME