Sitting of 12 November 1991

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

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

  COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Student Loans
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to change the student loans scheme.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): No, Sir.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that the loans scheme has turned out to be an administrative nightmare and that it has caused a great deal of bureaucracy and hardship to students, especially since they have been removed from the safety net of social security? Is not it hard that all those measures have been placed on students at a time when they find it particularly difficult to get vacation jobs or part-time jobs in term time and when those who graduate find it increasingly difficult to get jobs to pay off the overdrafts that they have had to incur as students?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with any of those premises. First, the scheme has been extremely well run and the loans company has met its target of getting the loans to those who have applied within 21 days in almost all cases. The majority of students have not felt obliged to take out loans as they have not thought it necessary. Those who have done so have enjoyed the benefit. The loan plus the grant is 30 per cent. higher than the grant alone two years ago. There is no evidence of significant student hardship, despite a somewhat half-baked campaign by the National Union of Students to try to suggest that there is. We have provided an access fund to the institutions to enable them to deal with the few cases of hardship that genuinely occur.
    Mr. Pawsey: If the situation is as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) describes it, why has the number of applicants to advanced education increased and why does the number of admissions to universities and polytechnics show a substantial increase? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that student support in the United Kingdom continues to be the most generous in the western world?
    Mr. Clarke: I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's first question; it puzzles me, too. We had been told that the loans system would deter people who might otherwise have gone into higher education because of the so-called financial hardship that they would face. In fact, since it has been introduced, the rate at which student numbers have increased has been unprecedented and we expect it to increase by 10 per cent. again this year. All the evidence refutes the nonsense that we have heard about the impact of the student loans scheme.
    My hon. Friend is right that we have the most generous system in the developed world for supporting students. I make no apology for that. It is Government policy to continue to extend opportunity for students in that way.
    Mr. Straw: Why is the Secretary of State so contemptuous of the evidence about student hardship when it comes from sources such as the citizens advice

    885
    bureaux and from scores of cases sent to him by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does the Secretary of State recognise that the access funds are in no sense a substitute for student eligibility for social security and for vacation hardship allowance and that mature students in particular have been plunged into severe hardship by the Government's policies? In the light of that, will he reconsider the abolition of vacation hardship allowance, especially as it was abolished in clear breach of undertakings given in the House that it would remain as a safety net following the abolition of social security provision?
    Mr. Clarke: I have looked at the evidence of so-called student hardship and I do not accept that the "scores" of cases stand up to examination. There have always been some students in serious difficulties. Mature students and those who do not receive the parental contribution towards their grant have always been a problem. It is somewhat eased for some by the student loans system. It can also be addressed by using the access funds provided by the Government. The average student is much better off under our arrangements of a combined grant and loan scheme than previously. The few that are not—those with high housing benefit—can be helped through the access funds. The vacation hardship allowance was almost unheard of and was not being demanded. When we abolished it there was scarcely any take-up.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in Hampshire have now applied for and achieved grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): Four schools in Hampshire have applied for and achieved grant-maintained status. I am pleased that the parents of pupils at those schools have voted to take up this option for their schools. I hope that many more in Hampshire and, indeed, throughout the country will follow their example.
    Mr. Colvin: May I take this opportunity to congratulate Hardley school in my constituency which was the first in Hampshire to achieve grant-maintained status? Does my hon. Friend accept that opting out, as it is called, is a misnomer because schools which achieve grant-maintained status are opting into a new educational regime of higher morale, better educational opportunities and more money? What percentage of schools in Hampshire will have to achieve grant-maintained status for the local education authority to become redundant?
    Mr. Eggar: I hope that the local education authority will encourage schools to go grant maintained. There is much evidence from a recent survey that that is beneficial to schools and pupils. For example, of the schools replying to the survey, 90 per cent. reported an increase in the number of pupils applying, 65 per cent. reported more teachers in the schools and 75 per cent. reported an improved teacher-pupil ratio. That is evidence of the success of the GM policy.
    Mr. Hardy rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The question is about Hampshire.
    Mr. Hardy: I know that it is about Hampshire, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister offer the House any justifycation for the provision of more money to schools in Hampshire because they happen to serve the current dogma of the present Government?
    Mr. Eggar: The money is allocated to Hampshire on the normal standard spending assessment basis. Grant-maintained schools rightly get money which would otherwise be spent on administration costs by Hampshire. Those grant-maintained schools are using that money effectively for the benefit of the school and, more importantly, of improving education for the pupils attending those schools.

    Foundation for Sport and the Arts
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what responsibilities he has for the sports and arts foundation.
    The Minister for Sports (Mr. Robert Atkins): The Foundation for Sport and the Arts is an independent trust which decides the allocation of its own funds. Under the trust deed I appoint a Government observer and am consulted on the appointment of the chairman. In practice, I keep in close touch with the work of the foundation.
    Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Football Trust gets an extra £20 million from the 2·5 per cent. reduction in the betting levy which goes towards the safety and improvement of football grounds?
    Mr. Atkins: That is certainly part of the money that is made available as a result of the far-sighted decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. When one adds to that the £40 million or so from the trust, my hon. Friends at least will recognise that the Government can lay claim to spending more money on sport than any party has done for many years.
    Mr. Pendry: Is not the Minister somewhat ashamed of himself? Despite the various amounts that come from the Foundation for Sports and the Arts—given at the whim of the trustees in a haphazard fashion—they do not compensate in any way for the £60 million cut in real grant from the Government since 1986. What answer will the Minister give to the chairman of the Sports Council, who described the recent cuts as a kick in the teeth?
    Mr. Atkins: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber; he should be on the Opposition Front Bench as their spokesman for sport, as my shadow is not here. Perhaps something should be read into that.
    This year the increase in grant to the Sports Council is 4·4 per cent., which is more than the rate of inflation and equivalent year on year to what we have pledged ourselves to provide. I repeat that if one adds to that the £40 million from the foundation, the £20 million a year for football and the 1 million that I found for the champion coaching scheme, it is clear that our commitment to sport is greater than anyone's.
    I spoke to the chairman of the Sports Council this morning and pointed out that the increase in grant is in excess of inflation. Therefore, his comment was wrong.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister understand that, despite what he has just said, there is still

    887
    considerable apprehension that the Government will use the existence of the foundation as an excuse for not funding sport properly? The Minister is aware that the Sports Council's plan did not represent a standstill, but involved the development and expansion of all its activities. That is why the settlement of 4·4 per cent. is rightly described as a kick in the teeth.
    Mr. Atkins: It is extraordinary that even though the Government found an extra £40 million for sport in the last Budget, which is near enough double the expenditure on sport year on year, Opposition Members criticise us and suggest that we are not providing the necessary resources for sport. The first tranche of money from the foundation of £3·7 million—[Interruption.] Do stop interrupting.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am supposed to say that. Can we get on?
    Mr. Atkins: I was referring to the hon. Member for Blackburn (M r. Straw). He is supposed to believe in discipline in our schools, but his behaviour is singularly ill-disciplined. As a public school boy, he should know better.
    I have sought to demonstrate that the claim of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is fatuous, because we are spending much more money on sport than in the past.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's charter for sport is about more interference, more committees, more regional committees and, most of all, more costs? Will sport be subject to Beckett's law? Will it be a top priority, a priority, or what? Does not that contrast with the Conservative policy of reducing the betting levy by 2·5 per cent., which has given £100 million to sport and increased the Sports Council grant to £50 million—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have a question please.
    Mr. Evans: Does not it mean that we are the party of hot money, not hot air?
    Mr. Atkins: I can do no better than to draw the attention of the House to this statement in Labour's charter for sport:
    "We will … review the composition and powers of the Sports Council … to free them from political bias".

    However, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is supposed to be the shadow spokesman on this subject, suggested that Labour would encourage a greater ministerial role in the Sports Council. May we know which is which?
    Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that much as many of us welcome the sports and arts foundation, we would infinitely prefer to have a national lottery, which would produce far more money for sport and the arts?
    Mr. Atkins: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that there are a number of views on this subject. My views are well known., but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Derbyshire County Council (Funding)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will increase the educational funding for Derbyshire county council.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): Councils' current spending on all services next year should be 7·2 per cent. higher than this year, but it is for Derbyshire to decide its level of spending and priorities between services. Capital spending in schools, supported by annual guidelines, is set to rise from £472 million this year to £524 million next year, an increase of 11 per cent. Derbyshire's allocation will be announced before Christmas.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that in the summer he met a group from Derbyshire county council who asked for £140 million, spread over the next three years, to get rid of all outstanding repairs and make necessary improvements? After 12 years of Tory rule, little toddlers must still run across playgrounds to get to outside toilets. We have the citizens charter, the parents charter and every charter under the sun. When will the Government put their money where their mouth is?
    Mr. Fallon: I confirm that Councillor Young came to the Department in July with five hours' worth of videos showing how Derbyshire had been running down its schools. I allocated Derbyshire £21 million this year, the fourth highest allocation of any education authority in England. I now understand that Derbyshire is planning to siphon off £5·5 million of capital spending to pay for extra redundancy and personnel costs at county hall.
    Mrs. Currie: Might the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) want more money for Derbyshire so that it can employ more people such as his brother, who is employed as a personnel liaison officer for Toyota, his sister-in-law, who is employed in the county publicity department—[Interruption.]—and such as another sister-in-law, who is employed in the education department? The hon. Gentleman is always talking about jobs for the boys. Should not that include brothers and sisters as well?
    Mr. Fallon: Derbyshire not only employs some pretty odd people, but it makes some rather odd choices. This year, Derbyshire has chosen to cut music and swimming while spending over £5 million keeping school meals at 1981 prices.

    Greater Manchester Schools
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the staffing levels and the conditions of schools in Greater Manchester.
    Mr. Fallon: In January 1991, the 10 local education authorities in Greater Manchester reported 230 full-time permanent posts unfilled, a vacancy rate of I per cent. below the national vacancy rate of 1·5 per cent. Vacancy figures in September showed a significant improvement, with only 15 vacancies reported for the whole of Greater Manchester at the start of the school year.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am not surprised that the Minister failed to mention the condition of schools in Greater Manchester. Will he confirm that in every year and for

    889
    every authority recently in Greater Manchester, the amount of money that the Government have allowed them to spend on capital projects has been way behind what they have needed, with the result that there is now a backlog of repairs and maintenance? Is he aware that one head teacher recently told me that not only do they have to teach in unsavoury conditions, but they are now having to teach in unsafe conditions? The Government are putting the health and safety of children at school at risk. What will the Minister do to make sure that that state of affairs does not continue?
    Mr. Fallon: For the 10 councils in the Greater Manchester area, I increased capital guidelines from £32·6 million last year to £41·6 million this year. I shall be annou0ncing the individual allocations for next year before Christmas.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the worst-ever cuts in education took place in 1976 under a Labour Government? Will he further confirm that the 11 per cent. increase in the autumn statement is bound to be helpful?
    Mr. Fallon: Yes, the 11 per cent. increase for school buildings next year is a good outcome, given that the level of inflation is only about 4 per cent. and given the drop in construction prices. Trafford education authority has received about £13 million in the past two years to help it reorganise and improve its schools.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to visit Leeds university and Leeds polytechnic to discuss funding for higher education.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I will be visiting Leeds polytechnic to open the Higher Education for Capability office on 27 November. This is a joint project of the polytechnic and the university.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that at Leeds university top-quality alpha-grade research in technical and scientific subjects can no longer be funded? Will he give an assurance that in future research at Leeds polytechnic will be funded under the new joint proposals? Is he aware that such cuts in academic research will prove to be economic short termism with vengeance?
    Mr. Howarth: Our policy is that high-quality research should be supported in departments of universities and polytechnics, wherever they may be. The Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council will embark jointly on a new research and assessment exercise next year. As a consequence, up-to-date ratings of quality will be made, department by department, across the spectrum of higher education. Every department that scores highly in those assessments will benefit accordingly. That is a thoroughly fair system.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the Minister make absolutely certain that the funding councils use up-to-date figures? Universities such as Lancaster are going steadily and rapidly up the poll and are doing very well indeed.
    890
    However, the 1988 criteria are not as good as current ideas, so it is important that the universities that are forging ahead should be encouraged.
    Mr. Howarth: As always, my hon. Friend is eloquent in championing the university in her constituency—and rightly so. The new research assessment exercise has been brought forward in anticipation of ending the binary line and bringing together the polytechnics and universities in one sector. As a result of the exercise to be carried out during 1992, the assessments of research quality will be based on the most up-to-date data.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: When the Minister discusses higher education funding at Leeds, will he confirm that it is Government policy to increase basic funding in line with the increase in student numbers? Given the pressures on laboratories, libraries, teaching and student accommodation, and the real cut in capital funding in this year's autumn statement, what is the Government's policy on capital expenditure?
    Mr. Howarth: I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that our policy on capital expenditure is to encourage and enable higher education institutions to invest, as they need to do, to accommodate the dramatic increase in student numbers as well as provide facilities for the research of remarkable quality which takes place in so many of our universities. Capital funding available from the polytechnics has increased by 50 per cent. since 1989–90, when the PCFC sector was established. I am pleased that, in the new settlement that has just been announced, we have secured an extra £9 million of capital funding for the higher education institutions.

    School Inspectors
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to receive a report from Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The senior chief inspector's annual report is being prepared now and will be submitted to me on completion.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever the merits of Her Majesty's inspectors being involved in the advocacy of method, their function of providing independent and publicised reports on the quality of education has never been in question? If he wishes to make an adjustment, would not it be more sensible to detach their role from advocacy of method and confine it solely to inspection? Is not his solution of private consultants to be engaged by competitive schools asking for trouble, because it creates an automatic conflict of interest and renders their reports suspect by definition?
    Mr. Clarke: With respect, the hon. Gentleman appears to be slightly confused about what we are doing. First, I accept that the inspectors' production of an annual report and other reports on our schools is extremely valuable, as they base their advice on the inspections that they carry out. The Education (Schools) Bill will continue that. Indeed, we strengthen the independence of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in producing those reports by detaching him, to a much greater degree than in the past, from my Department. Secondly, the new role for HMI will be to monitor the quality of all those inspectors who will

    891
    carry out the new inspections in individual schools throughout the country and to give, for the first time, reports to every parent about those schools.
    Mr. Spearing indicated dissent.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman dismisses that. Does he think that we should employ 5,000 HMIs to carry out inspections, or does he prefer the Labour party's solution—that only local councils should be allowed to inspect schools? We are giving Her Majesty's inspectorate a key role in monitoring the quality of those permitted to carry out that public service.
    Mr. Amos: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole purpose of the reforms is to increase the number of inspections in schools, not reduce them, and that the monitoring and regulation of the new system will be such that it would not be in the professional interest of any inspector to try to fiddle a report?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Last year Her Majesty's inspectors produced and published about 150 reports on individual schools and, usually, no parent saw the reports. Our arrangements will lead to about 6,000 inspections each year, and each parent will receive, without requesting it, a straightforward description of the inspection. We state that the teams of inspectors should be monitored and approved by Her Majesty's inspectorate. The new, independent Her Majesty's inspectorate will have the duty of giving a little lion stamp to those inspectors and ensuring that they are up to the mark.
    Mr. Straw: Flow can the Secretary of State conceivably claim that Her Majesty's inspectorate is to be strengthened when its numbers are to be cut by two thirds and it is to be subject to clear and specific direction from the Secretary of State? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the privatisation of the inspectorate inherent in the Education (Schools) Bill goes far further than that presaged in the schools charter and includes, under the guise of additional inspectors, the substitution of private money-making firms to do the work currently carried out, not just by local inspectors but by the chief inspector of schools?
    Mr. Clarke: I have carried out several privatisations in my time in commercial and industrial departments, and my understanding of the word privatisation is that one takes something currently managed in the public sector and transfers it to the private sector—the last such transfer in which I was engaged involved British Steel. In this case, Her Majesty's inspectorate is not being transferred and its role will remain the same except that as a public organisation it will be made more independent of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman's complaints are based solely on the fact that the total number of staff in the inspectorate are to be reduced. The Labour party judges such matters only on the number of employees and trade union members on the books, which is not the test that we shall apply. We shall give Her Majesty's inspectorate powers and duties and the number of staff that the chief inspector and I think are required to fulfil those roles.
    Mr. John Browne: Will Her Majesty's chief inspector report on the case of Kings school, Winchester, which was denied grant-maintained status as a direct result of the local authority using public funds to wage a campaign against it?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not think that Her Majesty's inspectorate can look at that case. A parental ballot was carried out on grant-maintained status and the parents decided to vote against the application for that status. I agree with my hon. Friend that Hampshire county council waged an extremely vigorous campaign against the proposal. I do not agree that Hampshire presented the case fairly, and I keep trying to obtain undertakings from Hampshire county council that, even if it cannot support Government policy, it might at least present a more detached account of the case to parents when grant-maintained options are on the table.

    Gateshead CTC
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the proposed per capita capital spending per pupil in 1991–92 at (a) Gateshead city technology college and (b) all secondary schools in the borough of Sunderland.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. and learned Friend's planned capital contribution to Emmanuel college, Gateshead in 1991–92 is £259,000. The funding agreement with the CTC allows for 300 pupils in 1991–92. The Department does not hold figures for the proposed capital expenditure on secondary schools in the borough of Sunderland in 1991–92.
    Mr. Mullin: I am not surprised that the Minister declines to give us the figures because is not the truth that about 60 to 80 times the amount of money is being spent per capita on students at the city technology college than is spent on pupils at secondary schools in Sunderland and surrounding boroughs? Can the Minister point to any country apart from South Africa where such large sums are spent on a small elite group at the expense of the majority?
    Mr. Eggar: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from—perhaps from the same Labour party briefing on which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) relies. The hon. Member for Blackburn produces wholly fictitious figures which compare the new building costs for new schools or for the conversion of schools to CTCs over a period of three years with the capital expenditure borrowing guidelines for 14 authorities in one year. That shows that he has not reached level 1 in mathematics, and nor has the hon. Gentleman.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will review the criteria for student grant eligibility.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: The Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations are reviewed annually. Extending them to a substantially wider range of courses or students would, however, require primary legislation. We have no present plans for that.
    Mr. Bowis: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many local education authorities, not least in London, it is a prerequisite for a discretionary award that a student lives for at least three years within the borough concerned? Will he give at least gentle guidance to LEAs suggesting that it is not reasonable for students to be excluded from

    893
    discretionary grants merely because their parents have moved home? Or will he try to find some other way of funding such students?
    Mr. Howarth: The regulations do not impose any specific requirements on how local education authorities should treat people ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom when considering their applications for discretionary awards. It is for each LEA to construct its own policies in respect of discretionary awards. "Discretionary" means what it says: it is not our policy to intervene or even to lean gently on authorities in this matter.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that it is no good being eligible for a mandatory award if it is then not paid? What steps is he taking to ensure that this year local authorities such as Southwark, which a week or two ago had paid less than one fifth of its mandatory grant cheques to eligible students, pay up, so as to minimise student hardship? And what will he do to ensure that in future years the system pays up at the beginning of the year, not a third of the way through it or later?
    Mr. Howarth: We have a student support system as generous as any in the world, but under long-established arrangements local education authorities administer the award system, and students depend absolutely on those authorities playing their part. We have substantially increased resources for students, providing more money for more of them. It is a disgrace if students are in difficulty on account of administrative failures by local education authorities. I have already made my views clear: officials have written to every education authority about which we have received evidence of a failure to carry out its statutory duties—and we will continue to pursue the matter vigorously.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware of the problem that some mature students, particularly women with home commitments, have to take their degree courses in the form of part-time courses and that they are therefore not eligible for mandatory grant? Will he look into that?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the changing pattern of higher education. There has been a dramatic expansion of participation, and there are more mature and part-time students and more people working their way towards qualifications on the basis of credit accumulation and transfer. We shall keep our administrative and financial systems under review in the light of these trends.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that a local authority such as Bradford, which tries to provide a wide range of discretionary awards, is inevitably limited by the amount of money that it can give? If central Government provided more assistance, the Minister may rest assured that such LEAs would provide more students with the opportunity of further and higher education through the application of discretionary awards.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman would do well to go back to Bradford and ask the authority one or two questions. The assumption on education spending that underlies the revenue support grant to local authorities this year allowed for increased spending on discretionary
    894
    awards of 15 per cent. in 1991–92. If authorities are failing to increase their spending on discretionary awards commensurately, that is their decision.

    Primary Schools (Funding)
    Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to assure himself of the adequacy of the funding arrangements for local management of smaller primary schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fallon: Local education authorities have considerable flexibility to provide additional assistance to small primary schools, through the small school protection factor, but it is for each authority to devise its own scheme and to choose its priorities within that scheme in the light of local needs.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be regrettable if the objectives of local school management could not be met because of inadequate funding? Is he aware that there are problems not only in respect of teachers' salaries, actual as opposed to average, but in respect of responsibility for the funding of the older village primary schools which predominate in rural areas? There is a clash here between the local authority and the governors.
    Mr. Fallon: Yes, that is an important point which was impressed on me when I recently visited Cornwall. The Cornwall scheme protects small primary schools with fewer than 12 staff by paying most of the difference between average salary costs at the school and the average salary costs across the local education authority area.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister realise that many small primary schools are now under enormous pressure in terms of delivering the full curriculum because they do not have the additional resources to enable them to employ the staff to teach it? Will the Government stop pressurising authorities to cease supporting small primary schools through additional support across the county? That pressure is making the future of many rural primary schools very unpredictable.
    Mr. Fallon: There is no such pressure. Three years after the Act was passed, the hon. Lady still does not seem to understand that local management of schools funds the pupils and not the teachers. It is open to any local education authority to tilt its scheme towards primary schools and I have been encouraging local education authorities, where appropriate, to revise their schemes with precisely that aim.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that despite the success of local management of schools, staff are still very worried that experienced older teachers who qualify for the higher salary scales will be discarded in favour of less experienced younger staff?
    Mr. Fallon: That is precisely why we allow local education authorities the flexibility to devise schemes to accommodate the particular circumstances of small schools and those with very high inherited salary costs.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister is right to commend Cornwall county council for its efforts to help small primary schools. Nevertheless, the problem of average

    895
    teacher costs strikes hard in rural areas that have many small schools. That problem will increase, thereby penalising schools with the most experienced and loyal teaching staffs. Will he go some way towards reviewing the process?
    Mr. Fallon: Yes, we shall be reviewing the teaching cost issue in 1993. Cornwall still has much to do to meet our requirement of 85 per cent. delegation to school budgets. It has not yet reached that target and I urge it to re-examine its spending allocations to make sure that it does. I was struck by the fact that Cornwall seems to be overspending on roads and underspending on its schools.

    Adult Education
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to expand the adult education service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eggar: The Government's proposals for transferring further education colleges to a new independent sector are designed to increase the number of people studying at those colleges and to improve opportunities for all in further education.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm the Government's total commitment to adult education and its comparative cheapness in providing excellent courses for so many people? In particular, will he confirm that the Government see leisure courses and non-vocational courses as being equal in value to vocational courses and will they ensure funding for all?
    Mr. Eggar: I can readily confirm to my hon. Friend, to whose long-held interest in education I pay tribute, that we are committed to continuing to fund adult education of all kinds—vocational, leisure, basic education and English as a second language. The increased recent trend of more adults studying in their own community is greatly welcomed and is exactly what the White Paper seeks to underline.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not clear from Government statements that the future of the adult education service is at great risk? Will the Minister give a commitment that the present adult education programme will be built upon and secured, or are the Government pulling the ladder away from thousands of our fellow citizens who have prospered from adult education in the past?
    Mr. Eggar: What is becoming increasingly clear is that the Labour party is trying to do nothing other than promote scare stories so as deliberately to frighten people who have traditionally relied on adult education courses. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are determined to sustain adult education, to extend it and to ensure that it is properly based in the local community. The hon. Gentleman should admit that.

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average amount of money being held back by local education authorities in England and Wales, per pupil, under the system of local management of schools.
    Mr. Fallon: Across the 97 local education authorities operating local management of schools, the average amount of the potential schools budget retained centrally is £260 per pupil.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Is my hon. Friend aware that the tyranny that controls education in Nottinghamshire holds back £10 or more for each and every child above that national average, that it is somewhere around two thirds of the way down the merit table for putting resources where they belong—at the school—and sits on about £3 million at the centre, which is the same as holding back £5,000 for every school in the county? Does that not prove that we need the parents charter? Will my hon. Friend ensure that every parent in the county gets one?
    Mr. Fallon: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that Nottinghamshire holds back nearly £43 million and that its total administrative costs are 4·4 per cent. of the schools' budget—twice as high, for example, as those in Northamptonshire.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Trimble: Now that the by-election in Kincardine and Deeside has focused attention on the issue of Scotland once again, and with the continuing difficulties in establishing a democratic local administration in Ulster, will the Prime Minister consider initiating consultations with other parliamentary parties with a view to reaching agreement on common structures of government throughout the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, given all the difficulties in Northern Ireland and the historical perspective there. It is precisely to deal with those problems that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been having so many discussions over the past year.
    Mr. Ashby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend seen the good producer price figures issued today? Do not these support the contention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the economy is beginning to turn around?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the producer price figures issued this morning, and they are good news. They show a continuing collapse in inflation and that can only help the competitiveness of industry and thereafter the growth of the economy and the creation of jobs.
    Mr. Kinnock: Given that the Prime Minister correctly said last night that Maastricht will be an important stage

    897
    on the road to even closer European union, what does he say today to those of his right hon. Friends who say that he has already gone far enough down the road to political and monetary union and, in their words, we should stay where we are?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear over recent months, and am happy to repeat today, that we are seeking an agreement at Maastricht that will be acceptable to the House and will enable Europe to move forward together. That is true on economic and monetary union and on political union. There is some way to go before I could sign the political union treaty that is before us. There are still matters to be agreed on the monetary union treaty, but in both cases we are making progress.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister says that he recognises, in his words, the
    "potential impact on our influence and prosperity were we to take a different decision from our principal competitors".
    In saying that, is he recognising that isolation would mean the sacrifice of influence that is essential to the vital interests of the British people—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take this advice:
    "We have nothing to gain by sitting on the margins … while others frame new structures without us"?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this Conservative Government have been the leader in Europe for the past 12 years. The single market would not have come about but for this Conservative Government. The change in rebates would not have come about without the Conservative Government. The Fontainebleau abatement would not have come about without the Conservative Government. We propose to remain within the centre of the Community, framing the future of the Community in the interests of the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.
    Mr. Kinnock: So now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer my first question; what does he have to say to those of his right hon. Friends who say that he has gone far enough and should stay where he is?
    The Prime Minister: I answered that question some moments ago.
    Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the massive increase in health spending that the Government recently announced, which shows beyond doubt the Government's commitment to the principles of the national health service? Does he agree that that is in stark contrast to the contributions that have been made by Opposition Members, who have nothing to offer the NHS but smears and attacks on staff and patients, and on the care that patients receive? Will he give the House some positive information about the success of the reforms that the Government are making, which will save the NHS for the year 2000?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. There has been yet another substantial increase in resources for the NHS, and that will enable a continuing reduction in waiting lists and better service for all those who use the NHS. Trusts are effective and efficient and they are the future. Increasingly, they are proving that.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of the vote that will take place on Thursday to think again about Scotland? Does he realise that the real potential danger to the Union of Scotland with Britain lies not with the separatists but with his Government's refusal to listen to the voice of the people of Scotland? So I ask him again: will he listen and will he think again?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman sounds from what he has just said as though he is a separatist. I can tell him frankly that the Government are not separatist. The Government remain fully committed to the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £24 billion programme for public housing over the next three years detailed by the Department of the Environment yesterday? Will he join me also in condemning the inefficiency of Labour councils, whose failure to collect rents and fill empty properties is a major barrier to the provision of homes for the homeless?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As people can see throughout the country, the reality is that Labour authorities leave houses empty even when people are in need of them.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Cowley workers, the trade unions and the management on the launch today of the excellent and new Cowley-designed and Cowley-built Rover 800? Will he explain why, at the hands of his high-tax Government, the car will face total sales taxation of 27·3 per cent., when its BMW competitor faces tax in its domestic market of only 14 per cent? Is it not time that he started backing the British car industry in the way that the Germans support theirs?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can certainly be certain that I congratulate Rover on its splendid new product, and I hope that it will be immensely successful. As an owner of Rover cars for many years, I am sure that it will be. Rover and other car manufacturers are now so successful that they are exporting to Japan and elsewhere.
    Sir Gerrard Neale: Can my right hon. Friend find time during his busy day to congratulate the management and staff of Rover on the fact that over the past 12 months not one single minute of production time has been lost through industrial disputes? Will he contrast that excellent achievement under Conservative trade union law with the undoubted industrial chaos that would result in the unlikely event of the Labour party's returning to government?
    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend has said is certainly the case at Rover, but it has also been the case throughout industry during the past year, when there was the lowest number of strikes for more than 45 years. I welcome that very much. Of course, if we were to revert to legalising secondary action, flying pickets and the other actions that the Opposition propose, I do not doubt that strikes would return.
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Hoey: What has the Prime Minister to say about the comments of the last Conservative leader of Lambeth council, who in a letter published in The Guardian on Saturday said[Interruption.] I want to quote it, and he said, "The Government is failing in its treatment of the mentally ill"—[HON. MEMBERS: "No quoting."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady can paraphrase, and she is doing so.
    Ms. Hoey: Conservative Members do not want to hear what a former Conservative leader has to say. He said that the Government were out of touch with homelessness and with the hopelessness of large sections of society, and that they had forfeited their right to govern.
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen the remarks quoted by the hon. Lady, and neither have I seen the context in which they were put or what else was said. However, I say to the hon. Lady and to the alleged author of that statement that, frankly, I disagree. As a former Minister with responsibility for the disabled, I am well aware of the immense amount of work and care that has gone into the care of the disabled. As a former Lambeth housing chairman, I do not take lectures from anyone in Lambeth about housing.
    Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he carries the support of the vast majority in this House and in the country in his refusal to rule out a single currency on our terms at some future time? In displaying the consistency of involvement and leadership in the Conservative party with regard to Europe, is he not finally giving this country the role that it lost with the empire?
    The Prime Minister: We must consider the longstanding interests of this country when we make decisions on the treaties, and that is what I will do.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagement for Tuesday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the rely that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: As crime in London increased yet again last year—by 13 per cent.—has the Prime Minister read the
    900
    comment by police commander David Stevens that the police are not responsible for crime any more than doctors are responsible for disease, and that crime is an indicator of economic and social malaise? As the Conservative party has been in power for 12½ years, who does the Prime Minister think is responsible for the economic and social malaise?
    The Prime Minister: Crime prevention begins in the home and in the treatment of people from an early age. On the questions of prevention and punishment of crime, the Government have taken committed and sustained action for more than a decade. That includes providing a strong and effective police force. We are spending 67 per cent. more, over and above inflation, than in 1979. No Government could have done more against crime than we have, and no future Government would be able to do more than we will.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of community charge or council tax depends partly on the efficiency of the local council and partly on the proportion of local government spending which is required to be raised by local taxation? Does he further agree that if that proportion were to be raised to 20 per cent., overnight every household bill would rise by 50 per cent? Is he not astonished that that is the Labour party's proposal?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am not astonished because, two years after announcing its local government plans, the Labour party still does not know how they would work. My hon. Friend makes some pertinent points. We will make sure that local tax bills are restrained and, where councils are extravagant, unlike the Labour party, which would let extravagance run wild to the cost of the local taxpayer with no let or hindrance, we will cap them.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sillars—question 9.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Dennis Turner.
    Mr. Turner: Has the Prime Minister one shred of sympathy for Britain's beer drinkers? Prices have increased way beyond the rate of inflation and the Government's legislation to check monopolies is a complete fiasco. When will the Government do something to protect the British beer drinker?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to having sympathy for them, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I am one of them.

NATO Summit
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the NATO summit in Rome on 7 and 8 November which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Last July, in London, NATO agreed to adapt its strategy to the changed situation in Europe and to build up a new partnership with the countries of central and eastern Europe. At the summit we agreed on how to carry forward both those tasks.
The strategic concept reflects the British Government's objectives. These were to ensure that NATO remains the linchpin of western security, charged with dealing with whatever security problems might threaten. The strategy reaffirms the need for a collective defence based on NATO's integrated military structure; and also on the need for both nuclear and conventional forces, kept up to date where necessary, but at significantly lower levels. Alliance forces in every NATO country will be smaller, more mobile and more flexible. At the summit we endorsed the establishment of new rapid reaction forces, in which the United Kingdom will command the land element.
The summit declaration establishes a North Atlantic Co-operation Council. This forum will enable NATO to discuss common security issues with the Soviet Union, the Baltic states and the countries of eastern Europe. At Britain's suggestion, the first such meeting will be held at Foreign Minister level in Brussels in mid-December.
We have agreed a wider role for NATO. Henceforth, NATO will not just be keeping the peace; it will be actively promoting peace. It will be prepared to help the countries of eastern Europe in planning defence forces in a democracy, with civilian-military relations, and in converting defence production to civilian purposes. The relationship may well develop still further.
The NATO summit also, for the first time, considered in depth the European defence identity and the alliance. We affirmed some important principles: first, the principle that NATO is the essential forum for consultation and agreement on policies bearing on the security and defence of alliance territory; secondly, endorsement of the British proposals to use the Western European Union as the means of strengthening the European pillar of the alliance; thirdly, the need to establish clear and open relations between NATO and the Western European Union and to involve other allies on issues discussed in the Western European Union which affect their security.
Heads of Government received a report on Yugoslavia following a meeting of Community Foreign Ministers with Lord Carrington. In view of the grave situation in Yugoslavia and the repeated breaches of the ceasefire, Community Governments agreed in Rome on a series of restrictive measures. They include suspension of the trade and co-operation agreement; suspension of benefits under the general scheme of preferences; suspension of the PHARE—Poland and Hungary Assistance for Economic Restructuring—programme; and the restoration of quotas on textiles. Community Governments asked those member states that are members of the Security Council to promote measures in the Security Council to tighten the arms embargo, and to take steps towards imposing an oil
902
embargo. We are now consulting other members of the UN Security Council about the introduction of such measures.
Community Governments also decided that positive action should be taken to benefit the parties which were being co-operative in the peace process. Taken together, these measures will increase the pressure on those responsible for appalling bloodshed and suffering in Yugoslavia. NATO Heads of Government issued a separate statement making clear the allies' strong support for the efforts of the European Community to promote peace in Yugoslavia.
We also discussed developments in the Soviet Union. We publicly supported economic reform and democratisation. We stressed the need for the authorities in the republics, as well as at the centre, to respect their obligations—on human rights, on arms control and on economic policy. In particular, we urged them to do everything necessary to implement the CFE—conventional forces in Europe—and strategic arms reduction treaties, and to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
We are living through a dramatic revolution in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We have to use all the means at our disposal—the European Community, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and NATO—to help them to build stable democracy in their countries. NATO remains the core of our defence. Were we again to face a military threat, NATO would be there to meet it; but NATO is now reaching out to the countries of eastern Europe to help to provide stability and a sense of security. All of us at last week's meeting agreed that the continuing American and Canadian presence in Europe is vital to both defending and promoting peace in Europe. Britain will have a central part in that task, both in the alliance and in the European Community.
The decisions of the NATO summit provide important guidelines for the negotiations leading to the European Council in Maastricht. I hope that the House will welcome the outcome of the summit as a significant contribution to a sound defence and to democratic stability in Europe.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.
First, let me welcome the broader definition of security that was reached at the Rome summit, and the shift to a strategic concept of co-operative security through which European states can address their common security concerns—as the Prime Minister has pointed out—in partnership.
Especially welcome is the recognition that, in the words of the strategic concept, the threats of the past "have effectively been removed", and the focus for allied strategy should be on the "multi-faceted … risks" of the future. In that context, we welcome the leading role allocated to the United Kingdom in the rapid reaction force.
The proposal for cuts in both conventional and nuclear weapons confirmed by the declaration and the calls for further negotiations made in it are, naturally, commendable. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he will be supporting the non-proliferation measures referred to in the declaration by actively pursuing negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty? Will he also tell us what steps his Government are prepared to take to promote what the Rome declaration calls
"welcome prospects for further advances in arms control in conventional and nuclear forces"?

903
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how Britain would participate in negotiations to achieve such advances? Will he, in any event, take account of Norwegian concerns, and urge our other partners in NATO to respond to Soviet requests for talks about reducing maritime forces?
Let me turn to the declaration itself. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that its terms guarantee the primacy of NATO in matters of security? Does he agree that the parallel development of any European security identity and defence role must not detract from the central importance of NATO and the transatlantic relationship with the United States and Canada?
In view of the welcome establishment of a North Atlantic Co-operation Council with eastern European countries, could the Prime Minister tell us how he sees that new council's relationship with the conference on security and co-operation in Europe? Does he foresee any possibility of further developments that might in the future include the granting of associate membership of NATO to some eastern European countries?
We welcome the NATO statements on developments in the Soviet Union and the need to use all means possible to strengthen pluralism and democracy. In the interests of achieving clear and dependable progress with disarmament, does not the Prime Minister agree that the variety of political and economic contacts which Britain and other NATO countries have with the Soviet republics should be used to emphasise the need for their Governments to adhere fully and readily to all relevant treaties agreed by the Soviet Union?
While welcoming the NATO statement on Yugoslavia and the Prime Minister's further information today, may I ask what efforts the British Government are making to provide the humanitarian relief that is referred to in the Rome communiqué, which is daily becoming more necessary as the tragedy in Yugoslavia continues?
In the strategic concept, established at the Rome summit, it is clear that the NATO countries are adopting policies that seek to take full advantage of the new opportunities produced by the historic change in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. People and countries, east and west, will doubtless benefit from these deliberate efforts to replace the peace of tension with the peace of trust and co-operation.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the strategic concept and of the United Kingdom's role in commanding the land-based rapid reaction corps and for much else that he had to say. There is a measure of agreement on many of the matters that he touched upon.
We are working towards a test ban treaty, but it is some way away. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are many difficulties. To hold talks on reducing maritime forces would be premature. I can confirm his remarks about the primacy of NATO. That is secure. It was quite specifically realised and accepted at the NATO summit that that was the case and that the role of the United States and Canadian forces was central in maintaining the peace of Europe and remaining on the land continent of Europe.
As for the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, there will, over time, develop a relationship with the CSCE—very probably an informal one. I expect, over time also, that there is an aspiration that we should move towards associate membership of NATO for some of the eastern European countries. I would not expect that to happen at
904
an early stage, but the North Atlantic Co-operation Council expressly exists in order to establish a bridge between western and eastern Europe and removes so many of the fears and concerns that have existed for so much of the post-war period.
As for the Soviet Union, I can expressly confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we are expressing both to the Soviet Union, at the centre, and, equally important, to those representatives of the republics whom we now meet so regularly the need to adhere to treaties signed by the Soviet Union, the implementation of which may pass to the republics in the months and years ahead.
Returning to the strategic concept, I reaffirm that the principles upon which the alliance is based are those set out in the strategic concept: that NATO is the essential forum for defence and that that is where we shall discuss policies based on security and defence, on collective defence and, most critically, the appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces.
There are plans for humanitarian relief for Yugoslavia, much of which is likely to come through the European Community. In view of the problems in Yugoslavia, there are huge difficulties with that at the moment. There is much discussion about it. When I am in a position to do so, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with the details.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly the initiative taken with the North Atlantic Co-operation Council. Can he say a little more about the European pillar, the Western European Union? While Members on both sides of the House accept that there is a role for the WEU in a European security identity, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that the core of the NATO alliance will not have its vital strategy affected by possible control by the European Community over the Western European Union?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The intention behind building up the Western European Union is to use it as a vehicle for building up the European contribution to our collective defence. It is not our policy that the Western European Union should be subordinate either to NATO or to the European union. It is expected that there will be organic links, and no doubt that will be a matter to be discussed as we come towards a treaty at Maastricht. There are several things that we are clear about concerning the WEU. It should not duplicate NATO decision-making; it should not duplicate NATO structures; it should not be subordinated either to the union or to NATO; and it should not discriminate between European allies favouring some against others depending on their membership of the Community or not.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I congratulate the Prime Minister on a broadly successful NATO summit. May I welcome in particular the initiatives taken to draw in the emerging democracies of eastern Europe and to widening the strategic concept of NATO?
May I also tell the Prime Minister how welcome are the steps, limited though they are, that Heads of Community Governments have taken on Yugoslavia? In view of the daily increase in the oppression and brutality of Croatia and the bombardment of Dubrovnik, does he realise that

905
many of us sometimes wonder whether we have done all within our power in that tragic situation and whether we have done enough to stop those events?
On the broad thrust of the Prime Minister's statement, does he agree that there is nothing inimical between support for NATO and the establishment of a common security and defence policy for Europe? Will he confirm, as I asked him to do the other day, that the Government's policy on the matter remains that stated in the Anglo-Italian declaration less than six weeks ago—to work for a common security and defence policy in the inter-governmental conferences on political union?
The Prime Minister: We are looking for a common defence policy. The European defence identity is important, and it should be built up, but not as subordinate to the European Council because that would inevitably lead us into the position where we would be establishing competing structures to NATO and, in so doing, would weaken NATO. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman shares my view that the primacy of NATO is essential not merely for the security of our country but for the peace of Europe. I think that our position on that is entirely clear.
I was grateful for the welcome that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) gave to the strategic concept and for his earlier remarks.
As regards Yugoslavia, it is a great and increasing tragedy and does not seem to be susceptible to reason. I very much regret that. The Hague conference made no progress on 5 November. I am delighted to say that Lord Carrington is returning to Belgrade today at the request of European Community Foreign Ministers, who were meeting this morning. I hope that he will be able to make progress, but there does not seem to be much indication on the Yugoslavian side that it will return to the peace conference and negotiate constructively.
Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend deserves the warmest congratulations for the successful and necessary outcome of the conference. Does he agree that the one weakness of NATO is the reluctance of the republic of France to join the integrated command system? Will he make it clear that it would be widely welcomed by the rest of the members of the alliance if France could find her way to rejoining what she left?
The Prime Minister: France is an important member of NATO and a long-standing ally of ours inside NATO and without, but I certainly share my hon. Friend's view: I would welcome its return to the integrated structure.
Sir Patrick Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that the North Atlantic Assembly extended associate delegate status to former members of the Warsaw pact some time ago and that it brought the Baltic states into the same relationship at its Madrid conference last month? I know how welcome in those circles the proposed North Atlantic Co-operation Council will be, and how commendable was the part that the Prime Minister played; he is to be warmly congratulated. However, is he aware that in those same circles and further afield within the alliance any proposals, such as the recent French proposal, that may impinge on the responsibilities
906
of NATO for the security of Europe or that will weaken the transatlantic bridge will be viewed with deepening anxiety?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's third point. He is a specialist in these matters, so his support is especially welcome and I am grateful for it. Events have proved how far-seeing and correct the North Atlantic Assembly was in its actions some time ago. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that the new co-operation body that we have established will meet with a welcome.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend has rightly stressed that we are offering a helping hand not only to eastern Europe but to the Soviet Union. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in the next few months we shall see the total collapse of the distribution network within the Soviet Union. In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend envisage that we might be called upon to provide necessary infrastructure by the use of NATO troops offering the hand of friendship to the Soviet Union?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that will be necessary. It is certainly possible that there will be difficulties with food distribution and the availability of food, and, in particular, with animal foodstuffs in the Soviet Union. We are seeking to arrange with our partners in the European Community a proper distribution system to meet that eventuality. There is now the equivalent of about $10 billion of assistance available to the Soviet Union. Much of that cannot be disbursed until the completion of meetings with the Soviet Union to determine where the need is and how we can most appropriately meet it without duplicating the assistance that is already available.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Prime Minister clarify part of his statement on the NATO summit? The second page states:
"Heads of Government received a report on Yugoslavia following a meeting of Community Foreign Ministers with Lord Carrington."
What is the status of the "report"? The statement is about a NATO meeting. Too often the EEC has been greatly influenced by the policies of Italy and Germany and by support for Croatia, and has not concerned itself with the wider problems of Yugoslavia. What is the role of NATO in all this? Will it play a part? The EEC has been great at talking, but little else.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the activities of the EC. A great deal of effort has been expended to alleviate the situation in Yugoslavia. Thus far it has not been successful. It is the view of the NATO partners, collectively and individually, that the European Community's action has been helpful and should continue, and that it provides the most likely forum to bring the parties together at a peace conference to obtain a satisfactory conclusion and the ending of bloodshed. On the basis of that collective view, the Foreign Ministers who met, whose Governments are members of NATO, reported to Heads of Government and NATO, so that NATO could issue its own statement.
Mr. Churchill: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his sound leadership at the recent NATO summit and on the fact that he managed to secure

907
agreement on new links between eastern Europe and NATO, and recognition of the primacy of the role of NATO in European defence? Will he confirm that, so long as there is a Conservative Government in this country, American troops will always be welcome on British soil, in contrast to the approach of the Labour party which, for many years, has campaigned to have American bases removed from the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I confirm that American troops will be welcome in this country. I believe that that is the view of our partners in Europe. It was clearly expressed in that fashion during our discussions of the past few clays. I speak with particular interest in this matter, as there is a large American air base in my constituency. American troops are welcome here and I hope that they will continue to stay.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Should we not welcome the prospect of a European defence and foreign policy as a way of escaping from our humiliating status in relation to the United States? Would not it have the advantage that we would never again have the degrading spectacle of Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box and defending the bombing of Vietnam, terrorism in Nicaragua, the invasion of Grenada and many other disreputable episodes in post-war history, to which we have been shackled by our long relationship with the United States?
The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I welcome communal European policies on defence providing they are agreed intergovernmentally and agreed by unanimity. When that happens, it strengthens the foreign policy of the individual countries and of the European Community collectively. That is the way in which we have been operating in the past few years.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of our relationship with the United States or with the individual examples he gave. One of the reasons why he has the freedom to stand here and express such views is that the success of the alliance depends largely on the Americans, who have remained here since the 1940s to help to protect Europe.
Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome my right hon. Friend's excellent statement. Does he agree that one of the tragic features of the previous occasion when Europe was in a state of reformation, just after the first world war, was the American decision to withdraw? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has never been a member of an organisation that has poured scorn on the United States, picketed their bases, and spat on American service men?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that. The United States will stay in Europe, although it is now recognised that it will reduce the number of its troops here as a result of the changed circumstances on the German border. Clearly there is now a much smaller need for a large military land-based presence than there was when the Soviet Union had troops in eastern Germany. There will be changes, but the commitment to the defence of Europe will remain.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Prime Minister and his NATO allies have discussed developments in the
908
Soviet Union and argued that there should be no further proliferation of nuclear weapons. Can the right hon. Gentleman therefore explain to the House what arguments he uses to the Soviet Union to explain the decision of the Government, and indeed of the official Opposition, to have four Trident submarines as part of their defence strategy? Is he aware that hardly a single tear was shed in Scotland this weekend when the Poseidon submarines left the Clyde, yet we are now expected to accept Trident while at the same time our conventional forces, including the regiments, are being cut. How does he square the circle?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady may not be fully aware of what has been happening. NATO has agreed that an 80 per cent. reduction in nuclear weapons is in prospect. That will involve the elimination of all nuclear artillery and short-range Lance missiles. That reduction has come about because NATO was so staunch in recent years in keeping its nuclear weapons, which forced upon the Soviet Union the need for negotiated reductions on both sides of Europe. That is the reason for the reduction in the nuclear threshold. That reduction is welcome and has been achieved through the policies of the Conservative party, not those advocated by the hon. Lady.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Faced with the apparent collapse of central control in the Soviet Union and the new assertiveness of the republics such as the Ukraine, which wants to control its own nuclear weapons, is my right hon. Friend happy with the way in which NATO proposes to handle future arms negotiations with those fragmented republics? Should the republics take their own line on nuclear weapons, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are enough safeguards in place?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches upon an important point. In future it will clearly be much more difficult to carry out negotiations on nuclear reductions until the circumstances in the Soviet Union are clarified and until we are clear precisely who has control over nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union and who can negotiate for them. It is precisely for that reason that we made it so clear in our statement that we expect the republics to honour the START agreement and the CFE agreement and to look towards non-proliferation. There is a great deal of discussion to be had upon this matter, and the North Atlantic Co-operation Council will be one forum in which that can begin.
Mr. John McFall: Given that the Rome summit renounced any extension of the geographical limits of its competence in 1949, and mindful that the real threat today is the political and economic stability of the former Russian empire—witness the decision of newly independent states over the renunciation of their commitment to hand back nuclear weapons—does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a matter for regret? Does he agree that the political talks already agreed with eastern European Foreign Ministers should be continued through military talks as well?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure what conclusion one would draw from the hon. Gentleman's first assertions. It is certainly true that the threat from the Soviet Union has changed and perhaps is changing. That is no reason for us to lift our vigilance in any sense, and there is no mood among NATO members to do so. But there is a mood in NATO to enter into much closer dialogue with the east

909
European nations, including the Soviet Union, to help to continue to diminish both the threshold of armaments and the balance of risks that has existed in the past. That is of critical importance, but it must be done steadily, carefully and without putting our own security at risk.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend seen any indication from the French Government that they might rejoin the military command structure of NATO? Will that form part of his negotiating stance on a European defence policy, having France back into NATO fully, with possibly even Eire joining the alliance?
The Prime Minister: I have had no indication that the French Government are likely to move back into the integrated military structure. As I said, we would welcome that in NATO. While I do not think it is imminent or something that we are likely to see for quite a few years, there is no doubt a willingness among NATO to accept it. As for discussions within the European Community, I do not think that that would be a practical negotiating point, even though it would be welcome.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I understand the Prime Minister seeming to throw up his hands in despair over Yugoslavia, but may I ask whether he is aware of the appeal by the mayor of Dubrovnik for assistance in relieving the trapped people of that tragic city? Is he also aware of statements apparently made by the Presidents of Croatia and Serbia for the first time recognising the need for a peace-keeping force? Does he agree that it is imperative for there to be an early meeting of WEU with the authorities in Croatia and Serbia to test the credence of the statements of those Presidents?
The Prime Minister: To keep the peace one must first have a peace, and that was the purpose of trying to ensure, through the conference, that a peace was established. I do not believe that in the absence of that secure peace, and in the absence of both sides being prepared to keep the peace and be anxious to see a peace-keeping force there, it would be a prudent or wise proposition to send troops there.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), at a time when the eyes of the world are focused with horror on the destruction of the ancient and historic city of Dubrovnik, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is some disappointment that there appears to be no discussion about the possibility of short-term or emergency measures to alleaviate or in any way relieve that catastrophe? In particular, there should be discussion of the fact that some criticism should be levelled at those European countries which are clandestinely supplying arms to the contestants in Yugoslavia. Is it possible to put a stop to that practice?
The Prime Minister: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes, but it is extremely difficult to see what in practice could be done while the fighting continues. There is absolutely no doubt that there is a will to assist, when it is possible and practicable to assist. At the moment I cannot immediately see how we could do that. I assure my hon. Friend that the point is of great importance and that we shall keep it under review.
Dr. Kim Howells: The Prime Minister reported the difficulties that surfaced at the meeting when it came to the idea of involving western European forces in Yugoslavia. How did the discussions view the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan and the Ukraine, both Governments of which have said that they would like control of their nuclear weapons? If we cannot interfere with the nationalisms of western Europe, how can we interfere with the nationalisms of far-flung areas of the world?
The Prime Minister: To be technically correct, it is not proliferation in those republics because the nuclear weapons are already there. We seek to ensure that those nuclear weapons are under a single central control so that we are in a better position to assure our own security. There is complete understanding of that in the republics. We have made it clear in the Rome summit and elsewhere that we shall take those securities into account when we discuss the economic and other assistance that we may be able to provide to the republics and to the Soviet Union centrally.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not an essential strategic objective of the NATO powers to assist the forces of democracy and liberalisation in the Soviet Union against the dangers of a counter-coup? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the NATO powers will do all that they can to assist the Soviet Union in its immense difficulties?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a central point, and I am happy to give a categorical assurance. Much of the assistance may be economical and through forums other than NATO, but his point is none the less entirely valid.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I welcome the decision to strengthen the Western European Union. However, will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me if I sound rather sceptical about that proposal because when the WEU presidential committee sought expert advice on armed intervention in Yugoslavia the prospect of getting it from the British and French defence Ministries and from the Institute for Defence Studies was vetoed by Herr Genscher, the current president of the ministerial Council? The WEU feels that it is being side-tracked on all those important issues. It needs the confidence of knowing that it has an important role to play.
The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's views, as crystallised in his last couple of sentences. It is important that the Western European Union should be confident that it has an important role, and that that important role is clearly defined. We began to define it at the Rome summit and it will be crystallised further once we have completed the discussions at Maastricht. However, that the WEU has an increasing role in the defence of Europe as the European pillar of the alliance is undoubted.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. I shall allow questions to continue until 4·15 and then we must move on. I hope that hon. Members will ask brief questions so that most hon. Members will have an opportunity to participate in the debate.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about a rapid reaction force? Is not there a real danger in multi-country political control resulting in nothing happening if there is a real crisis? Does he agree that it is different from the previous situaton in NATO, when there was clearly only one real enemy and everyone knew where the threat came from—[Interruption.] In future, however, that may not be the case and a rapid reaction force with multi-country political control may never happen. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
The Prime Minister: I regret to say that I could not hear every aspect of my hon. Friend's question. A rapid reaction corps is a new system. It is a new way to respond more flexibly and speedily to the changed circumstances in Europe and the need for a different form of defence in Europe. It is under a different command. We command the land forces in the rapid reaction corps. The NATO assessment is that that is the right way to proceed and will maximise defence at minimum cost to the alliance.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Given that NATO was a creation of the cold war in 1948, does not the Prime Minister understand that many of us are disappointed that the NATO summit did not use the opportunity to wind up the organisation altogether and rid itself of nuclear weapons rather than prolong a military alliance that could have been transformed into a peaceful alliance of European countries?
The Prime Minister: NATO has played a great role in ensuring the freedom of the whole of eastern Europe, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should welcome that. If his suggestion is that NATO should be wound up because there is now no military threat, I say to him that the huge stock of nuclear weapons that still exists on Soviet Union soil is of such a scale that I believe his opinion will be shared by very few people.
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon.Friend accept my sincere congratulations on Britain's role in what was obviously an historic, far-reaching and forward-looking meeting, especially its role in ensuring the promotion of peace throughout Europe and the maintenance of the essential link with the United States of America? Will he confirm that, when he mentions the word "peace", he means not peace alone, but peace with freedom, which has always been demanded by the people of the United Kingdom and the United States? If he agrees, will he include that small but vital word in future NATO communiqués?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's definition, but I believe that it is implicit in the way that the term is used in the declarations made from the Rome summit. I am grateful to him for his earlier remarks and reaffirm my view that the United States linked with NATO and United States troops in this country are both essential for our freedom.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When the Prime Minister discussed with other NATO leaders his determination to go ahead with the tactical air-to-surface missile weapon system, did not some of the other leaders suggest to him that it was a little odd for Britain to be going ahead with a new weapon system when the main threat of the talks involved non-proliferation and
912
disarmament? Did he discuss with the west Germans whether they would be happy for us to base such a system on their soil?
The Prime Minister: It was not a matter of discussion at the NATO summit, but we need an appropriate mix of nuclear weapons, both now and in the future. If the day comes when we do not, no one will be more pleased than me, but at present we need a proper mix of nuclear weapons, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I express my appreciation for my right hon. Friend's constructive work in ensuring that there is no incompatibility between strengthening Europe's contribution to its own defence and retaining the primacy of NATO for the defence of alliance territory? Are other countries of the Western European Union assigning permanent representatives to NATO to the WEU ministerial Council as we are? Have plans been advanced to encourage the WEU to take a more active role in out-of-area operations and contingencies?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the latter question is yes, and we have suggested to our partners that they should assign their permanent representatives to the new organisation. They have not all concluded precisely how they will react, but I have great hopes that they will do so.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: A few moments ago the Prime Minister was reminded of the fact that the last United States' navy nuclear submarine sailed out of the Firth of Clyde at the weekend. Could not that significant event be seen as an advance signal of the eventual American withdrawal of its membership of NATO? Is there not a growing body of opinion in America that believes that Europe should be defended exclusively by the forces of European nations?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The Americans will have much longer range submarines in future, but there is no doubt that it is, and has been for many years, the policy of the American Administration that the Americans should continue to play a key part in the defence of Europe. That view was expressly reaffirmed by the President at the Rome summit.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the significant personal role he played in securing for NATO its position as the linchpin of western security and on ensuring that there is a continued welcome for the United States and Canada to help in the defence of the north Atlantic? Is that not evidence that as long as my right hon. Friend retains his present position the defences of our country will be secure?
The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I regard it as a matter of prime importance that defence should remain central to our policies and that no risks should be taken with British defence. No risks have been or will be taken.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Prime Minister referred to a possible economic blockade of Yugoslavia. Is

913
not that interference in another nation state; and how would he respond if other countries in Europe or elsewhere told him how to organise Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: If we were not seeking to stop the bloodshed in Yugoslavia, the hon. Gentleman would be the first Member of this House to criticise us.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in uncertain times, and with the possibility of loose nukes in eastern Europe, in the Soviet republics and elsewhere, it is essential that under his leadership the Government not only retain that last guarantee of our national independence and security—the British nuclear deterrent—but that we improve and modernise it?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. Some reductions in nuclear weapons are in prospect, as I said earlier, but I can affirm that we propose to update Polaris and that we propose to build and keep Trident. That is the absolute guarantor of our defence, and that will remain our policy in future.
Mr. Tony Banks: Was not the plea that reportedly came from Croatia and Serbia today for military involvement in Yugoslavia not so much for a peace-keeping force as for an intervention force to separate the two sides so that a political settlement can be reached? The two sides simply cannot trust each other with ceasefires arranged from The Hague that do not hold on the ground. Is it not time that the Government went to the Security Council seeking sanction for a military intervention force so that a political settlement can be
914
found? If they do not, we shall have to witness these people slaughtering each other, and that is disgraceful in a European country.
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that would be the right way to proceed—for the practical reason that I do not believe that it would be successful. It would perhaps increase and extend the fighting to Bosnia, Macedonia and elsewhere, which would not be in the interests of Yugoslavia as a whole, if it still exists. The only way forward for the time being is to try to proceed as we are and to hope that Lord Carrington's latest mission to Belgrade is successful.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the almost unanimous support given in the House this afternoon for the continuing role of NATO as the linchpin of Western security, would my right hon. Friend be surprised to be reminded that only a year or so ago the Norwich city council banned a NATO exhibition? Would he be further surprised to learn that the council is controlled by the Labour party? Does he not therefore think that its support for NATO is skin deep and that it is vital that he remain in charge of these matters up to the next election and beyond?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am surprised that such a sensible area as Norwich should have a Labour council, but I am not surprised by its action.

NATO Summit

  NEW MEMBERS
  The following Members took the Oath or made and subscribed the affirmation required by law:

  Ashok Kumar Esq., for Langbaurgh

  Derek Anthony Enright Esq., for Hemsworth

  Nicol Ross Stephen Esq., for Kincardine and Deeside

Points of Order
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have not raised this matter before. I have no wish to question your ruling. I am a member of the Select Committee on Health and, as you know, the House has referred to the Select Committee on Privileges the important issue of the leaked report. In view of doubts that have been raised in the House and elsewhere, may I ask for clarification on whether the Privileges Committee is free to consider the role of the Secretary of State for Health and senior officials in his Department and, most important, the role of the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor)? Can you make it clear that these matters will be dealt with urgently and, in view of the credibility of all Select Committees, will you ensure that a firm conclusion is reached?
Mr. Speaker: I confirm that the Committee is free to look into all those matters.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not it extraordinary that Opposition Members are sanctimoniously concerned about leaks when their Front-Bench spokesmen live off leaks from Departments?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about a matter on today's Order Paper that is causing some confusion. Early-day motion 117 commends the Bolshevik communist revolution. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] Some Opposition Members say "Hear, hear". As you
916
know, Mr. Speaker, the new model Labour party has been assiduously trying to distance itself from its Bolshevik friends. However, a Labour Whip has signed this motion. Can you clarify Labour party policy by saying whether Labour is in favour of Bolshevism or against it?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House know that early-day motions are expressions of opinion. The motion was in order when it was put down and it is open to any hon. Member to support it—or amend it—if he or she wishes.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to the previous point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Thursday, a correct point of order was raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker about what one should do with matters arising from the first report of the Select Committee on Health. It was ruled clearly that as this was being automatically sent to the Select Committee on Privileges, it could not be discussed on the Floor of the House. However, just before the point of order was raised, a group of Labour Members came in and raised, on spurious points of order, allegations against the Secretary of State for Health arising from matters that did not appear in the report. They implied that these allegations were in the report. How can we refer this matter? Is it for you, or is it a matter for the Select Committee on Privileges? There was a conspiracy among Labour Members to put on the record points that do not arise from the report.
Mr. Speaker: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that this happened on Thursday when I was in the Chair? This is Tuesday and it would have been appropriate for him to have raised this matter then. We can go no further on this point today.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance Bill
  [SECOND DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time—[11 November.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper, but they may be referred to during the debate.
  4.25 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): At the height of the first day's debate on the Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill, there were six Labour Back-Bench Members present. There are now about 24, but that count is falling fast. I am sure that the House will start to fill rapidly as I address it at the start of the second day of debate on the Bill. After all, the Scottish clauses comprise a substantial proportion of its contents. The House will be aware that, for the most part, these are closely equivalent to the clauses which relate to the introduction and operation of the council tax in England and Wales which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment described yesterday. It is important that we have this opportunity to concentrate on the Bill as it affects Scotland.
  We have already done some of the groundwork for the new tax. It was necessary, if we were to meet the target of I April 1993 for introduction of the tax, to ensure that the first step towards the levying of the tax—the valuation of properties—was begun as soon as possible. Therefore, we enacted, before the summer recess, the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991. That enabled a considerable amount of groundwork for the valuation exercise to be undertaken over the summer. In Scotland, the assessors, in discussions with the Inland Revenue valuation office in Scotland, have been preparing for the actual task of valuation, which will get under way shortly. Therefore, we are very much on course for the introduction of the new tax in 1993.
  Clauses 84 to 92 carry over and develop the arrangements for valuation set out in the 1991 Act and provide for changes to be made in lists to take account, for example, of new properties and appeals against taxation. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described our valuation arrangements for Scotland as a recipe for disaster. I am sure that he did not intend to insult thereby the professionals involved—the assessors—who will be responsible for the valuation and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who are responsible for ensuring consistency in the way in which the valuation is undertaken throughout the country. I am glad to reassure him that all is on course and going smoothly.
  Our decision to give the assessors that responsibility reflects the views put to us during the consultation which persuaded us that they were best placed to undertake the work and to do the job well within the timetable allowed. Our decision to give the Commissioners of Inland Revenue responsibility for overseeing the work reflected our understanding of the demand in Scotland for consistency in the way in which taxes operate throughout Great
  918
  Britain. The arrangements are working well and I have every confidence that the job will be completed satisfactorily on time.
  Clauses 70 to 73 provide for the introduction of the council tax set separately by the regional, islands and district councils in respect of dwellings in their areas. Clause 74 provides for the valuation bands into which dwellings are to be placed and which have already been described in the Domestic Property (Valuation) (Scotland) Regulations 1991. It also provides for the range of tax payable for the bands.
  I think that it would be helpful now if I described in some detail what the effect of the banding arrangements will be, as there has been considerable misunderstanding of the provisions. The hon. Member for Garscadden said last week that he finds it incomprehensible that many properties may stay in the same band in perpetuity. But why should they not? A dwelling in Scotland that is placed in band D will have been assigned that band because its value at 1 April 1991 is over £45,000 but does not exceed £58,000. That value is around the Scottish average. Of course, the Bill includes provisions to allow the assigned band to be changed if the value of the property changes sufficiently to take it into another band. If the band is higher, however, the change can be made only on change of ownership of the dwelling. If there is no such change, the banding decision will remain unchanged.
  The banding system irons out much of the effect of relative changes in property values within an area which, under the rating system, brought regular pressure for revaluation. The need for general revaluations is therefore much reduced. If, however, such a revaluation were required, say, 20 years hence, the same house in band D would probably remain a band D house, provided that its relative position within the range of property values had not changed so much as to take it outwith the new parameters for that band.
  Clause 74 places an upper limit on the amount of tax that any person can be liable to pay. This aspect of the arrangements—inevitably, I suppose—has produced the standard response that the rich are being protected. That neatly ignores the imperfect correlation between people's circumstances and the value of their home. It demonstrates only the Labour party's vindictive desire to extract the maximum revenue from high-value properties regardless of the circumstances of their occupants, or any relationship between the tax burden and the services that are provided.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend explain to a simple fellow like me why it is considered sensible to return to a system of socialist taxation based on the capital value of an asset that produces no income and that is unrelated to the services for which the occupant is paying and to the income of the occupant, this asset being normally called a home?
  Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend gives an admirable description of the so-called fair rates proposals of the Labour party, to which we do not intend to return.
  Clause 75 defines liability to pay as an individual liability that is dependent on the relationship that persons have with dwellings. This liability would fall in the first instance on the resident owner, then the resident tenant and so on.

  919
  Clause 79 provides for discount where there is only one or no resident in the property. These arrangements will be fair and simple to administer.
  During our debate on the Gracious Speech last Wednesday, we heard a different story from Opposition Members and especially from the hon. Member for Garscadden. The hon. Gentleman is determined, as ever, to see administrative nightmares where none exists. His contacts in local government have told him, presumably before even seeing the Bill, that discounts will be difficult to administer, and uncritically he believes them.
  When it comes to the hon. Gentleman's examples of why the system will be difficult to administer, what do we find? There is a complete misunderstanding on his part of how the discount proposals will work in practice. As the mouthpiece of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, he asks whether authorities are supposed to send out bills for 100 per cent. of the liability to everyone and leave discounts to be claimed by householders. The answer is to be found in paragraph 4 to schedule 2. Local authorities are required to take reasonable steps to ascertain entitlement to discount, but in the absence of firm information they can send out an undiscounted bill. In other words, as a matter of sensible administrative practice, authorities should make efforts to ascertain discount households before sending out bills. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] By referring to existing information.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Can the Secretary of State tell me how local authorities will do what he describes?
  Mr. Lang: They can make reasonable efforts by examining existing information or by carrying out a canvass. There are local authority housing tenancy lists. Authorities will be able to examine electoral rolls. They could even study community charge registers. They are most definitely not required to know the composition of every household in their areas before billing. There is no question, therefore, of a register being required.
  We come now to what might be called COSLA's auntie problem. The hon. Member for Garscadden quoted COSLA as being concerned about what would happen if someone's aunt came to stay for a couple of months. Again, the answer is in the Bill—in clause 79 for Scotland. Discounts are calculated according to who is resident in a dwelling, and "resident" means having one's sole or main residence there—a concept not unfamiliar to Labour Members.
  In the case described in our earlier debate by the hon. Gentleman, the local authority would make its decision to withdraw or not to withdraw discount on the basis of whether it thought that the dwelling in question was the auntie's sole or main residence. In fact, if she were there for two months, it would be unlikely that it would regard her as a resident. However, there will be a right of appeal against any decision.
  Clauses 81 and 83 make provision for the appeal arrangements that will apply in Scotland. As the House will be aware, appeals under the community charge are, for the most part, made initially to the community charge registration officer and thereafter to the sheriff under summary procedure. That system has, by and large, worked well. However, we are aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the system as compared with the arrangements in England and Wales, where appeals are
  920
  made to valuation and community charge tribunals. We have taken note of those concerns in formulating the arrangements for the council tax. Appeal on questions of valuation liability and levying of the tax will therefore lie with valuation appeal committees, with further appeal on points of law to the Court of Session.
  Clause 94 and schedule 7 make provision for capping. They re-enact the arrangements already provided in the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991, which is to be repealed and replaced by the Bill and do not, therefore, make any changes to the present arrangements. The House will be aware that I announced last month the principles that I am minded to adopt next year in considering whether planned expenditure is excessive or has increased excessively.
  At this point, it might be appropriate to spend a few moments on a specifically Scottish aspect of the Bill.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Before my right hon. Friend passes on to a specifically Scottish aspect, I wish to raise a general point. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Minister are on the Front Bench. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) aptly summed up the Labour party's position.
  My right hon. Friend will be aware that most Conservative Members accept that, while some taxes may fall on income and others on spending, there is scope for a modest tax to fall on what we might describe as the amenity of property. One lesson that we learnt from the transition from domestic rates to the community charge was the injustice of the former rates system to the single-person household. My right hon. Friend is probably aware that there is considerable pressure from single-person households for an increase in the 25 per cent. discount. Will he and our right hon. and hon. Friends, over the next few weeks, consider whether there is scope for increasing that discount to something more related to the ability to pay of the single person?
  Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend made a point that obviously concerns him, and he did so lucidly. I and my right hon. Friend are grateful for his support for the underlying principle of the Bill. I am sure that he will wish to develop that issue in Committee, if he is fortunate enough to be a member.
  We gave close consideration to the appropriate discount level and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there is a certain symmetry and element of justice readily apparent in the concept of a 25 per cent. discount for a one-person residence and a 50 per cent. discount for a house that has no resident occupant.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: What will the Scottish electorate think when they discover what the millionaire Secretary of State for the Environment, who is sitting on the right hon. Gentleman's left, has to pay? Will they think that he is getting a massive discount, as he will have to pay only a small amount? No doubt the Scottish electorate will think that he drafted the Bill to suit himself.
  Mr. Lang: If my right hon. Friend were fortunate enough to be resident in Scotland, he would find that about 89 per cent. of the cost of local government services was funded by central taxation. If my right hon. Friend is fortunate enough to be in the circumstances described by

  921
  the hon. Gentleman, he is making a far larger contribution as an individual to income tax and other central Government taxation than would otherwise be the case.
  As to the Scottish electorate, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that they were at the forefront in seeking the abolition of domestic rates and they will be at the forefront in resisting their reintroduction by the Opposition.
  I want now to discuss an important aspect of the Bill which affects Scotland—the council water charge set out in schedule 11.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: Can the Secretary of State tell us something about the effect of the council tax on the agricultural community? I have already had queries about what will happen. Many farmers and tenant farmers live in big old rambling houses. Crofters lost their 50 per cent. derating with the introduction of the poll tax and, given the present state of agriculture, there is considerable concern about what will happen under the council tax.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady will know that the market value of such houses will reflect the present state of agriculture and the demand for such houses. Therefore, they are likely to be put in a lower band and so attract a relatively lower tax than under the community charge. If they are tied houses of the sort that the hon. Lady described, that would be reflected in the market value. Therefore, no particular difficulty arises.
  Let me press on to the important subject of the council water charge which is set out in schedule 11. Hon. Members will be aware that at the same time as we consulted about our council tax proposals, we issued a consultation paper in Scotland about water and sewerage charges. Among other things, that paper proposed that sewerage charges should be separated out from the new council tax in the same way as water charges are at present separately levied.
  However, it became apparent during the consultation that separate charges would have borne most heavily on those about whom the hon. Lady is concerned—people in rural areas. It would also have meant higher administrative costs which would have had to have been borne by charge payers. Therefore, we have decided that it would not be appropriate to introduce separate charges for sewerage and the provisions in the Bill for water and sewerage charges in Scotland will essentially maintain the existing system whereby regional and island councils set the appropriate levels.
  Mr. Donald Dewarindicated assent.
  Mr. Lang: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Many will welcome that sensible proposal, but can the right hon. Gentleman underline it with a categorical assurance that the Government have no intention of privatising water in Scotland either this side of an election or afterwards?
  Mr. Lang: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, to use the time-honoured phrase, we have no present plans to undertake such an exercise.
  Water will continue to be charged via either the council tax, linked to property value bands, or the non-domestic
  922
  water rate, linked to the rateable value of premises, or by direct metered charges. Sewerage will continue to be charged via the council tax or the non-domestic sewerage rate. All the discounts that will apply to the council tax itself will also apply to the water and sewerage charges.
  No fundamental changes are, therefore, proposed in the Bill, but we have taken the opportunity to make two improvements in the way in which the charges are levied. One is that the Bill will extend to all consumers in Scotland the option of being able to pay for water by metered charges if they wish, having the amount that they use recorded and being charged direct. That is a useful extension of consumer choice. It offers an option to Scottish consumers which is available in England and Wales and which I am sure will be welcomed.
  Some small businesses may also benefit from that option since the Bill abolished the minimum threshold of rateable value which a business previously had to meet to be eligible for a metered supply. We have also taken the opportunity in the Bill to provide for water to be supplied free of charge for fire training purposes and for other emergency purposes as well as fire fighting.
  Mr. Dewar: There will be a widespread welcome for the Secretary of State's announcement about sewerage, if only because up to now, if I remember rightly, the water charge has not been included in the rebate scheme. Are there any plans to bring it within the rebate scheme?
  Mr. Lang: I have no announcement to make about that at present, but, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard, I made it clear that the discounts would apply to water and sewerage.
  The claim has been repeatedly made by Opposition Members, and most recently by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), who is not in his place today, that we are starving local government of resources. That is simply not true and I shall outline the facts. Starting with financial support, Government grants to Scottish authorities—rate support grant or revenue support grant and specific grants—have increased in real terms from £2,562 million in 1979–80 to £2,809 million in 1991–92. Therefore, far from Government support having been reduced during the period that the Government have been in office, there has been an increase in real terms of 9·6 per cent.
  Then there is the alleged deterioration in local authority services; again, the facts are different. In education, since 1979 the percentage of pupils staying on until the fifth year has increased from 35 per cent. to 54 per cent. and the percentage staying on until the sixth year from 14 per cent. to 25 per cent. The percentage entering higher education has increased from 16·8 per cent. in 1978–79 to 24 per cent. and is still rising fast. Expenditure per pupil has increased in real terms by 49 per cent.—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: The Secretary of State is yawning at his own speech it is so boring.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be in the medical profession, so he will know that that was not a yawn; I was choking.
  The number of field social workers has also increased from 2,985 to 4,700, an increase of 47 per cent. There has been a 26 per cent. increase in all social work staff and a 13 per cent. increase in home care staff. The number of

  923
  places in local authority day care centres is up by 152 per cent. for the elderly, 59 per cent. for the mentally handicapped and 49 per cent. for the physically handicapped.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State has just referred to the number of social workers. What decision has he reached about funding social workers involved in the Orkney inquiry?
  Mr. Lang: It would not be appropriate to answer such a question in a debate on the Local Government Finance Bill. Any answer will be given in the appropriate way at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. He has been most generous in giving way. All the increases that he has just quoted—in the number of pupils staying on to the fifth and sixth years and in the number of social workers—are down to the fact that all the regional authorities in Scotland are controlled by the Labour party and they see as their spending priorities the need to create educational opportunities for young people and to provide home helps for old people. Now the Secretary of State is telling them that he will cut their budgets next year to stop them increasing the number of educational opportunities and social workers. The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to disguise the fact that under the Government in which he served the quality of service under the headings that I have just listed was vastly inferior to the quality of service provided under this Government.
  Local authority expenditure during the 12 years since we took office has risen by 26 per cent. in real terms. It is an astonishing 30 per cent. higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, a fact for which COSLA has been unable to give any credible explanation.
  To help sustain that substantial expansion of local government expenditure, the Government have shifted the burden so that central Government now bear up to 89 per cent. in Scotland with only 11 per cent. borne at local level. But now we are told that the Labour party plans to increase the local contribution to no less than 20 per cent.
  Mr. Bryan Gould: Before the Secretary of State repeats that totally misleading canard, will he kindly check with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the percentage that he quoted? I think that 22 per cent. was the claim that the right hon. Gentleman made on behalf of his Government in exactly the same week that, in response to a question, I used the figure of 20 per cent. At that point, the Secretary of State and I were operating on a particular definition of local government spending. The fact that the Prime Minister then chose to use a totally different definition of local government spending seems to have eluded the Secretary of State and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends. Will they kindly sort out which statistical base they are using, because otherwise they simply confirm that the Government are, literally, at sixes and sevens?
  Mr. Lang: It is interesting to note that the discussion centres simply on the amount by which Labour intends to increase the burden on local government spending.
  The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the basis in Scotland differs from that in England and Wales: 11 per
  924
  cent. of council expenditure in Scotland comes from local tax-raising, whereas in England and Wales the figures is 14 per cent. If the hon. Member for Garscadden can reassure me categorically that the next Labour Government will not increase the local contribution to 20 per cent., I shall be interested to learn to what level they will increase it.
  If, before Labour even increased the actual spending level, a £300 local tax bill were increased by that proportion in Scotland, the charge would rise to nearly £600. Labour may claim that it proposes to reduce direct taxation through income tax or VAT—although, given Labour's record in that regard, we should be very sceptical about any such claim. The doubled figure that Labour would bring about, however, would appear before capping was lifted and before Labour transferred to local authorities a raft of new responsibilities.
  Labour's policy document "Power to Act" contains a nightmare list of proposals for the extension of local authority power to training and economic development and intervention in local enterprise companies, health boards, community housing associations, transport, consumer protection, the environment, equal opportunities, crime prevention and community safety. The cost of such an explosion of power—with local councillors intervening in every sphere of activity—is not, of course, given; but to lay that burden across the weak framework of a revived domestic rating system would be to court disaster.
  I seek elucidation on, in particular, Labour's proposals for capping. The purpose of capping is to protect local residents from extravagant local authorities: to protect, for example, the residents of Edinburgh, who were faced with a disgraceful and irresponsible proposal to levy a £584 poll tax until the Government stepped in. Capping, however, is also a measure of public expenditure control. Local authority expenditure accounts for a massive proportion of total public expenditure in Scotland. Next year's Scottish Office budget totals some £12·5 billion and local authority spending not only accounts for over half total public expenditure—54 per cent. this year—but has risen from 45·5 per cent. of the total since we came to office. Local government expenditure consumes millions of pounds that could be devoted to other cherished projects relating to health, roads or the environment.
  Every year, a subsidy must be transferred from the Scottish block grant to meet current local authority spending levels and to try to protect local taxpayers. Labour has committed itself unequivocally to abolishing capping. I invite the hon. Member for Garscadden to confirm today that that is still his party's intention. What estimate has the hon. Gentleman made of the impact of that decision on public expenditure by a future Labour Government? Will it increase public expenditure in Scotland alone by £1 billion, £1·5 billion or more? Will the proportion of Scottish Office expenditure accounted for by local authorities rise from 54 per cent. to 64 per cent., or 74 per cent.? Perhaps it would not; we know that Labour is also committed to vast public expenditure increases, totalling some £35 billion, across the whole range of Government policy.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) must, however, preserve at least a figleaf of fiscal responsibility. What clearance did the hon. Member for Garscadden obtain from his right hon. and learned Friend to unleash such a surge of expenditure right

  925
  across the board? To what level will local authority expenditure be allowed to rise before Labour reneges on its commitment to abolish capping?
  Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), I have been perusing the Bill in an attempt to find the part that covers what the Secretary of State is now discussing. There is no such clause. Will you please ask the right hon. Gentleman to return to the content of the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have heard nothing from the Secretary of State which is out of order.
  Mr. Lang: Capping is central to our proposals; it is central to the protection of residents from the extravagance of local authorities; and it is one of the central issues of disagreement between the Government and the Labour party. I want answers to my questions and I expect to hear them later from the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Lang: Labour Members do not like what I am saying, because it goes right to the heart of the matter.
  What other programmes will be cut to fund the insatiable extravagance of local authorities, while enabling them to meet public expenditure targets? Will Labour cut health expenditure, as a Labour Government did between 1974 and 1979? Will it cut expenditure on roads, as it did in that period? Or will it make cuts across the board, as it did then? Who will pay? Will it be the local resident, the national taxpayer or both—with the IMF thrown in as well? Under Labour, when will the party be over?
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: It seems that the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State for Scotland, does not want extra billions to be spent on Scottish services, so that people can return to work and the country can start moving again. If he is worried about the cost, why does not he turn to the oil revenues—which could fund the full amount—rather than slating local government, which is doing a good job on the minimum that he chooses to give it?
  Mr. Lang: Certainly I want Scotland to be on the move economically—as, indeed, it has been under the present Government. The only sense in which the hon. Gentleman wants to move Scotland is that he wants to move it outside the United Kingdom. He wants to erect tax and customs barriers and to shut Scotland off from the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe.
  I have another question to ask the Labour party: what will be the effect of its proposals on business ratepayers? We all know that Scottish business rates are higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I acknowledge that that is partly because Scotland's rating base is slightly smaller and partly because of the dominance of council housing. The central and underlying reason, however, is the huge extravagance of Scottish local authorities over the years. As I mentioned earlier, local government expenditure in Scotland is no less than 30 per cent. higher than it is in both England and Wales.
  Businesses have no vote. Business rates are a direct on-cost. Year after year, under Labour councils, they have
  926
  risen by more than the rate of inflation. They are perceived as arbitrary, unfair and oppressive and economically they are very damaging.
  We have set out to introduce fairness and equity to business rates. We have been harmonising valuation practice and ironing out the anomalies. We have committed ourselves to introducing a uniform business rate over five years or so to achieve a level rate across the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Why is the Secretary of State now reading a speech that he clearly had not seen before he came to the Dispatch Box? [Interruption.] I cannot help it if the right hon. Gentleman cannot read his civil servants' handwriting.
  In the earlier part of his speech, the Secretary of State gave Scottish local government credit for the increase in the number of pupils staying on at school and in social work expenditure—for the improvement in all services that are provided directly by elected local government representatives. In the later part, he has rubbished the lot. The right hon. Gentleman really should be able to do better than that.
  Mr. Lang: This may be poor stuff, but it is mine own.
  The point that I was making—it may have been lost on the hon. Gentleman—was that, because of our prudent management of the economy, the Government have been able to expand services and increase in real terms the funding of local authorities. They have allowed the economy to develop, prosper and have left people better off. In contrast to that, Labour's irresponsible approach—its proposed abandoning of all the controls that have made our achievements possible—would place burdens on our people that would cause immeasurable damage.
  The cost of business rates has been reduced by some £270 million as a result of the steps that we have taken to bring them down to a level that would be comparable across the United Kingdom. Last year, they rose by 1·5 per cent., the rate of inflation being over 10 per cent. We have brought about a gradual convergence and I hope that we shall be able to do more this year.
  Labour would undo all that. Labour would dismantle all the progress that we have made and all the justice that we have introduced; it would tear away the protection that we have brought in—especially for small businesses—and let business rates rip. I assume that the party would not take such action lightly: presumably it has thought it through and considered the consequences. I have another question for the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  Mr. James Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lang: No, not at the moment. This is an important point. The hon. Gentleman will want to hear the answer, as it will affect businesses in Orkney and Shetland just as it will affect businesses in Dumfries and Galloway. By how much does the hon. Member for Garscadden expect business rates to rise in the first two years after he has taken off the controls that we introduced on business rates? How many jobs will be lost as a result? How many businesses will close? Scottish business deserves and awaits answers to those questions. Those whose jobs would go deserve answers to those questions. I expect the hon. Gentleman to answer that question in his speech.

  927
  The Labour party wants to embark on a three-point programme to punish local government.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give way?
  Mr. Lang: Yes.
  Mr. Wallace: The 1986 Green Paper foreshadowed special arrangements for business rates in Orkney and Shetland, because of the anomaly created by the oil terminals. What progress is being made to implement the social arrangements promised by the Government?
  Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, since he and I have had many exchanges on this subject across the Floor of the House, Orkney and Shetland almost always have special arrangements. These matters are continually up for review and reconsideration, but his representations will, as always, be borne in mind.
  The Labour party has a three-point programme for punishing local government. Simultaneously the Opposition want to return to the worst injustices of the domestic rating system. They want to remove all safeguards to protect local taxpayers through capping. They want to expose the business community and its employees to the horrors of runaway council spending. It is an extortion racket that would make the mafia look like a children's charity.
  If the Labour party really wants to get rid of the poll tax, it should help the Bill through. If not, the inescapable conclusion will be that it wants to stop the Government abolishing the poll tax for its own dark reasons.
  What we are proposing is a tax based upon property and upon the people who live in it. It is a tax that will recognise that taxes are paid by people, not by buildings. It is a tax that will take account of the needs of single-person households, many of which contain pensioners, students, student nurses, apprentices and trainees, and of the needs of the young, the old, those on low incomes and those who live in high-priced areas. It is a tax which will be administratively simple, which will require no register to determine liability and which will provide a firm basis for local government finance. In other words, it is a fair tax, a sensible tax, a workable tax and a tax which I commend to the House.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: That was an entertaining performance, by the standards of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It contained one or two memorable lines. I was interested in the concept of the Secretary of State not yawning but choking over his script. I imagine that that is something he gets used to. I was also intrigued by the concept that somewhere in the International Monetary Fund there are a number of gentlemen who are very worried in case Stirling district council is not capped in 1996.
  Before dealing with the Bill, may I say a few words about the way in which the Bill is to pass through the House and the parliamentary timetable. What is proposed—and what will no doubt happen, because of the power of the Whips—is an attack on Parliament itself. This is a complicated and controversial Bill that will be forced through its Committee stage in three weeks. The Committee will meet almost literally day and night. There will be no possibility of proper consideration. There will be
  928
  no detailed scrutiny of very important matters that will have an impact on everyone. It is a straitjacket that makes a total mockery of the parliamentary process.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be impossible within this three-week period, if the House votes for the three weeks, for there to be any proper consultations with interested parties and any sort of repetition, by means of which the ordinary person in the pub may understand what is to be visited upon him, and that it will be a complete abortion and distortion of the way in which Parliament ought to consider a complicated piece of legislation?
  Mr. Dewar: I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says. I was about to refer to the constant approaches to me by professionals. I am referring not to politicians but to officials and assessors who are extremely worried about the practicality of many of the Bill's provisions. Poor souls—they approach me because they say that it will be possible, of course, to obtain the answers in Committee and to tease them out there. That will not be so. I do not want to enrage the Secretary of State, if that is not a contradiction in terms, by asking him about COSLA's views. For those on the Conservative Benches who are not familiar with the Scottish scene, that is the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Local authorities of every political colour are members of COSLA. Its recent circular deals with the need for a statutory canvass which it says many people believe to be essential. The circular continues:
  "No doubt these are issues which will be debated more fully within the Committee stages of the Bill".
  COSLA appeals to its members to send in detailed suggestions for improvements and amendments.
  Within that three-week period it will be very difficult to separate the Scottish provisions from the English provisions. There are differences—differences of starting base and differences of tradition. This is a very serious departure from the standards that we expect from a Government when dealing with the House of Commons.
  In a letter to me on 30 October the Secretary of State said that, whatever else, he was sure
  "that the Scottish interests will be dealt with appropriately."
  If the Secretary of State thinks that this is dealing with Scottish interests appropriately, he is not living in the same world as I am. It will be met with deep cynicism and deeper dismay in Scotland.
  Mr. Budgen: Is there not a serious risk that the problem of peope refusing to pay may become worse if they feel that the proper authority of Parliament has not been given to the Bill by means of proper discussion and argument?
  Mr. Dewar: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I very much hope that that is not the case. As he knows, my colleagues and I have turned our face against non-payment from the very beginning of this argument. We are opposed to such a policy. I would not want to see anything that encouraged that problem, either under the present system or any successor system.
  May I put a point to the Secretary of State in very muted terms, because I do not wish to overstate it? It is extraordinary that one of the last Conservative politicians in Scotland should argue that Westminster is the right forum properly to look at Scottish legislation, to dissect it and to make sure that it reaches the statute book in a way

  929
  that is a credit to the legislative process. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be responsible for and should be backing the kind of timetable motion that has been put before the House. It is an abuse of the parliamentary process that goes beyond the ordinary. It is a cop-out by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who gives the impression of having given up by allowing such a thing to happen.
  As for the Second Reading debate, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) gave a spirited performance yesterday. I use the word performance advisedly. He is a little bit faded these days, compared with the bright years of his youth, but undoubtedly it was a triumph of technique. He knows that when one is in difficulty one does not talk about the Bill that one is defending. One attacks, because that is the best form of defence. I suppose it is something that he learnt in the old days in the combined cadet force at some public school. He certainly did that during the exchanges.
  It was interesting to listen to the arguments put forward by a string of distressed loyalists, who got little in the way of a response from the Secretary of State for the Environment. Their only consolation will be that the Hendon Times, the Brent Bugle and other local papers will record that they asked the questions, but they will not be able to record any of the answers to the worries that clearly exist among their Back Benchers, particularly in the south-east of England. That gives added force to the points that are being put forward from our side about the way in which the Bill is being railroaded through the House.
  In particular, I noticed that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) asked a question about the revenue support grant in the south-east of England. He was told by the Secretary of State that it was an important point and that he would deal with it specifically in his speech. I read the speech with great care this morning. There was not even an attempt to provide an answer. That is typical of the way in which the debate was conducted yesterday and has been conducted again today by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland made some interesting remarks about how we deal with sewage charges in Scotland and I believe that he was right, but I fear that the main reason that they were paraded was because it took up a few minutes without him having to deal with the fundamentals of the Bill. He went on to give a litany of hatred about local government and its responsibilities.
  I do not want to spend a great deal of time on this subject, but it must occur to the Secretary of State that if he creates such an abrasive atmosphere, if on the one hand he says that local government has done well and he claims the credit while on the other hand blaming it for everything that goes wrong, he is undoubtedly creating a situation in which there will be continuing difficulties. With a better atmosphere, one could get more reasonable results for most parties. One of the tragedies has been the constant confrontation. I do not think that that area of policy has been conducted with any form of common sense in recent years.
  For the Secretary of State to lecture us about the non-domestic rate—the business rate—and say that fear of
  930
  that is driving companies out of business takes one's breath away. When I talk to business men, when I look at the records of insolvencies, liquidations and business failures, people talk to me about Government economic policy and the recession and not about some sort of hypothetical concern that lives large only in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman.
  As regards the Bill, a number of our past arguments are clearly highly relevant to the debate. I said earlier that the Secretary of State was not noted for his phrases but, to be fair, he introduces them occasionally. He was the first person that I have heard talking about the dampening effect of banding and it may well be his modest monument. However, I object strongly to that phenomenon. I do so because I know that it is a form of protection racket, although I know that that is a phrase that Tories have found offensive, but it makes the point. To be fair, Conservative Members have not tried to hide that fact. They have said that they want to protect those in the upper range of the property market. They accept that there is a link between income and the housing that most people live in and they want to protect people who are likely to have substantial incomes. They want artificially to protect them by squeezing the range of banding—it is unashamed and unabashed.
  The answer is that modest home owners such as first-time buyers will inevitably pay more than they otherwise would have done. The other day I described—I shall not do so again to save embarrassment, although it is the Conservatives' and not mine—all the tears that were shed for those at the bottom of the home ownership market, especially council tenants who bought their property who we were told would be victimised as the Labour party would take vengeance by taxing them on the full value of their houses when they had bought at a considerable discount. If that is not hypocrisy and if it was genuinely meant, there must be some troubled consciences on these Benches when Conservative Members consider what they are introducing.
  It is not merely a question of the elimination of the discount in the local taxation system; there is also the weighting to which I referred which will clearly be a considerable problem for those people. I do not believe that there is misunderstanding of the system or that there is such lamentable ignorance on the Conservative Benches that they did not understand the argument when they made it so vociferously only a year or 18 months ago. When the Government defend what they once condemned we are looking at plain hypocrisy.
  The right hon. Member for Henley lectures us about the politics of envy. I think what he means by that is that he does not want a system that is too progressive. It occurred to me that I should argue that that would be an odd thing to suggest because if one applied it to income tax one would have a regressive and unfortunate situation. However, when I consider what the Government have been doing to the tax system in the past year or two, it could be an argument that appealed to them. I have to repeat that it is not merely a matter of trying to protect or victimise. It ought to be a question of the fair distribution of the burden. The present rigging—if that is not too cruel a word—or, if we want to be more mealy-mouthed, the present adjustment of the banding system, ensures that there will not be a fair distribution. That also has another effect which has given rise to great discontent in areas such as Hendon. I see that one of the Members representing

  931
  Hendon, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) is here. The problem with banding, even with an eight-band system in place, is that in some areas virtually all the properties fall into one or two bands. As a result, one is suspiciously near to a flat-rate tax system of the type that we are supposed to be abandoning.
  My second serious point is the question of the complexity of the new tax and I shall put that in general terms. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State but I was not convinced. I noticed in the Financial Times this morning the suggestion that the right hon. Member for Henley does not know anything himself but
  "knows a man who knows."
  I was quite impressed until I discovered that that man turned out to be the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo). That was a strange accolade for a man who only a few months ago thought that the poll tax was a vote winner. In any event, he may have some grasp of some of the technical details, but I am not convinced that the Secretary of State for Scotland has the same grasp. When I listened to him musing about when a register becomes a list, I could only conclude that he wants to duck out of the controversy and leave it all to local authorities.
  The Secretary of State knows that if one talks to people who will be involved, it is nonsense to say that everything is on course and is going smoothly. I shall give one example. In the middle of September, as the Secretary of State knows, a draft circular on the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991 was issued. It dealt with the financing of the new valuation process. In mid September local authorities replied, raising a number of important issues. Unless the midday post brought something unexpectedly, since then there has not been a cheep out of the Scottish Office. We have not got the circular. There is a great deal of confusion and hiatus because understandably local authorities want to know about funding arrangements, practical details and want answers to their questions about the use of private sector surveyors and they have not had any answers. They are not being obtuse or refusing to act. They have waited week after week for the circular but it has not appeared and the timetable is slipping by. If that is things going smoothly, the Secretary of State is talking a different language from the ordinary people of Scotland.
  That is a painful contrast with the way in which preparations for the passage of the Bill are being bulldozed through with no respect for the niceties of the parliamentary process.
  Everyone knows that Opposition Members are concerned about the discount because we do not believe that it is a properly targeted concession. Many people argue that a statutory canvass is essential. I notice that the Secretary of State disagrees and says that it is very much a matter for local authorities to take what he describes as "reasonable steps". However, given that it is all on a daily basis and that it might not be an auntie but perhaps a youngster who moves from address to address—that happens frequently in my constituency and perhaps even in the Secretary of State's constituency—all the problems with identifying the number of folk in the house, which sank the administrative basis of the poll tax, will to a large extent arise again under this system. It is no good saying that it will be up to the local authority to take reasonable steps and then going home to Bovril or Horlicks and thinking that the problem has been solved.
  932
  I shall cite one example and I invite the Secretary of State to stop me if I am wrong. It is likely that I am because, although I have taken good advice, no one is sure that they know exactly how the system will work, but let me try. Let us consider students. That is fair because there has been a recent announcement and it will be fresh in the Secretary of State's mind. He will be able to keep the House right and that may also save time in Committee, which is important given the lack of time that will be available.
  As I understand it, if a student lives in a hall of residence, he will be exempt. I am sure that the Secretary of State will nod his assent.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart) indicated assent.
  Mr. Dewar: The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is slightly more animated, is doing so. I distinctly saw his sideburns move in the wind. The advice that I am given is that if a student is not in a hall of residence but is in a flat where he is the liable person, either because he is the owner or tenant, and no one else lives there, he will not be exempt. Am I right?
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): No.
  Mr. Dewar: We are making progress. The Minister is shaking his head.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Scottish Minister of State is nodding.
  Mr. Dewar: It is very complicated indeed to read the signs. It will be by guess and by God, and certainly not by good advice.
  In Scotland the impression, as explained to me by several experts, is that the liable person, if he is a student owner or tenant, will get a 50 per cent. reduction—25 per cent. because he is a single person and 25 per cent. based on his status. If he is the liable person but he is married, even if he is married to another student, he will get only a 25 per cent. reduction. If he is at home with one parent, he will get a 25 per cent. reduction. If he is at home with both parents, the full charge will be payable by that household. If there is a group of students in a flat, the position is not at all clear, unless they will be exempt under clause 4 in England or clause 72 in Scotland. It is a matter for interesting speculation what happens if one student fails his examinations so that one failed non-student is staying in the flat.
  We in Scotland are proud that our failure rate is below the national average, but we did not realise that it would be a financial necessity to coach our colleagues through to avoid this chaos. I accept that I may have got that example wrong, but I hope that the Minister understands that I do not make these suggestions lightly. I have tried to canvass the best opinion that I can find, and that is the best advice that I can get.
  Mr. Portillo: The reason why the hon. Gentleman is not entirely clear is that much of that will be covered by regulation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made these points clear in press conferences and the Secretary of State for Wales made it clear in his reply last night. Since the hon. Gentleman is obviously unclear about this, I undertake to make it clear in my reply this evening.
  Mr. Dewar: That is a handsome offer and—I will not say that it ensures my presence, as I would have been here out of curiosity in any event—I shall certainly be present.
  The point that I am making, perhaps rather over-lengthily, is that there are great areas of confusion, which are compounded by the fact that the system operates on a daily rate. I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says about a person having to have a principal residence or dwelling and that if somebody comes casually to visit that will not count. Nevertheless, there are great problems. I can think of categories of people, for example, Members of Parliament, and of interesting little tricks of the trade that may arise there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that may well be. The position is not clear.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am interested. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain what he means by "tricks of the trade" by Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Dewar: I certainly hope that no right hon. or hon. Gentleman would in any way seek to escape his liability. I have no doubt that sometimes people do. I can think of privatisation issues where rules have been bent. Those are exceptional cases. All I am suggesting is that there are great complexities and doubts.
  I will give the right hon. Gentleman another example—the oil rig worker. As we know, under the poll tax there has been endless litigation and no satisfactory outcome. Such a worker may be away from home for over half a year, when the days are aggregated. That raises the question of how his liability can possibly be calculated on a daily rate.
  Mr. Heseltine: Have we not seen the clearest example of scaremongering, invention and allegations without foundation? When challenged about the "tricks of the trade", the hon. Gentleman has nothing to say because his comment was wholly without foundation.
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman has gone red in the face and he is making himself look ridiculous. I repeat that in a large number of areas there will be complexities and difficulties of interpretation which will lead to great confusion and a good deal of unhappiness.
  Mr. Heseltine: That is a climb-down.
  Mr. Dewar: It is not a climb-down at all. The right hon. Gentleman is, to say the least, seizing at any straw, if he is reduced to using that as an argument.
  The other day the Secretary of State for the Environment put up a pathetic display about the 20 per cent. rule. When challenged to say why it could not be abolished in April next year, he said it was simply because income support levels had been set and it was impossible to change them. The reason is beyond me. We all know that every hon. Member is agreed that the 20 per cent. rule is indefensible. We have had it from the Audit Commission that its collection results in a net loss to the Exchequer. I cannot see that the technicality behind which the right hon. Gentleman shelters is any defence for the clear breach of principle in allowing an inhumanity and a financial nonsense to continue in a system where it has no place. It should go in April 1992. If the right hon. Gentleman had the courage of his own arguments, it would go then. To suggest otherwise is contemptible.
  934
  My view—I have to put it as bluntly as this—is that the Bill is a disorganised hypocrisy and few of its authors believe in it. Some at least would admit that in private. The Scottish Office team, largely still intact, attacked the so-called roof tax—a property-based system with capital valuations and a single person in the household liability—as an abomination. The team made it clear that it was a wholly unacceptable concept and said of the family home that it would be the family millstone, yet the team has ended up in exactly the same area.
  Mr. Lang: When will the hon. Gentleman get round to answering the questions that I put to him during my speech?
  Mr. Dewar: I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like this, but I am talking about the proposals in the Bill before us and I intend to continue to do so. I am extremely interested in the arguments used in this debate in the past 24 hours or so.
  Mr. Heseltine: Another "trick of the trade".
  Mr. Dewar: It may well be.
  Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) had himself registered at a fictitious address in the town of Ayr to deceive the electorate that his principal home was in Ayr and not, as we all know, in Stirling? Is that properly described as a "trick of the trade"?
  Mr. Dewar: I have no idea, but that is an interesting anecdote.
  On 11 November the Secretary of State for the Environment was challenged by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), who said that the Government should just add a further 2·5 per cent. to value added tax. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were determined to make progress, but that they did not believe that progress would be made by the imposition of a further 2·5 per cent. to VAT. He said:
  "the inevitable conclusion on my hon. Friend's proposals … 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."
  I am grateful for that information, but I do not believe that that principle is operating in local government now. I do not believe that that is the general thrust of the policies advocated by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
  The Secretary of State also argued that the council tax would maintain accountability. He said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 11 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 786–789.]
  I regard that as sophistry. I remember trying to argue that under the old rating system, and the successor that we were proposing, everyone in a household made a contribution towards its running and should be taken into account and counted as being part of the taxation system. I was vilified by Scottish Office Ministers for holding such a view—vilified is a word that I can take seriously. I was told that only one person was legally liable and therefore only a small percentage of the electorate was covered by the taxation system. I was told that that was totally unacceptable.
  Now the right hon. Member for Henley has the brass neck to repeat that argument and attach it to a system to

  935
  which, in terms of the arguments that he and his colleagues used for so long, it does not apply. I thought that that was the most outrageous claim from the right hon. Gentleman in recent weeks until I remembered some of his other remarks. He said that the Scots had complained when they got a separate poll tax bill and asked why they should complain now that they do not. That was a remarkable statement. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the only thing standing in the way of the abolition of the poll tax was the Labour party. Such comments will merely lead the right hon. Member and his colleagues into disrepute.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Surely it is remarkable that, when the Secretary of State for the Environment was asked why he did not oppose the poll tax in Scotland when he did so in England, he replied that he thought the Scots had wanted it. Is that not a sign of how out of touch Ministers are with the people of Scotland?
  Mr. Dewar: That is unfair to the right hon. Gentleman as I believe he is being misquoted. What he said was even more alarming. He said that he had asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scots wanted it, and then he believed him.
  Mr. John Butcher: It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose and the hon. Gentleman is doing so with great vigour. I pay tribute to the Scottish Labour party for spearheading the Opposition's view on the community charge and local government reform. If the hon. Gentleman's speech is to have any intellectual and moral integrity on behalf of the Scottish Labour party, he should, in all conscience, answer the specific questions put to him by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman, more than any other hon. Member, has a duty to state his party's proposals and their effects on the Scottish people.
  Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the relationship with local government should depend for ever on the ever pressing presence of capping power, he takes a gloomy and miserable view of the future of that relationship.
  The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for the Environment have a great influence on spending in local government because they control the revenue support grant and the ability of additional expenditure to attract that grant. There are a number of ways in which they can, should and will influence responsibly, but the idea that one must spend one's time in a constant war over capping is mistaken.
  In recent weeks the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has made his stand against a single currency in Europe. He said that if we had such a machinery it would leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  "as nothing more than the treasurer of a rate-capped local authority."
  That tells us something interesting about the disunity on the European issue, but in the context of the Bill it is also interesting. The right hon. Member for Chingford is not noted for his lack of imagination or his inability to think of vindictive comparisons. Obviously he could think of nothing more wounding to say about the Chancellor than that he should be compared to the
  "treasurer of a rate-capped local authority."
  The Government should not seek to rely upon such capping powers. We do not want such a machinery and we would not rely upon it.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will recall that his former colleague, Lord Ross of Marnock, said that a Secretary of State should have
  "necessary reserve powers to restrict grants where an authority fails to maintain standards or spends excessively."
  The hon. Gentleman's predecessor thought that such capping powers were necessary, as did Bruce Millan, now a commissioner of the European Community. Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the questions that I put to him?
  Mr. Dewar: I have already answered—we do not believe that such powers will be necessary.
  The Secretary of State was a decade out when he spoke about this recently. We put section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 on the statute book because it was thought to be necessary at the time. I was not party to that decision. However, no Secretary of State ever found it necessary to use it and we would not wish to see those powers restored. We would not contemplate using those powers and therefore the comparison is wrong.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why real deductions in local government expenditure took place in Scotland under the Government of 1978 as a result of the decision taken—quite properly in my view—by central Government to control expenditure? The reductions were not small, but massive.
  Mr. Dewar: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who so often rides gallantly to the rescue of his enemies. That is exactly the point I was seeking to make earlier. The decision in 1978 was an unpleasant one, but it was thought necessary at the time. The reductions were made by cutting the rate grant support from central Government. That machinery is always open to a Government. At that time the Government rightly chose not to use the capping powers that existed.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening and I know that he has been generous in giving way. The Secretary of State referred to the late Lord Ross but it is important to clarify that the Secretary of State is not talking about capping powers—those powers were described as indicative costs. At no time did any Labour Secretary of State, either Lord Ross or Bruce Millan, allow a local authority to set its budget and then cut that budget in the knowledge that cuts would then be made to public services. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has deliberately misrepresented the late Lord Ross.
  Mr. Dewar: I appreciate that my hon. Friend speaks from his experience in the Scottish Office.
  Ministers are fond of complaining bitterly about the draconian way in which Labour Governments have controlled local authority spending in the past. It seems rather odd therefore that they should now complain that we would not use the capping machinery. We regard such machinery as redundant.
  I have given way a great deal and I do not want to prevent other hon. Members from contributing to the debate. In conclusion, I believe that the story of the past two or three years has been an unhappy and disreputable one. Those who have followed the debate in the past few weeks will know that I have read the press releases that were put out in the past by hon. Members who are now part of the Scottish Office team. My fax machine used to go mad every Sunday when yet another letter to cheer me

  937
  up was sent by the then chairman of the Scottish Conservative party. Hon. Members will remember when the Minister of State at the Scottish Office had that dignity.
  I re-read one such letter from the hon. Gentleman this morning and it was full of words such as "deceitful" and "disreputable". The hon. Gentleman predicted that a property-based tax on a capital valuation, taking everything else as it was at that time, would produce a tax of between £30 and £40 per £1,000 of the value of a house.
  I accept that the £140 sweetener must be taken into account, but the figures are so dramatically wrong, even taking account of that, that I can think only that they were put about with malice as scare stories. Such malice would, no doubt, be engaging at a fringe meeting of Young Conservatives, but it is alarming coming from a Minister of the Crown.
  When I read the Minister's remarks, the words "disreputable" and "deceitful", which he used cheerfully about Labour Members, struck me as a useful vocabulary when considering his efforts. I find intellectually contemptible the way in which Conservative Members have stood on their heads when adducing such arguments.
  We then had strong advice from the right hon. Member for Henley to read the Municipal Journal. When I examined the issue of that publication for 8 November, I noticed a splendidly robust quotation from Mr. Roger Humber, director of the Housebuilders' Federation, who said:
  "Mr. Heseltine is talking absolute nonsense."
  Mr. Humber will find that the right hon. Gentleman has a habit of doing that, certainly when dealing with local government taxation and house building statistics.
  From Conservative Members and Ministers we have had bluff and bluster. They are attacking proposals from the Labour party which are sensible and coherent. In Scotland we have a valuation base that was put together in 1985 and is still hardly out of date, even if the system had run on. It is intact and would be a practical starting point. We propose to build on it, to move from that practical starting point to a reformed, improved and modernised rating system. That would be infinitely preferable to a scheme which was spawned by political disaster, and cobbled together in considerable panic.
  The Secretary of State said that his system was fair. We question that. He also said that it was welcomed. As he said, no tax is likely to be popular. It is interesting to note that in the MORI poll of 1 November it was discovered that fewer than one in five favoured the so-called council tax. That poll was better for my hon. Friends than for Conservative Members, and that is true of most polls these days. At least we reached the 25 per cent. mark. The Liberals achieved only 11 per cent. with their proposals. I take some consolation from that.
  We have a Government who dislike and distrust local democracy, and the reason is obvious. It is because, as the Secretary of State has constantly said, local authorities tend to be controlled by the Labour party. That does not happen by magical chemistry or conspiracy. It happens because people vote for and elect Labour candidates.
  There is something shabby in a Government making great play of the fact that they lose elections at the local level. The result is that we are plunged into a situation in which, despite the quotation from the Secretary of State for the Environment to which I referred—about the need
  938
  to prevent local government being controlled in every detail by central Government—in Scotland, only 11 per cent. of revenue is in local government control. The Secretary of State has only one argument and policy, and that is ever more brutal capping. That is not an argument for local democracy. Rather, it is an argument against the Government and their attitudes.
  I fear that the Bill will do no service for Parliament. Nor will it be of service to the people of the United Kingdom and particularly to the people of Scotland. In Scotland it will buttress and reinforce the conviction that the Government are running out of energy and ideas and, best of all, running out of time. They should go.
  5.43 pm
  Sir Richard Luce: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) because it was entertaining. Although he spent much time criticising the council tax, only towards the end of his remarks did he touch on the alternative proposed by the Labour party and he did that without enthusiasm. Indeed, he failed throughout to answer the challenging questions put to him by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman is not convinced that the Labour party has better proposals for dealing with local government taxation.
  In 21 years in this place, I have not before found it possible to speak with enthusiasm about any local government taxation system. At least on this occasion I can give a modest welcome to the council tax. It is certainly a marked improvement on the community charge and it is infinitely better than Labour's proposals for a return to the rating system, remembering the intense pain that that caused to many people through the 1960s and into the 1970s. The fact that the Labour party is not proposing to introduce a formula which would allow for restraint in public expenditure by local government means that its ideas could prove disastrous.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The right hon. Gentleman says that the council tax is an improvement on the community charge. In which way is it an improvement?
  Sir Richard Luce: I was talking not about the Labour party proposals, but about the council tax—
  Mr. Barnes: Answer my question.
  Sir Richard Luce: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will see why the council tax is an improvement on anything that we have had in post-war years. It is a vast improvement on the rating system as proposed by the Labour party.
  The four factors that must be looked for in a local taxation system are a measure of fairness, some reflection of ability to pay, an adequate measure of accountability and the maximum of administrative simplicity. No one can have any illusions about any form of local government taxation being perfect. It is almost an area in which one cannot win. There is bound to be an element of rough justice. But the Government's council tax proposal achieves a judicious balance of those elements. It may not be perfect, but it is better than any of the alternatives.
  Mr. John Maxton: I assume that the alternatives about which the right hon. Gentleman is speaking include the poll tax. If my memory serves me

  939
  right, he was a Minister when both poll tax measures went through the House. If he felt that that system was so wrong, why did he remain in that Government?
  Sir Richard Luce: The hon. Gentleman has got me wrong. On all the taxation system that we have had since the war, including the rating system and then the community charge—he is right to say that I supported the latter—the council tax represents an improvement. That is all that I am saying.
  I hope that, when replying to the debate, the Minister of State will deal with some points that I have to make about the standard spending assessment. But first I have some general comments on the Bill, in particular on accountability. It is important to bear in mind the fact that the Government are allowing local taxation to be increased to the extent of 15 per cent. of total resources. Some would argue that if it is to be at that low level, relatively speaking, we should do away completely with an element of local taxation and fund it all from central Government.
  I believe that it would be a profound mistake to do that. For a Government who believe in decentralisation, it would be a damaging policy. I should have preferred a larger element of local funding to central grants and other forms of revenue. Indeed, had not Labour-controlled authorities in the past driven small businesses out of the inner cities and acted in a thoroughly irresponsible way, creating unemployment in those areas, I should have preferred more flexibility in the business rate system. However, experience does not encourage that.
  I am glad that the single bill which people will receive under the council tax will contain two elements—property and personal. Constituencies such as mine have large retired populations and I am concerned about the effect of the Bill on widows and single people. They were heavily hit under the old rating system and the position of most of them was eased considerably under the community charge system. I watch with considerable anxiety to see whether they will lose out under the new council tax. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure me on that matter when he winds up.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, in two-tier authorities it is important that bills should contain two elements to make it clear to members of the public what element relates to the county, for example, and what element relates to the district. Hitherto, one misfortune of the systems has been that people are not sure who is responsible for certain expenditure.
  I have corresponded endlessly with my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessors on the standard spending assessment. He will no doubt be saying, "Thank God he is leaving Parliament at the next election". Nevertheless, the issue will remain because, under the new council tax system, it is essential that local authorities and the public have absolute confidence in the fairness of the method of or criteria for calculating the standard spending assessment. It becomes even more acute because the Government—rightly—decided to extend the potential to cap authorities spending less than £15 million. The standard spending assessment system must be based on local authorities having as much confidence as possible. In my area, the two district councils of Arun and Adur—one of which is Conservative and the other Liberal—are profoundly concerned about that issue.
  940
  I realise that, whatever system we have, it will be complex. The previous system was even more complex and the Government have done much to simplify it. The present system has six major service blocks, ranging from education to highways and maintenance. The "other services" block contains issues such as environmental health. Also taken into account are population factors, commuters, visitors, density and sparsity of population and the social index, which are all designed to reflect the physical, demographic and social characteristics of each area, so it is bound to be fairly complex. I accept the argument that some complexity cannot be avoided and that there will be an element of rough justice, but the experience in my constituency demonstrates that rough justice can go too far. The disparities in the per capita grant received in my district compared with the neighbouring districts of Worthing and Hove have been such in the past two or three years that much injustice has been caused. Anyone who glances at those areas—it is no disparagement of the neighbouring authorities—will see that the social conditions in my area are acute compared with those in neighbouring areas, yet the per capita grant that my area receives from central Government is much lower. Something is wrong with that and the formula is too crude.
  Will my hon. Friend undertake, over a reasonable period and before the council tax is introduced, to carry out an independent review of how that works, taking into account the views of a cross-section of authorities? That review should be published and an adjustment to the standard spending assessment should be considered. In the meantime, there are some arguments for suggesting that the smaller the authority, the rougher the justice and the cruder the formula. Therefore, there is an argument for the higher authorities—in my case the county council—to have an element of discretion in dispersing funds so that they can iron out the worst anomalies and disparities between the various district councils. I hope that when my hon. Friend winds up he will comment on that and consider my proposals, which are intended to be helpful, as positively as he can. I give my encouraging support to the Bill.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: It must be made clear that the Labour party is not to blame for the poll tax which the Government introduced. The nation should he told about the chaos, poverty and hardship that the Government have created in deprived areas throughout the country. I am not too worried about the new council tax because I doubt whether it will see the light of day. Will the nation vote the Government back in? They will be voted out and it will be a long time before we have a Conservative Government in Britain again.
  Let us consider democracy in local government and the three Secretaries of State for the Environment who have had a go at local government taxation. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) and now the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) have all been unsuccessful and got it wrong. Who would have thought that, as we enter the 21st century, 7·5 million people would have been served with warrants? Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement condemning local councils for overspending. The poll tax

  941
  collection rate throughout Britain varies from 33 per cent. to 93 per cent. Non-collection is not confined to Strathclyde and Glasgow but applies also to the shires, which collected only 82 per cent. and inner London, which collected only 66 per cent. Scotland is owed some £437 million in unpaid poll tax.
  Local authorities should be given some money to get them out of the mess. Although the Secretary of State for Scotland condemned district and regional authorities such as Lambeth, Hackney and Strathclyde, no one could say that they have not tried to collect that money. Strathclyde regional council even decided to hold an auction because the ruthless Government have allowed it to deteriorate. It is nearing bankruptcy and has had to make 720 employees redundant, which is a sorry state of affairs.
  Mr. William McKelvey: There are difficulties in collecting the charge. Strathclyde authority undertakes the task diligently, but still faces problems. I received a letter this morning from the social security office stating that it cannot take anything off the income support of one woman who is being pursued for arrears because she is too poor. However, the Government refuse to abandon their policy of making everyone pay 20 per cent. although they know that it costs twice as much to try to collect it as the amount that they actually collect. They penalise poor people such as my constituent.
  Mr. Wray: I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) but surely he has been a Membeer long enough to know that the Government do not care. Conservative Members are not interested in the poor, but are interested only in their own shares and in the rich. During the Government's term of office they have cut £600 million from the Strathclyde budget for services, so that council has to increase its bills this year by 32 per cent. The Government are guilty of mismanagement, gross neglect and maladministration, and should be turned out tomorrow because they are not fit to govern.
  It annoys me when I hear the criticisms that come from the Secretary of State for the Environment. He talked about what my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said. I shall quote a couple of paragraphs to see if anyone knows who said them:
  "Once implemented and through transition, 1 believe the new system will prove enduring and a vast improvement on the status quo."
  It was said at the annual conference of the Association of District Councils on 1 July 1988. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was it?"] Maybe hon. Members will know who it was when they hear the next part. Three years later the same person said:
  "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 was said by the Prime Minister. It was easy to see that he was running for his job then.
  Why do we have to wait until 1993 before the poll tax is abolished? We know what the position is. In Strathclyde alone, 1·25 million warrants have been issued; many others have been issued in various constituencies. The position is so bad that the sheriff officers are afraid to go into homes. The saddest story I heard was of a sheriff officer going to a door to collect items that were to be sold at auction. He
  942
  said that the woman in the house had only a table and television, and had spent the night before polishing the table so that it would bring in a wee bit extra to clear her debt. Is that the sort of Government we have? Yes, they do not care.
  Why will not the Government abolish the 20 per cent. rule? Why are they allowing the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country to go on throwing money down the drain? It costs the Government 19 per cent. of what they collect if they collect 6 per cent. of the charges. Why do not the Government abolish the whole damn lot and give the people a free run for Christmas? They should do so if they have any compassion.
  Mr. George Howarth: They are stony-hearted.
  Mr. Wray: Yes, they are stony-hearted.
  I have taken a long look at local government finance. The Government collect only about 14 per cent. of the charge and the rest comes from central Government—is it worth collecting it? Some £4·25 billion has been thrown away on trying to get the people out of the mess into which the Government have placed them and £5,795 million has been poured in to try to save the Government from embarrassment. But the people of Scotland and Britain will never forget the sad 13 years in which people have been brought to their knees. The most deprived regions are still suffering from cuts in social services, the police force and education. The Government are hoping to carry on and according to the Secretary of State for the Environment the people will have to put up with the tax until 1993.
  The Government have made a mistake with the new tax from the very start. They have valued the average house at £80,000. They were told months ago when they first set out valuations that they were wrong by between 16 and 26 per cent. Some of the houses that were valued at £80,000 were worth 26 per cent. less and others 16 per cent. less. The Government were warned about their assessments by the Local Government Information Unit and by building societies. When they try to collect the money, with all the various bands involved, they will need the St. Francis pipe band to get out of the mess. They are worried about the people in the top bands and they are ensuring that those in the highest band cannot be made to pay more than three times the amount charged to those in the lowest band. The Government are protecting very wealthy people.
  What nonsense it is for the Government to say that they will give a 25 per cent. discount for everyone in every household—25 per cent. for a pensioner in the poorest slum district and 25 per cent. for a millionaire living in a penthouse. If they consider that to be fair they have got it wrong again.
  The Government do not want to get rid of capping and have retained it in the Bill. The only reason that they have not capped local authorities as much as they would have liked is because of the word "unreasonable" contained in the legislation to implement the poll tax. However, the new Bill does not contain the word "unreasonable". If that word had not been included in the poll tax legislation, the Government would have capped about 31 local authorities in Scotland for overspending by a small percentage. It is a sad day when the Government put the jackboot into local authorities because of their expenditure—democracy and accountability have gone out of the window. The new

  943
  system is a costly business for local authorities because big changes have to be made, computers are brought into education departments and offices which means extra cost. Local authorities also have to consider gearing. When a local council increases a bill by £1, it means a 6 or 7 per cent. increase for the charge payer, which is bad news for them.
  The poll tax meant a bonanza for private landlords—the Rachmans in Britain. About one week before the Act came into force to abolish rates those landlords were running about trying to get their tenants to sign to agree a rent increase, and they will do the same thing with this legislation. How will the Government deal with multiple occupations? They will tell the Rachman landlords to collect the money. They might get half the money—the other half will go in the landlord's pocket. There will be no registers. When the properties are valued they will be looked at from the outside so there could be 30 or 40 people inside. I know one place in Alliston street in which there are 20 or 30 people in one room sleeping in hammocks. If valuers do not go inside the properties, how will they be able to value them? In some streets all the buildings look alike although they may contain three, four or even six apartments, and it is unfair to place them all in one band.
  The Government say that they will use the services of estate agents. Two or three of them have been out to value my place and have given me three different valuations—none of them right.
  Mr. McKelvey: I advise my hon. Friend not to tell us what the valuations were.
  Mr. Wray: I certainly will not; I am afraid to.
  Even some Conservative Members have been grumbling about the bands and asking for another two or three at the top of the ladder because of the jump from £160,000 to £320,000. But some houses in this city are worth £2·5 million. What band should they come under? I hope that a new Government will come to power so that the council tax cannot be implemented. [Interruption.] I am running out of material.
  Mr. John Battle: But my hon. Friend is using it well.
  Mr. McKelvey: Before my hon. Friend stood up to speak he told me that it was a scandal that so little time is being allowed for a Bill of this magnitude. It is all the more astonishing that Scottish Conservative Members should not have learnt the lessons from the implementation of the poll tax which they—backed by the legions of Tory Back Benchers who are not here today—thrust on the people of Scotland. They should at least have learnt not to push through legislation like this in so short a time, thereby denying the opportunity to discuss it thoroughly.
  Mr. Wray: It is difficult for any Government to justify the type of legislation that has been passed here over the past three years.
  The average council tax in England will be £400, in Scotland £270 and in Wales £163—or so we are told. But I think that the figures are wrong. The Government should realise that the time has come to fund local authorities centrally. Democracy has been thrown out of the window by this Government and we shall return to democracy only
  944
  with the return of a Labour Government pledged to bring in a fair tax system based on ability to pay. Our document takes incomes into consideration; the council tax does not.
  I will be glad when a Labour Government are returned to power and we implement the fairer system known as fair rates.
  6.13 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday that, despite the Opposition's fears and unyielding opposition to the proposed council tax, they managed to muster only 20 Members for the debate. I see that that number has fallen still further today—[Interruption.] Despite the laughter, only 14 or 15 Opposition Members are able to be here at this early hour for what will be a lengthy debate. What is more, I see that the Liberal Democrats cannot be bothered to be present at all, such confidence do they have in their proposals and their amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Tories?"] I shall not respond to blandishments inviting me to criticise my hon. Friends for not fielding more people. After all, we support the Government. We have no need to summon up armies to support our logic. It is the Opposition who need to oppose our proposals, and that they have significantly failed to do, to judge not only by numbers but by the lack of content in their speeches.
  I welcome the council tax, and I find it difficult to understand the reasoning behind the Opposition's staunch refusal to see its virtues. I am forced to conclude that their opposition is comparable to their opposition to the £140 reduction in the community charge, against which many Opposition Members voted. Their opposition derives from a mulish obstinacy which directly harms the electorate; it does not rest on logic or reasoning, and it is not worth listening to.
  The council tax, by contrast, responds to the electorate's wish to maintain a tie between local government revenue-raising and housing, thus identifying a centuries-old notion of ability to pay. I suggest that that notion of ability to pay still applies. Most people who live in large houses are more able to pay than those who live in small ones. Whether or not that is an accurate assumption, it became clear in the lengthy debate on the community charge that the electorate wanted us to retain that tie.
  Mr. Maxton: It is interesting to hear the hon. Lady stress the centuries-old tradition of the link between property and ability to pay. That being so, why did she support the poll tax, which did not meet that criterion for a local tax?
  Miss Nicholson: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not listening to some of my statements on the community charge, but I pointed out at the time——
  Mr. John McAllion: Yes, but how did the hon. Lady vote?
  Miss Nicholson: I pointed out at the time and in the way I voted—and I say again now—that it is the country's perception that a house provides a notion of ability to pay, even if it is not a truly accurate assumption. We all know, for instance, that under this Conservative Government wealth has been created more readily, so people have had more money to spend, and they do not spend it just on

  945
  where they live. Their sense of self-worth is not based solely on their dwelling place. They also buy video recorders, tape recorders, televisions by the armful, cars and all sorts of other things. People's wealth is visible in a variety of ways. But, as I said, the electorate at large still believes strongly that the house in which someone lives reflects at least in part his or her ability to pay.
  This tax is a light touch on local wallets, since it raises only 25 per cent. of local authority revenue, the remainder being raised from and distributed by central Government taxation systems. I give credit to the Government for this considerable and generally welcome innovation. That leaves the United Kingdom with the second lowest rate of value added tax in the whole of Europe. That is due to our large 25 per cent. of zero-rated items. We are managing an extraordinarily intelligent mechanism to raise more money while still having the second lowest VAT average in the Community. I congratulate the Government on that splendid achievement.
  The council tax recognises the duty and the desire of the responsible citizen to contribute to local services. Opposition Members may smile. Some irresponsible Opposition Members did not wish to make a contribution. Several of them had such a desire to duck their contributions that they were found guilty in court. The desire to contribute to services is a badge of civic dignity, and the Bill will help to build a responsible society.
  The council tax will exempt or grant a quarter discount to students, student nurses and YTS trainees and will thus build a caring society. It recognises the crucial importance of food production, thus contributing to the building of a practical society. It is thoroughly sensible—and what more could one ask of a mechanism for raising local government revenue?
  The Opposition do not wish to be sensible, but that is nothing new. That gives me an opportunity to look at their uneasy and uncomfortable proposals which smack of their obsession with the continuance of the command economy. Perhaps I should say command extravagance and incompetence and, ultimately, the stagnation by command that socialist systems produce. The Opposition propose large-scale meddling in private matters, and that lies at the heart of Labour's obsession with a fair rates system. Their system would not work without an army of snoopers. [Interruption.] There is an overlarge army of Scottish Opposition Members. If I had my way, there would be a fair system of Scottish representation. There would be fewer Scottish Members, and none of them would be Labour. [Interruption.] The Opposition cannot down a good Conservative.
  Labour's fair rates system smacks of that party's usual incompetence and, even more sadly, of their naive and unrealistic belief in the perfection of man-made systems. What does Labour propose? First, in the most incorrigible, sad and old-fashioned belief, it is determined to return to the rating system based on 1973 values, a truly crazy idea. Secondly, Labour proposes a new system of valuation, a second earthquake after its reversion to the early 1970s, and that system will be based on a rolling revaluation of 22 million properties based on four values, the first of which is maintenance and repair costs. Someone will have to call to see whether I have managed to replace my back door with one that has glass panes instead of wooden panels. It
  946
  is important that maintenance and repair costs are taken into the rolling revaluation on the critical first valuation. How does Labour propose to work out rebuilding costs, the second of its four values? The other two are rental values and insurance values. One can see the chaos and confusion that such a dreaded system would create.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that people would pay more than they needed to pay, but that is possible only if one of two events occurs. First, it can happen because of extravagance on the part of those who spend taxpayers' money such as, dare I say it, the councils in Lambeth and Camden where 40 per cent. of the electorate leave every year. Those people vote with their feet and get out. The second cause for people to pay more than they need to pay would be the introduction of a cumbersome mechanism for identifying and collecting tax revenue. The fair rates system smacks of both those matters.
  I suggest that Labour's proposals are not even supported by its Front-Bench spokesmen. We do not need to go far to find all too revealing quotes. On 5 October, on "Any Questions", Mrs. Margaret Beckett said——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We usually refer to hon. Members by constituency.
  Miss Nicholson: She said that there was "no question" but that they would replace the council tax with their rates system. On 17 October another Opposition spokesman said that Labour would "amend the council tax" and scrap the 1973 rates stepping stone. A third Opposition spokesman said that Labour
  "would … repeal it in almost all circumstances",
  but might pick up the council tax valuation register.
  I think that I am correct in saying that over the past four years Labour has adopted 70 different positions on local government finance. That puts the author of the "Kama Sutra" in the shade. Labour has suggested capital value rates and a twin tax—which sounds like Dracula and his brother—of local income tax and roof tax. It has suggested a floor tax which gives me, and I suggest the electorate, cold feet. I shall tell the Serjeant at Arms about that because we need more floor space in the building for our secretaries.
  Labour has been twisting and turning and has offered a variety of local income taxes that puts even Heinz to shame. It has adopted a number of positions that I have already referred to in perhaps an unseemly manner. I could not support those proposals even if I were the daughter of a coal miner. I am the daughter of an MP who actively assisted coal miners and I am remarkably glad to support the Government's sensible and sane proposals.
  As I have said, the Liberal Democrats have so little confidence in their proposals that they seem to have left the SDP to carry their banner, which I am sure that that party could do with far greater competence than the Liberal Democrats. The local income tax would be difficult and complex to create and to continue, tasking the Inland Revenue, as it would, as the agent of collection. It offers the horrific uniformity of a rate throughout the year that will be the same for everyone. Thus far does the Liberal Democrat imagination take one, and, lo and behold, it proposes a variety of adjustments at the year end. Is that really local initiative? The Liberal Democrats would tax wealth creation and there would be a little bureaucrat in every town hall. A high local income tax would create debtors, destroy jobs, and drive out wealth creators.

  947
  The Inland Revenue operates on the basis of where people are employed and not on where they live. Those of us who have been employed all our lives in real businesses know that. Therefore, the hugely complex computerised Inland Revenue system would have to be recreated. A new collection point would have to be added to the existing system. This new machinery would be created for a fictitious local additional accountability that would give more authority to local councils. There would be a creation of new power bases for no new benefits to the electorate.
  Both Opposition parties offer systems that do not help individuals or families—the people whom we, the Conservatives, are pledged to serve. Instead, they offer more bureaucrats.
  Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend has made an effective attack on the proposals of both the Labour and Liberal parties, but she has not mentioned one of the greatest weaknesses in those proposals, which is that both parties have consistently voted against the Government's attempts to curb excessive local government spending through the capping mechanism. The Labour party—I should not be surprised if the Liberal Democrats thought this way too, but I have not explored their policy on this—is committed to abolishing the capping mechanism. Would that not leave council tax payers open to the burden of extravagance in local government?
  Miss Nicholson: I wholly agree with my west country colleague. We see things sanely and sensibly there.
  Both Opposition parties are pledged only to help bureaucracy. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, that is their favourite repository of power—the local council officials. As a result of the Labour party proposals, new armies of snoopers would arise. If Labour Members fail to see the truth of that, then they are even more foolish than I thought. Only the Conservative proposals will raise the necessary sums of money for appropriate local government expenditure with a light touch and with fundamental fairness and sureness. I support the Government.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: The kindest thing that I can say about the speech of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) is that she obviously believes that attack is the best form of defence, although I notice that she did not go into a great deal of detail in defending the Bill.
  It may seem a strange charge to level against this Government that they are imbued with the philosophies of Leon Trotsky, but when it comes to local government, this Administration seem to believe in the Trotskyite theory of permanent revolution. We used to have a local government Bill every two or three years, but now we have two or three local government Bills a year. No sooner do we get one system in place and local authority officials beginning to understand it than it is torn up and something new is put in its place.
  We should spare a thought for the officials in finance departments in town and county halls who are trying to sort out the last remnants of the rating system while fighting a losing battle to cope with the problems of the poll tax. On top of all that, they are being asked to prepare for a completely different system which is apparently being worked out as we go along on some sort of do-it-yourself
  948
  basis. Any hon. Member with recent experience of trying to help constituents with poll tax rebate problems knows that the system is creaking badly and is under considerable strain. It is at least possible that it will be unable to meet the timetable that the Government have laid down for this change. If it does, I expect that the resulting quality of service will be pretty poor.
  The great tragedy is that the lessons of the poll tax fiasco have not been learnt. Once again, we shall drive complex legislation through the House at breakneck speed, with all the risk of major flaws not being discovered until it is too late. Perhaps there is a more fundamental lesson to be learnt. Once again, Ministers are trying to persuade a bewildered public that they have stumbled on a magic solution to the age-old problem of local government finance. We have seen them waxing lyrical about the Bill. Two Secretaries of State, on two successive days, have been ecstatic about the Bill, but we saw the same fervour and enthusiasm marshalled, a couple of years ago, behind the poll tax. How are we to believe that, this time, they have got it right? The more enthusiastic Ministers become, the more disillusioned the punters will be when the reality of the situation finally comes home.
  I may sound cynical, but all my experience at the sharp end of local government, leading a London borough council, in the local authority association and as an original member of the Layfield committee, leads me to believe that there is no ideal solution to the problem of paying for local council services. We can think up no system—fair rates, council tax, poll tax or local income tax—that would be regarded as fair by everybody and that would have no snags, drawbacks, anomalies or defects.
  Every time that we change the system, there are gainers and losers. We should by now have learnt that the gainers take their gains and, saying nothing, scuttle away to enjoy them, while the losers complain long and loud. That is an old political truth which I suspect the Government will once again discover when the full impact of the council tax hits their traditional supporters in London and the south-east.
  If there is no perfect system, we are looking for the least worst solution, the one with the fewest drawbacks and injustices. I make no apology for saying that, ever since Layfield reported, I have been convinced that the best solution and the one with the fewest injustices is a local income tax. All those Conservative Members who painted spine-chilling pictures of the adverse impact of local income tax should explain why the system works in Europe and, beyond Europe, in North America. Are we so incompetent that we cannot make it work at least as well as it works in other nations?
  The injustice of a property-based tax is evident. The value of a home is only a rough guide to the affluence of the person who lives in it and in many cases is no guide at all. We can all think of circumstances in which the value of somebody's home has gone up through no effort of his own. The area becomes fashionable, property values go up and suddenly he is sitting on an asset that does not reflect his income. For example, although the London borough of Hackney is not widely recognised as a centre of gracious living, 70 per cent. of the households there are in bands D, E and F, but in Rotherham, 84 per cent. of households are in bands A, B and C. That shows the impact of London property values on the tax.
  Many of the people in higher-banded properties in Hackney, Greenwich, Southwark and other London

  949
  boroughs will be council tenants who have no choice about where they live. They have to go where they are put and accept the property that they are offered. If that property has a high theoretical market value, they will have to pay a high council tax. The only answer that Ministers give to this problem is the celebrated dampener. It protects, to some extent, those in upper bands, but only at the price of imposing larger burdens on those in the lower bands.
  I was interested to read the Conservative party's research department document on the Bill, dated 26 April this year. It said about the impact of the council tax:
  "There will be no return to the very big bills that characterised the rates."
  With considerable courage, it went on to say:
  "Indeed, the Government believes that only those who can afford to are likely to have to pay more in council tax than in Community Charge."
  Armed with that brave statement, I looked at the impact of the council tax on my constituents in the London borough of Greenwich. The Government have helpfully provided us with figures showing how the council tax can be worked out on the basis of this year's council spending. It makes frightening reading for my constituents. In the London borough of Greenwich, the average home is in band E.
  Couples with a property in that average band would this year have been paying £213 more than they are paying in poll tax. Only 2 per cent. of households in Greenwich would pay less than the sum that they pay in poll tax. Single people would be even worse off. Those in average property in band E would be paying double what they are now paying in poll tax. That is £547 compared with £242. No single person in Greenwich would pay less than they are paying now. For many of my consituents, the switch from poll tax to council tax will be turning a crisis into a disaster.
  It is not only Greenwich that has high-value property, but I have no doubt that Ministers will say that the outturn lies entirely with the borough's spending. That is true because Greenwich is spending 14·1 per cent. in excess of its standard spending assessment and grants will continue to be based on the SSA. It has been said already that the system is riddled with anomalies.
  Does any local authority accept that its SSA accurately reflects its need to spend? I have never accepted that civil servants in the Department of the Environment in Marsham street, however sophisticated their computer programmes may be, can decide better than those on the spot what a local authority needs to spend.
  I shall give one example of anomalies in the SSA system. The child populations of the London boroughs of Greenwich, Lewisham and Wandsworth are almost identical, yet the social service SSA per child is set at £271, £437 and £514 respectively. How can anyone accept that the methodology and the system are fair and reasonable when there is that sort of variation?
  That leads me to capping. I speak about it with some authority because the London borough of Greenwich—I represent one of the constituencies within its area, and that is where I live—must be in the "Guinness Book of Records". It has succeeded in getting itself capped every year since capping began. It is the only local authority in the length and breadth of the land that can claim such a record. We know something about capping in Greenwich.
  950
  I accept that the system limits total spending, but it does so at a pretty high level. It does not, however, protect local people from the impact of spending curbs.
  The local authority has not been encouraged by capping to make itself so efficient that it can deliver good-quality services at a lower price within the spending limit. Indeed, the reverse has happened. Sensitive services have been cut to some of the most needy groups to enable the borough to make the political point of blaming the Government. That was entirely predictable. Unplanned cuts have been made at the last minute wherever they could be made quickly. As a result, day centres for the handicapped have been closed, the home bathing service has been scrapped and home help services have been cut. Basic services, including the provision of public toilets, have been brought to an end. Grass in parks has not been cut.
  Throughout, the council has said, "It's not our fault, guy. It is not us. This is the result of poll tax capping. It is that rotten Government who have made us do all these terrible things." That is the basic problem with capping. It undermines the accountability of local authorities. It gives a poor local authority a perfect excuse to shift the blame off its shoulders and place it on someone else's. In a borough such as Greenwich the result is the worst of all possible worlds—high bills and a poor quality of service.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is significant that Greenwich, which has a Labour council, seems unable to elect any Labour Members? Does that suggest to him that the Labour-controlled council of Greenwich may be the borough's greatest asset?
  Mr. Cartwright: That thought often strikes me when I return home after an evening's canvassing. I think that I should sink to my knees and offer a prayer of gratitude to the London borough of Greenwich. Whenever I think I am in trouble, another inspired piece of lunacy comes forward which guarantees that I find more support, especially on council estates. Nevertheless, it is monstrous that we should have a capping system. It produces high taxation and a poor quality of service.
  The Bill's epitaph may be "Another Chance Missed". When the Secretary of State for the Environment began this round of local government changes, I thought that at last someone had understood the fundamental error that had found its way into every previous attempt at reform for the past 30 years. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to want to try to find changes that would stick and that would bring some much-needed stability to local government. Once again, however, complex legislation is being driven through the House without any search for consensus and with all the risk that such a speedy process involves.
  Once again, it seems that Ministers are convinced that they have found a magic solution to an age-old problem. Once again, we are changing local government finance in isolation from its functions and structures. I do not believe that the proposed tax will turn out to be any better or any more popular than the poll tax. I do not believe that it will work. We have been round the course many times before and I suspect that it will not be long before we have to go round it yet again.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Bill. As the House will be aware, one part of it refers exclusively to Scotland. Unlike many others, I have no complaints. I think that we have been presented with a sensible way in which to legislate. Where there is commonality throughout the United Kingdom, Scottish sections should be included in English Bills where that is possible. That removes much of the girning and grieving that is often the result of the timing of legislation rather than its content.
  When examining local government financing we must consider the history of local government if we are to understand why we are where we are now. Earlier in the proceedings I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to remind him of the problems that were caused by the Labour Government. I did not do so accidentally. Anyone who remembers the trust that used to exist between local government and central Government will realise that that trust began to vanish rapidly during the administration of the Labour Government and especially during the winter of discontent.
  It is not surprising that that trust disappeared. During the period to which I have referred, local authorities were upset because that Government had, properly, in an attempt to control the economy, decided to reduce local government funding and, therefore, local government expenditure. A new set of problems was created and the trust that had previously existed, which all Governments had enjoyed, began to vanish. Against that background, the incoming Conservative Government of 1979 found that Conservative-controlled authorities had followed substantially the edicts and wishes of central Government and had restrained their expenditure, while many Labour-controlled authorities had become profligate to offset the impact of the reduction in support from central Government. The Labour authorities had decided to enable that to happen by increasing the rating burden.
  When examining local government spending in 1979 it is essential to understand that central Government had to control the national economy. That was especially important during 1977 to 1979, when the country was rapidly going bankrupt and it was necessary, at the behest of the International Monetary Fund, to introduce measures that had a substantial impact on local government funding and expenditure. That was certainly so in Scotland, the area about which I shall speak.
  When the Conservative Government came into office in 1979, there was a Conservative district council in Perth and Kinross and a Labour district council in Dundee. The Dundee council proceeded to spend in every way that it could and, accordingly, pushed up the rates. As a result, the Government had to introduce measures to control local government expenditure. The blunt instrument of cutting central Government grants meant that the pain had to be shared, but the view was taken that the measure should be implemented. Therefore, Perth and Kinross had to share some of the pain with Dundee. At the time, that appeared to be unjust and unfair and my view has not altered. It is sad that that lack of trust between central and local government has resulted in the councillors no longer running the councils. The truth is that the chief executives and the executives run the councils. In Scotland, the councils are substantially being run by NALGO.
  952
  We must find ways and means to achieve a balance between expenditure and accountability. I am not 100 per cent. enthusiastic about every dot and comma in the Bill, but I have been assured that I will have an opportunity in Committee to speak about the matters that concern me.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walker: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I collaborate regularly.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that he disagreed with Dundee council's decision to make up for the spending spree of the former Tory-controlled council, which was an attempt to bribe the electorate by spending all the reserves, with the intention of ensuring that the services provided would be reflected in the rates charged. He lauded the actions of the Angus and Perth district councils which did not follow that line. Would he tell the House who has run Dundee, Angus and Perth district councils since then?
  Mr. Walker: During the period to which I referred, Dundee council was controlled by the Labour party. I stuck to specific areas and times. The hon. Gentleman is right that Angus district council is currently controlled by the SNP. He and I agree that it is most unsuitable to run anything, especially as it has no respect for the rule of law. Yet again, the SNP is not represented in the Chamber, which is usual when we are debating important Scottish legislation. Indeed, the SNP is even more part time than the Liberal Democrats, who I accused of being part time only the other day.
  Although the hon. Gentleman and I rarely agree on political philosophy and thought, I respect his views. He is one of the few people whose views I do respect, because he holds them honourably and he does not trim them for personal advantage. Dundee is fortunate to have a man of his integrity representing it.
  Mr. Maxton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to people not trimming their views. I hope that he will face the fact that he was one of the most loyal and ardent supporters of the poll tax. We should be grateful to know why he is now supporting at least the principle of a property tax. We should like to know how he intends to vote tonight. Quite clearly, this Bill should be called the "Abolition of the Poll Tax Bill". As he was such an ardent supporter of the poll tax, I wonder whether tonight he will vote "Aye" or "No" for this Bill.
  Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to put my views on record. He should have at least done me the credit of reading my paper, in which I made proposals for the structure and financing of local government. That is what fundamentally influences my attitude tonight. The Government took on board substantially what was contained in my—paper[Interruption.] I do not claim that that was by design; it could have been by accident—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. My attitude to the Bill is conditioned by the proposals and objectives that I put forward.
  I want to retain the community charge, but at much lower levels. I want to resolve the problems that resulted from the rebates. My paper dealt with those issues, but that is one aspect that the Government did not take on

  953
  board. However, because they took on board substantial parts of my paper and because I am an honourable man, I feel that the least that I can say is that, although there are some matters with which I am unhappy, I support what they are attempting to do.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has let the Minister off the hook. It is a mighty relief to the Minister to think that the country believes that the Bill is the brainchild of the hon. Gentleman—if that is a correct description of the hon. Gentleman. The Minister has been getting the blame for it for the last six months.
  Mr. Walker: It is easy to see that the hon. Gentleman has the "about to retire" feeling. He has lost his edge and his sharpness. There was a time when the shafts of his interventions would have hurt. His shafts tonight were wide of the mark. I do not lay claim to inventing the Bill. I am explaining why it would be churlish of me not to recognise that the Government have accepted my proposals for resolving the problems of the community charge.
  The point that I was making is fundamental. In the absence of trust, and where councillors are not really in control of a local authority, much of what they do is restricted by the wishes of organised labour. If the Government of the day, regardless of political complexion, are to control the national economy, they must have levers to control local government expenditure. That was why I intervened on the hon. Member for Garscadden. It was the blunt instruments used by the previous Labour Government that led to the winter of discontent. Labouv employees and Labour councillors lost faith and confidence in their Government and the trust that had previously existed was broken—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like it because it is true. Central and local government used to work in tandem and harmony, but that disappeared.
  It is because of that history that the House again faces the problem of what to do about the funding and financing of local government. The fact that the local element of the tax which will be met by the community is 11 per cent. of expenditure means that the tax can be contained at levels that everyone can accept. That is important. The problem with the community charge was substantially the level of that charge on individuals. That is why I and others suggested ideas to deal with the problem.
  Some people in Scotland, including myself, feel that any tax related directly to property is not based on a sound principle. However, if we can keep the tax at a low enough percentage of the whole, it will go some way to resolving the problem. That is the message that I want to leave with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a minute to my hon. and learned Friend, whose views I hold very dear. [Interruption.] The Opposition find it funny, but I would never dream of looking into anything to do with Scottish legal matters without first consulting my hon. and learned Friend. There is no question in my mind but that if one wants the best advice that is the place to go.
  The important thing to recognise is that any tax will be acceptable as long as it is kept at acceptable levels.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am most obliged to my hon. Friend for his compliment. However, let me advise him that if he ever comes to me for advice he must realise that he is coming to a simple fellow who sees his problem simply.
  Mr. Maxton: And charges high fees.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: And never receives them.
  Let me ask my hon. Friend a simple question. To steal only 11 per cent. of an old woman's possessions is no justification for stealing. How can my hon. Friend justify us going back to a tax on a capital asset called a home which does not bear an income and which bears no relationship to the services that it receives or does not receive, or to the income of the occupants, however many or however few? How can he justify going back to the wrongness of that simple concept?
  Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for putting his finger on the flaw in any property tax. I do not argue with him on the principle. However, I hope that I have made my position clear. As a member of the Standing Committee I shall have the opportunity—I hope that other hon. Members who will be commenting on the Bill tonight will volunteer to serve on the Committee—to address that aspect of the Bill. I promise my hon. and learned Friend that I shall not be silent and he will know from my track record that I am not likely to be.
  Dr. John Reid: In the spirit of collaboration which is pervading the evening, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having disclaimed the authorship of the tax which earlier I thought he was claiming. That could have been the worst mistake of his political career. Let me ask him an equally simple question to the one asked by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). The hon. Gentleman has said that a vital feature of the tax is its reasonable level. I should have thought that any tax passed at a reasonable level relative to the ability to pay would have been acceptable. But since the hon. Gentleman has decided to distinguish between the two, can he answer this question? Given the same level of reasonableness of the council tax that he is espousing tonight and the poll tax to which he was previously committed, which would he have preferred? If it is the poll tax, and he assumes that the same amount of money could have brought the poll tax to a reasonable level, why is he not voting against the council tax tonight?
  Mr. Walker: Obviously I failed earlier when I explained that, because I am a sensible and reasonable chap and because the Government have substantially taken on hoard what was contained in my local government paper, which includes the structure of local government and other matters, not just finance, and which I believe was important, although I personally would have preferred to retain the community charge, which was never a poll tax—I made that clear to anyone who wished to discuss the matter with me—it perhaps should have been but it was not, it was a community charge—[Interruption.] It is not funny. It had nothing to do with the poll tax.
  Local government in Scotland has seen a 9·6 per cent. increase in real terms in grants received from central Government over and above inflation since 1979, so all the nonsense that we hear about cuts must be properly addressed. Local government, at the behest of NALGO, is

  955
  saying that it will not be able to cope in the year ahead because central Government are cutting its support too much. The facts do not stand up to that. There has been a 9·6 per cent.increase over and above the rate of inflation. During debates on the Bill the Government must make clear the additional support that has come from central taxation in real terms so that we can destroy the myth that somehow there have been cuts. The only real cuts that ever occurred in Government expenditure occurred under the previous Labour Government.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. John Battle: In the last twelve and a half years the British people have become used to the Government's approach of attempting to govern by image management. They are getting used to the Government introducing instant paper initiatives which, with regard to housing, health and local government, are sometimes not even worthy of the back of the envelope on which they are written. There is an illusion of substance, but often their proposals never address the real issues.
  No member of the Government has a greater reputation for that strategy than the Secretary of State for the Environment. In his previous incarnation in that job in the early 1980s, he earned his spurs by throwing acronyms at inner cities, publishing Government press releases on urban programme monitoring initiatives, urban development grant schemes and city action areas, all of which fizzled out once the headlines had faded away. It was all done for local effect to create impressions of competence. Now, after twelve and a half years of that carry-on, the British people see through what is put before them.
  We were told earlier this year that the Government had turned round completely and abolished the poll tax. During the local council elections I can even recall Conservative candidates putting out leaflets telling people that they would not be getting another bill at the beginning of this financial year. There was even the view that, because the delay to those bills had been deliberately engineered by the Government by changing the rules so often, people would not get those bills until the election was over and so would believe that the poll tax had gone. Sadly, some did, only to discover a few weeks later another poll tax bill.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Before polling day in May this year, the Chelmsford local authority was most anxious that those bills should be on the doorstep and, as a result of the £140 reduction in the community charge, we saw for the first time in eight years the Conservative party taking control of Chelmsford borough council and driving out what is now the opposition party.
  Mr. Battle: II is interesting that the hon. Gentleman refers to the £140 reduction being received by the people of Chelmsford. Elsewhere in the country people did not receive that rebate. It was a case of buying votes in some areas to protect Conservative seats but making sure that other areas went down. On television and in the media the Government created the pretence that they had abolished the poll tax there and then. But the people were not conned by that argument because the British people are not stupid. They were not prepared to forget who introduced the poll tax in the first place. The chaos caused by administrative
  956
  changes that were imposed on local authorities only weeks before the end of the financial year meant that only a few could send out their bills on time.
  The Government promised that everyone would receive a £140 reduction in their poll tax bills. The problem is that the Government often do not associate local government with social security provision. Because of the reduction in transitional payments, those receiving social security benefit—particularly pensioners—did not receive the full £140 refund. That is the reality; but the Conservatives were prepared to propagate the myth.
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has given the impression that some councils were not able to reduce the charge by £140. Does he acknowledge that all headline community charges were reduced by that amount?
  Mr. Battle: It is all headlines for the present Government. There is headline inflation, and now there is a headline community charge. What the £140 headline meant in practice was that many people in receipt of benefit would not actually receive the money. That was an election con. It was a hollow promise, especially for those who bore the harshest consequences of the poll tax burden.
  The Government have also blindly refused to tackle the basic injustice that has been inflicted on those who cannot pay. They still insist that everyone contribute a minimum of 20 per cent.; they do not relate the charge to people's ability to pay. The 20 per cent. must be paid regardless of income—or, more precisely, regardless of the lack of income.
  I remember the political abuse that accompanied the introduction of the poll tax. Conservative Members tried to create the impression that some people were simply refusing to pay, describing those who receive 100 per cent. rebates as scroungers. The Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the purpose of the tax was to ensure that everyone paid something, regardless of whether they had any money with which to pay. I am glad to see that, in this Bill, the Government have finally conceded the fundamental injustice of the 20 per cent. rule in principle, and have accepted the idea of 100 per cent. rebates.
  If the 20 per cent. rule is indeed unjust, however, why can it not be dispensed with now? That would take the pressure from the housing benefit crisis that most authorities are experiencing because of the link between housing benefit assessments and the 20 per cent. minimum. Such a provision should surely be contained in clause 1 of the Bill. It would lift repression and injustice from some of the poorest members of the community, who are currently paying the price of the poll tax experiment.
  A Sunday Times article, headed
  "How we've been landed with a new gentry",
  analysed the new squirearchy, and featured a picture of the Secretary of State for the Environment at home wearing plus-fours. The article told us:
  "So much does Heseltine play the patrician that he is paying this year's poll tax for his 20 staff."
  Why does the Secretary of State feel that it is his duty to relieve his staff of that burden, when it was he who imposed it on them in the first place? The Government are prepared to give—inch by inch—only when put under pressure by Labour and the country.
  Not only are the poor paying the price of the poll tax; it is an inefficient policy to maintain the 20 per cent. rule. It costs local authorities more to collect the minimum charge than they receive by collecting it. According to the

  957
  Audit Commission, for every £15 that authorities spend in collecting the 20 per cent., they receive only £6 in return. The waste and inefficiency that the Government ascribe to local authorities is occurring at the centre, and is quite deliberate.
  The Audit Commission predicts that, by the end of 1992, the introduction of the poll tax will have cost the country £19 billion. This afternoon, the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke of local authorities' "insatiable extravagance"; but, with the £19 billion that has been spent on a wasteful experiment, we could have tackled all the public and private housing problems in my city of Leeds. We could have dealt with all the derelict land in the inner city, regenerated the local economy, rebuilt and replaced all the older schools in the city, provided an adequate number of home helps for the elderly and ill, introduced measures to make sense of community care, built sheltered housing and day-care facilities, set up an integrated transport policy and provided nursery education for every child under five—and we could still have had money left over. That £19 billion could have been devoted to the real, practical, down-to-earth problems that face local authorities. But, instead of financing much-needed action, the money was spent on the introduction of an instrument to repress local government and reduce its ability to meet local needs.
  Clause 54 of the Bill retains the draconian capping powers that were applied to the poll tax. Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is no longer in the Chamber, the Government are continuing to reduce the amount available to local authorities. They have reversed the previous arrangement under which 60 per cent. of local government resources were contributed centrally. Now, central Government give local authorities only 40 per cent. of what they need, and 60 per cent. must be raised locally. Authorities must squeeze another 20 per cent. out of the poll tax system without capping, simply to stand still. Local budget settlements have yet to be set against the council tax measure; the evidence demonstrates that, so far, standard spending assessments do not measure up to the real needs of the community.
  Will the council tax be any fairer than the poll tax? The top band covers property worth £240,000 or more—my constituency does not contain many of those, of course. Although such properties must be worth at least eight times as much as those in the lowest band, their occupants will pay only three times as much as the occupants of properties in the lowest band. I see no redistributed justice there. This is just another hotch-potch provision—another pretence that the Government are introducing a measure of equality.
  What will be the local impact of the council tax? Leeds city council cannot forecast that, nor can the Government, because there is so little detail in the Bill. The Department of the Environment knows the number and valuation of the properties in Leeds, but the figures are bound to be affected by the number of single people in the area, the number of people who will receive the 25 per cent. discount and the categories—students, for instance—who will be disregarded. If the local authority cannot anticipate the position, it will be unable to work out its income under the new tax, or the natural impact on local people. How can
  958
  the Department of the Environment know who lives alone in Leeds, or who is eligible for a discount, unless the local authority can give it the information? Yet the local authority does not have that information.
  When the poll tax was introduced, we discovered that registers were costly and difficult to maintain. Between April 1990—when the tax was introduced in Leeds—and September this year, 534,000 amendments have been made to the register. We do not want to go through that nonsense again, but the Bill does not make clear what the position will be.
  According to the crude figures that the Government have announced, a single person living in a property in Leeds that costs more than £68,000—band C—will have to pay more than he or she pays now in poll tax. So much for helping single elderly persons living on their own. Many of my constituents will end up subsidising and helping the rich elsewhere.
  The Government claim that they are consulting people all the time. When the Secretary of State visited Leeds in February, the local authority advised him not to mix a property tax and a head tax; it would be a nightmare scenario that would cause administrative chaos. If the Bill goes through in its present form, it will be impossible to implement that proposal. That is why we should not allow the Bill to proceed. However, it seems that, sadly, the Secretary of State overrules any consultations that there may have been, in just the same way as he is prepared to overrule genuine consultation here.
  Water metering is being introduced compulsorily by water authorities, such as Yorkshire Water. They now insist that all properties built after April 1990 should be metered. The argument is that they cannot refer to rateable values, which were abolished when the poll tax was introduced. The Government propose to return to rateable values, so that argument no longer holds good. Can the Minister assure me that residents in new houses will have a choice and will be able to say to the water authority that they do not want their water supply to be metered? The newly-privatised water authorities forced them to have meters, regardless of their circumstances.
  It is still unclear how students in private accommodation—few students in Leeds are in halls of residence—will be treated, or how student nurses—there are many in Leeds, which has a large teaching hospital—will be treated. Schedule I defines the word "student." When it comes to nurses, it all depends on whether they are on Project 2000 courses and receive a bursary or whether they are on conventional nursing courses and receive a training allowance. The incomes of the two groups of student nurses may be similar, but the Project 2000 students will have to pay 20 per cent. of the tax while the other student nurses pay the full 100 per cent. Although those nurses may be working together making the same beds and caring for the same patients, when they come off duty one nurse will pay the full council tax while the other will pay only 20 per cent.
  As for joint and several liability, will that not live on after the death of the poll tax? Women had to pay their husbands' bills, and vice versa. Under the new council tax and what is quaintly called in clause 6 the "hierarchy of liability", the hierarchy will consist of 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 exactly the same way as couples

  959
  living together are held to be responsible for each other's liabilities. That is unfair and unjust. It will also require checks to be made, leading to the return of the iniquitous snooping system in order to decide who is liable to pay.
  On close examination, it is evident that the Bill is a hotch-potch. It is a shoddy Bill. It was interesting to hear Conservative Members claim that they are against the poll tax now and that the best thing to have happened since the invention of sliced bread is the council tax. If the Bill is so good, why do the Government have no confidence in it? Why are they not confident enough to discuss it? Why do they have to bludgeon it through Committee? Why are they going to guillotine it in Committee without allowing proper time for discussion?
  When the Prime Minister became the newly elected leader of the Conservative party, he said in the Daily Mail that the party had been bounced without thinking into the poll tax. In this debate, we are in danger of repeating the poll tax tragedy, this time as a farce. The Bill is not worth discussing further and should be rejected by the House. In the meantime, the reality of the dreadful poll tax will, sadly, have to drag on for the people of this country until there is a change of Government.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: I knew the new hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) as a Member of the European Parliament, where he was hard-working, conscientious and a man of principle. I welcome his election to the House. He provides one of the vagaries of political life, in that in 1984 he was deselected as a European candidate because he believed in the European Community, whereas he was imposed as the Labour party's candidate a few weeks ago——
  Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that a new Member of Parliament who has not yet made his maiden speech should be attacked in this way by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)? A Member who has not yet made his maiden speech should not even be mentioned, far less attacked in the way that the hon. Gentleman is cynically going about it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not unusual for a new Member to be welcomed, despite the fact that he may not yet have contributed to our proceedings.
  Mr. Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for those words of wisdom. If to tax and to please, no more than to love and be wise, is not given to man, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on seeking to do the impossible. When I tell people that I spent 10 years in the European Parliament, they tell me that I was a hedonist. When I tell them that I spent 17 years in local government, they tell me that I was a masochist. I suspect that I was a masochist twice over.
  There is no doubt that the old rating system was based on the nebulous concept of a fair market rent. There has been no free market in residential property since the early years of this century. It was decreed that the old rating system should seek to produce a value based on a free market in property, but the House destroyed that free market in property during the first world war. That is why valuation, under the old rating system, was a most inexact science. That is why it had to be abolished.
  960
  Capital values at least have the benefit of being related to a market, although I am sure that many owners will seek to convince their bank managers that their property should be in band H while they seek to convince the rating authorities that their property should really be in band F.
  During my 17 years in local government I served as the chairman of the finance committee in Ealing. We were able to boast of having set the lowest rates in west London and of providing sufficiently good services to attract the Leader of the Opposition to Conservative-controlled Ealing from Liberal-controlled Richmond. As a man who spent 17 years in local government I have a sense of shame that yet again there has to be another attempt to reform local government finance, due to the incompetence, extravagance and doctrinaire opposition to competitive tendering of Labour councils.
  If Labour councils had listened to the advice of the Audit Commission, if historically they had collected rents, rates and the community charge, we should not he faced with our present difficulties over local government finance. Labour councils, throughout the length and breadth of the country, have delighted in presenting high bills to ratepayers and charge payers and in providing poor services. They are renowned for planning delays, empty council homes and poor education results. All too often Labour councillors dream of monuments to municipal munificence—which, incidentally, bear the name of the councillor who had that dream.
  I congratulate the Government on accepting the case for regional banding as between Scotland, Wales and England. My hon. Friend the Minister of State represents an outer London borough and he would be surprised if I did not at least briefly mention the position in the London borough of Barnet. Under the Government's proposals, taxpayers in Barnet will pay a lower tax than they paid under the discredited rating system which the Government abolished and they will pay less than they would under the Labour party's proposals.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to study closely the problems that affect house owners in the south-east and in London. There are great regional variations in house prices, illustrated by the fact that in the London borough of Barnet 1 per cent. of properties will be in bands A and B, 6 per cent. in the three lowest bands and 46 per cent. in the top two bands.
  Some people in the Labour party believe that high house prices mean high living standards and affluence. However, the net monthly mortgage repayment in London is £539; it is £478 in the south-east, £263 in Yorkshire and Humberside and £255 in the Northern region. Monthly mortgage payments in London and the south are twice those in Yorkshire, Humberside and the north.
  I hope that if my right hon. and hon. Friends cannot accept the case for regional banding for London and the south, they will reconsider the problems that the revenue support grant can produce for London. I am one of those who believe that the revenue support grant makes the Schleswig-Holstein question a model of clarity. There is an undoubted risk that the high bandings that apply in London and the south-east could lead to an outflow of grant. That is terribly important because under the council tax 85 per cent. of local expenditure will be met centrally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) pointed out yesterday, it is important that we get the grant for London and the south-east correct. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give some

  961
  commitment to that this evening. We look forward to a generous settlement in a few weeks' time when he might deal with the London Regional Transport anomaly which is afflicting us as Members representing outer London.
  It is important to remember that there is a tight timetable for the introduction of the new tax. The difficulties associated with the introduction of the community charge were not caused by the time taken for the Bill to pass through the House, but by the fact that a large number of regulations relating to the charge were passed close to its introduction.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister give us some assurance that regulations relating to the council tax will be in place by the end of this year? Local authorities will need a substantial amount of time to ensure that their information technology is correct and is in place to deal with the council tax. It was not in place to deal with the community charge.
  Mr. Battle: If that is to be the case, both systems will have to run parallel, which will be an extra burden on local authorities. So far the Government have not even given a commitment to reimburse the full cost of that.
  Mr. Marshall: Of course, there will be the process of introducing the council tax as there would be if we listened to the Labour party and introduced its tax. The trouble with the Labour system is that it would spend many more years trying to introduce it before it could get rid of the poll tax.
  I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to capping a large number of local authorities as part of the introduction of the council tax. Every change in local government finance, whether by revaluation or the introduction of the community charge, has been accompanied by a large element of extravagance by many local authorities.
  Mr. Allen McKay: There are about 400 local authorities. How many is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
  Mr. Marshall: It would be fair to say that a substantial number would be included. In my estimation, the number of extravagant local authorities——
  Mr. McKay: How many?
  Mr. Marshall: I am answering the question.
  Mr. McKay: The hon. Gentleman does not know the answer.
  Mr. Marshall: The number of extravagant local authorities would be more than 100.
  There are many benefits of compulsory competitive tendering in London, but many local authorities resisted it. The Minister told me the other week that compulsory competitive tendering can produce savings of 8 per cent. in street cleaning in London. Why did not local authorities do that a long time ago? All the authorities that refused to indulge were extravagant. They were putting the jobs of members of the National Union of Public Employees before the good of charge payers and of the local authority. Those authorities that indulged in competitive
  962
  tendering and got the jobs done more quickly were able to expand the level of services and reduce the cost to the charge payer.
  Mr. William O'Brien: What about the quality of service?
  Mr. Marshall: One need not assume that the quality of service is lower——
  Mr. O'Brien: What happened?
  Mr. Marshall: I am telling the hon. Gentleman what happened. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment presented an award to the best street cleaner in London. He came from an authority which put the service out to compulsory competitive tender some time ago. The best street cleaner in London does not work in a direct labour department in Hackney, Lambeth or Lewisham. He was working for Westminster council, an authority which went out to tender some time ago. Whose streets are cleaner—Westminster's or Camden's? The answer is Westminster's.
  Compulsory competitive tendering provides better services at lower cost to the charge payer in London. Therefore, many local authorities which, as a matter of principle, refused to go out to competitive tender were extravagant high-cost local authorities, unconcerned about the good of their citizens and of the charge payer.
  Mr. McKay: My authority went out to tender to test prices long before the House thought about it.
  Mr. Marshall: I must congratulate that authority on doing what so many other Labour authorities refused to do. All too often Labour councils were reluctant to go out to competitive tender.
  I once sat on a Labour-controlled council which went out to tender and would not accept the lowest tender because it did not come from a direct labour department.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: What does my hon. Friend think of the actions of Derbyshire county council, which refused one low-cost tender because it came in the wrong coloured envelope and ended up accepting a higher tender from its own work force at an enormous extra cost to charge payers?
  Mr. Marshall: Am I allowed to use swear words in the House? I suspect not. All that I can say is that the actions of Councillor Bookbinder are so incredible as to defy belief. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) is a lucky man. Councillor Bookbinder was his opponent at the last election, if I am not mistaken, and I am sure that he at least doubled my hon. Friend's majority.
  Mr. Oppenheim: He trebled it.
  Mr. Marshall: The level of arrears of community charge is a side issue connected to the introduction of the new tax. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell the House that there will be no amnesty for poll tax dodgers and that however high and mighty—be they Members of the House, Labour councillors or whoever—no one will receive an amnesty for refusing to pay the community charge. As for old-age pensioners, one such Member of the House was slow to pay her community charge bill to the London borough of Barnet, but then a friend paid it for her.

  963
  Some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) have suggested that central Government should pay more of the cost of local authority expenditure than the Bill provides for. Although superficially attractive, that would present a huge constitutional problem. If central Government are to pay even more of the cost, there must be greater control over the activities of every local authority. It would be a question, not of capping a minority, but of central Government determining how much should be spent by each local authority and how it should be spent. I do not want central Government to say how many teachers should be at a school in Barnet or how much should be spent on books in Barnet. I much prefer the system of devolved power to individual schools either by their becoming grant-maintained schools or through the local management of schools. If 100 per cent. of local authority expenditure were financed centrally, it would be disastrous for the future of local government and for the linkage of powers between central Government and local authorities.
  Later this evening we shall debate a guillotine motion on the Bill, which will provide a chance for a constructive, positive Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has always shown himself to be a listening Minister. Earlier in the debate we were told how he listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is no longer here. I hope that in Committee he will listen to the pleas of Members representing Greater London and the south of England because they are dear to my heart and may to some extent be dear to his.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I have listened with great interest, if some difficulty, to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). First he supported the legislation and then we heard his special pleading for his constituency. That is precisely what is wrong with the legislation. There are so many anomalies that of the 650 Members who make up this House of Commons, including Mr. Speaker himself, each one of us could present the Government with a list of the anomalies in the Bill the length of our arm.
  We are discussing a Bill that will never be implemented. There are two reasons for that. The principal reason is that the Government will he defeated in four or five months' time and be replaced by a Labour Government who will take the Bill off the statute book as soon as they come to power. Even if that does not happen—I am realistic enough to know the vagaries of elections—the legislation will not be implemented in the form in which the House is discussing it tonight. That is my forecast, although I will not be here to see it unfold. The evidence on which I base it is that, within three weeks of the White Paper being introduced in the middle of this year, there were 15 announcements of changes to the proposals now in the legislation. Even since the legislation has been published, it has been made clear that the Government will introduce amendments in Committee—that against the background of the guillotine timetable under which the Committee will operate.
  To my colleagues on this side of the House I say that I shall not object too much to the guillotine for one simple reason: I hope that they will take it as a model for the in-coming Labour Government. I hope that they will use
  964
  the guillotine procedure when they deal with the damaging legislation on the health service, the poll tax and many other matters that Conservative Governments have passed through this House during the past 13 years.
  As I shall leave the House at the general election, one of the saddest features of this debate is that the Bill is one more attack on local councillors. In more than 20 years here I have seen many pieces of major legislation which were designed to attack the standing of local councillors. I do not care whether they are Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democratic, independent or, in Scotland, Scottish National councillors. All those who stand for election submit themselves on a sincere platform and with a will to serve the electors from whom they ask for support.
  When the hon. Member for Hendon, South attacks Labour councils as he did so vehemently, it is almost as if they were not elected. People voted for them. He must have fresh in his memory the fact that in May this year, not many months ago, the Conservative party lost 500 seats in England and Wales in the local government elections. Despite all the criticisms that he has levelled at Labour-controlled local authorities, it is an inescapable fact that in England, Wales and Scotland Labour-controlled authorities are there by virtue of the democratic decision of the people. That is how it should be but, of course, that is not what the Government want.
  If I may, I shall for a minute trace the history of attacks on local government, the constant reorganisation of local government and the uncertainties created for councillors in my time here. In 1972 local government reorganisation in England and Wales set up the Greater London council and the metropolitan borough councils, and brought changes to all local government. It was quickly followed in 1973 by the reorganisation of local government in Scotland. At that time there were also two major housing acts: the Housing Finance Act 1972 for England and Wales and the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972—the Rent Acts as they were referred to. Later legislation abolished major elements of the local government structure that had been set up under the 1972 Act. The metropolitan borough councils were abolished, not because they were not doing a job but because they were Labour. The authorities were abolished to silence them.
  I think that it was the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—I apologise if I am misrepresenting him—who said that councillors no longer run councils and that councils are run by officials. The simple explanation for that is that when local government was reorganised we reduced by 50 per cent. the number of elected members. In other words, we reduced the democratic element by 50 per cent. It was as plain as a pikestaff, as sure as night follows day, that the bureaucratic element would double. When people complain that local government is being run by bureaucrats, it is simply because there is not enough democratic input.
  I do not know what form the reorganisation of local government or local government finance will take in the years to come. However, I do not waver from my belief that the democratic input in local government must increase not only in Scotland—I say that in the presence of the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—but throughout England and Wales. If the House moves further down the road of bureaucracy, all it will do is store up trouble for itself.

  965
  We are now faced with another piece of major legislation that represents another attack on local government and yet another major reorganisation of its structure—the seventh we have had in the past 20 years. How on earth can any organisation be efficient when it is continually subjected to the type of reorganisation that the House has inflicted upon local government in the past 20 years? There has been no cohesion or consistency of approach.
  By and large, councillors do everyday jobs and devote some of their leisure time to try to make conditions better for the people in their locality. It is unacceptable to expect such councillors to adjust to the changes that are imposed upon them by the House in such a draconian way and with such monotonous consistency.
  The council tax Bill has its origins in the demise of the former Prime Minister and the loss of 500 seats in the local government elections. It was cobbled together in a hurry, as is obvious from reading it. The hon. Member for Hendon, South has already demonstrated, and far more ably than I could, the deficiencies and anomalies in the Bill.
  If any local authority had squandered the amount of money that Ministers are guilty of squandering on the poll tax in the past four years there can be absolutely no doubt that councillors would have been surcharged under local government legislation. How can one try to explain to a councillor how on earth inefficient Ministers can get away with squandering millions of pounds of taxpayers' money? However, if that same councillor is "seen" to squander between £40,000 and £50,000, the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for the Environment would be on his neck like a ton of bricks. The councillor would be surcharged for seemingly squandering that money. However, the real guilty people are Ministers who have squandered billions of pounds of taxpayers' money, but they have got off scot-free.
  Those same Ministers then come to the House and with brass neck defend the introduction of a council tax with the same conviction with which they condemned the principle of a property tax when the poll tax was introduced. Recently the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State went around Scotland attacking the concept of a property-based tax. The Minister said that we would never return to a property-based tax. In fact, the Minister is on record as saying that just three years ago, but the backbone of the Bill is a return to a property-based tax.
  I believe that the rating system of England and the revaluations that should have taken place, but never did, were the basis of the problems in England. However, I bow to the superior knowledge of English colleagues in all parts of the House when it comes to the English system.
  In Scotland, however, at the time of the 1983 revaluation three factors combined, the effects of which no local taxation system could have withstood—not even the Liberals' proposal for a local income tax. The first factor was the reduction of 12 per cent. in the rate support grant from the Government to Scottish local authorities. The then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), directed the assessors to switch the burden from industry to the commercial and domestic ratepayers. That was followed by a dramatic
  966
  increase in the property values valued by the assessors. No system of local government taxation could have withstood those three factors and their combined effect.
  What did the Government do? To try to repair the damage that they had done they switched the burden to the commercial and domestic ratepayer. The Government told the assessors to make that switch and they then introduced a system whereby any ratepayer, commercial or domestic, whose rates had increased by a factor of three could get rating relief. A small number of people qualified for such relief, but the Government wondered at the outburst that followed. As a result of that we got the ill-thought-out and ill-fated poll tax.
  I am a devotee of the rating system—I speak for myself when I say that—and at the time of the introduction of the poll tax I do not believe that a sufficiently vigorous defence of the rating system was made. Those of us who supported the rating system failed miserably to argue for its retention and development.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman as I respect the fact that he has been a Member of the House for 20 years and a member of a Government for five years with special responsibility for devolution. The hon. Gentleman understands the working of Government and the inter-relationship with local government.
  What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of the current attempts to reorganise local government? I share his frustration at the fact that for many years local government has been considered from a financial point of view only. Local government finance has been reorganised many times, but now the Government are considering that together with local government structure and its functions. The Government are also considering the internal management of local government—how and who makes the decisions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such an approach is likely to be more constructive?
  Mr. Ewing: To be honest, I would have to study the hon. Gentleman's question before I answered. To study local government finance and local government structure at the same time is not a new concept. The Layfield commission sat at the same time as the Wheatley commission in Scotland—one studied local government finance, the other studied local government structure. Whichever Government are in power—I hope and pray that it will be a Labour Government next time—they must tread carefully when it comes to the reorganisation of local government to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot to be said in favour of local government, but because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I will not be led down that path.
  I have made it clear that I am a supporter, indeed a devotee, of the rating system. I would be willing to debate that issue in public with any hon. Member and to explain the advantages of the rating system. It had the one major advantage of being collectable; 90 per cent of people paid their rates bills. Nobody could claim that for the poll tax, and the council tax will, I fear, have the same fate. To keep the value of properties up to date, it would have been simple to update valuations each year in line with inflation.
  Do the Government wish to be responsible for central economic management, including managing the finances of local authorities? If so, that is bound to lead them to the

  967
  100 per cent. financing of local government services. The Government must make up their mind on this issue. Do they wish to decide the level of services that local communities should have? If so, will they use their capping powers to achieve that end?
  The Labour Government of which I was a member never used capping powers. We had a system of indicative costs in Scotland. If the Government intend to be responsible for the level of services of local government, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for funding those services. Or perhaps they will do what I would prefer, and that is to allow councils to decide the level of services that their communities should have. If low rating levels are satisfactory to an electorate, that will be expressed through the ballot box. If higher rating levels resulting from the provision of better services are acceptable to the electors, that too will be expressed through the ballot box.
  I cannot understand why the Government want to become so involved in the management of the affairs of local authorities. In the last 13 years they have made a big enough mess of the nation's economy. Why do they now wish to get so involved in local authority expenditure? The Bill should go no further and I advise the House to reject it absolutely.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I welcome the Bill. In effect, the council tax will be a modernised and updated version of the rates. One of the biggest problems with the rates was that the system of assessing rates on the basis of notional rentable values created enormous difficulties. Not only was virtually every house rated differently, but problems were caused when people went in for relatively minor improvements to their properties and suffered disproportionate rates increases as a result. Capital value hands will not solve the problem entirely, but the system will address the issue to a significant degree.
  All hon. Members must have received complaints, and been told on the doorstep, about the way in which the single person living alone in exactly the same house as that of his or her neighbour paid about the same rates, even though the neighbour may have had a large family with a number of people living in the house. The council tax will, to a significant degree, deal with that injustice which was inherent in the old rating system. I also welcome the protection enshrined in the Bill for students and student nurses, with rebates for those on low incomes, rebates for people in training and a rebate of 25 per cent. for single person households.
  Most Opposition Members believe that the rebate for single person households is unfair. I appreciate that the basis of their argument is that the council tax is son of poll tax and that some account is taken of the number of people in households. If they believe it unfair to give a discount, even a small one of 25 per cent., to people living alone, I hope that when he winds up the debate for the Opposition the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) will make it clear that the Labour party is committed to abolishing the single person household discount. I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will give a clear commitment to that effect. Does he intend to intervene now?
  Mr. David Blunkett: I will make my own speech in my own time.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman backs off from giving a firm commitment. I do not blame him. After all, a commitment to abolish that discount would be fiercely unpopular in the country, not simply among those who live alone but among those who live in homes containing several people and who recognise the fundamental injustice of people living alone having to pay exactly the same rate as themselves. The country will have noted the failure of the hon. Gentleman to answer my question.
  It was commonly said of the community charge that it would have worked if only the bills had been lower. I accept that had the Government limited increases in local authority spending in year one of the community charge, the bills would have been significantly lower, not least due to the gearing of the system, and that may have made the charge more acceptable.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House must face the fact that, whatever system is introduced, if councils, whatever their complexion, spend unwisely—I accept that some Conservative-controlled councils are equally guilty—bills will become high and possibly unacceptably high. In my area, the rates for many years, including the poll tax, ended up being far too high because of the profligate spending of the county council. I shall not dwell on that subject. We accept that priorities in public spending at national and local level are difficult issues because choices must be made and it is difficult to make them. Even so, some priorities appear strange. When a county council has, since 1981, increased its overall staff by 8,000, the largest increase in England and Wales, yet is the only county with fewer policemen in the Derbyshire police force, that is strange.
  It is a strange set of priorities for a council to spend millions of pounds pegging school meals to 1981 prices in a way that does not benefit even the children of the least-well-off—because they get free school meals anyway—yet is in the process of sacking hundreds of teachers. It is strange for a council which pleads for more capital for school buildings and repairs to spend £5 million of its capital allocation on the redundancy costs of sacking teachers.
  A council has a strange set of priorities when it says that it cannot afford Home Office offers of more policemen, yet can find plenty of jobs for the cronies and friends of the leader of the council, such as the former Labour councillor who got the plush job, at £40,000 a year, of being in charge of the so-called Derbyshire enterprise board, or such as the chairman of Derbyshire Labour party, one David Skinner, who got a well-paid job supposedly escorting Japanese business men around Derbyshire, despite the fact that he had been sacked for corruption by the council in the 1970s from his job as a road ganger. The former Labour Member, Reg Race, was given a highly paid job as a chief executive of Derbyshire county council, despite the fact that most people believed that he was unsuitable for that task. In defence of Mr. Race, I should say that, when he realised the policies that the council was following, he had the honour to resign his post. Unfortunately, he did not have enough honour to refuse the golden handshake which the council offered him to buy his silence about what he had learnt during his brief tenure as chief executive.
  Should a Labour Government come to power, would they cap such excesses? The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has criticised the Government for capping local authorities, yet he said on the "Today" programme

  969
  that a future Labour Government would cap local authorities "in extremis". What did "in extremis" mean? Would they cap Lambeth, Derbyshire or Haringey, or are they not in extremis enough? It should not be forgotten that the Labour party supported Liverpool council against the Government in the mid-1980s. Yet history has shown what a discredited bunch those Liverpool councillors were. Would they have been in extremis enough to be capped by a Labour Government?
  I condemn the Opposition's attempts to slay the Bill. Indeed, I do not know how they have the face to do so when, after 12 years in opposition and almost as many changes to their policies on local government finance, they have simply come up with a system that deals with none of the fundamental problems inherent in the old rating system. The individual household valuations which they propose would be extremely complex, and they have already said that they would take no account of single person households. Those are two of the most basic problems of the old rating system which they want enshrined in their so-called fair rates. Above all, they have not said how their valuations would be carried out under their so-called fair rates scheme. How do they have the cheek to oppose the Government's proposals when they have no real alternative? They should be ashamed of themselves.
  The confusion goes further, because the Opposition do not even know what they would do if they came to power. On 5 October, the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), said that Labour, should it come to power, would replace the council tax with fair rates. However, 12 days later, the hon. Member for Brightside said that it would not abolish the council tax but would simply amend it. On 27 October, the hon. Member for Dagenham said that the Labour party would repeal the council tax. Clearly the Opposition Front Bench do not even know what the Labour party would do if it came to power. It is confused, is talking at cross purposes and has no real proposals to put before the House.
  I welcome the Bill. It offers a relatively simple system that ensures that a high proportion of people will pay but, at the same time, takes account of people's ability to pay. I recognise that no tax will ever be popular. But I do not see how the Opposition can, in all honesty, oppose the Bill when they have called for the abolition of the poll tax and cannot even say what the basis of the valuations that they propose would be. For a party that has been in opposition for 12 years, that is a disgrace. Above all, it shows that it deserves to remain in opposition.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: There is something odd about this debate. Those hon. Members who served on the poll tax Committee and were therefore involved in the last great discussions on local government finance have been represented among Opposition Members but not by Conservatives. Conservative Members who were on the Standing Committee that dealt with the poll tax have deserted the Floor of the House rather than bring their expertise to bear. We had a third day's discussion of this subject during the debate on the Queen's Speech. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr.
  970
  Wilshire), who was on that Committee, turned up on that occasion but he talked about the reorganisation of local government rather than local government finance. So why is there this great peculiarity? Why are the Conservative Members who have tussled with the arguments and listened to the alternatives not around?
  When a Bill of the magnitude of the Local Government Finance Bill is presented to us, those who speak in its favour should say how it overcomes some of the manifest defects that need to be altered. In that general context, we need to understand what they are saying about this Bill. That is never done by Conservative Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who talked yesterday about some of the things that were wrong with the poll tax. People outside will be very cynical about the Government's position if Conservative Back-Benchers refuse to say what they think is wrong with the current situation and why fresh legislation needs to be introduced.
  The Opposition know why fresh legislation needs to be introduced. We have constantly said what is wrong with the poll tax. We have expressed our opposition in the House, in debates on the subject, on the guillotine motion that was debated on that measure, in Committee, in Committee debates on statutory instruments, some of which emerged only recently, and in meetings and campaigns. We have strutted the country and argued about what is wrong with the poll tax. I have been to the constituencies of two of the Conservative Members present—the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin)—to tell people what is wrong with the poll tax. The hon. Member for Amber Valley has already spoken, but it would be nice if the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South would say what he believes is wrong with the measure and needs to be overcome.
  Plenty was wrong with the poll tax. It was the worst taxation system that was ever introduced into a democratic society at any time. It was quite unbelievable. Its unfairness was astonishing and led to all sorts of interferences with civil liberties and rights, with knock-on consequences. The Government had engaged in a vast centralising activity, so that the Department of the Environment took over masses of power and local government was run even more centrally than through other measures which the Government had introduced. Conservative Members, who are supposed to believe in great freedoms—freedoms of the market place and decentralisation—could not see that point. If they saw it, they chose to ignore it in their contributions.
  Compared with the poll tax legislation, the Bill makes significant changes, which the Government should tell us about. For instance, although there is a minor distinction between the bottom and the top bands—those on the top pay only three times as much as those on the bottom—it is an important principle. The House debated that principle in the so-called Mates amendment. Under the provision suggested by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), people on salaries below taxation levels were to pay half the poll tax and some were to pay the full poll tax, while those on a surtax level were to pay one and a half times the normal poll tax. The difference between the highest and lowest amounts to be paid was a multiple of three. For many Opposition Members that provision did not seem to make a great difference, but it was important to Conservative Members because it

  971
  involved a change of principle that could later be extended. If some people were to pay three times the amount paid by others, that principle should have been discussed. In the same way, the property-based aspect of the legislation is significant and should be debated, but we have not heard much about that.
  The present Bill also differs from the poll tax legislation in that the exemption list has been improved. Under the poll tax provision, those serving in overseas forces and residing in this country and foreign diplomats are excluded from paying the tax. As far as I understand it, under the new Bill they are not excluded from paying the tax. If I am right, why do we not hear Conservative Members arguing in favour of that change?
  The case is being argued in a most cynical fashion. The argument has not been in terms of the principle of local government finance, but merely on the grounds that political difficulties arose in relation to implementing the poll tax and urgent action had to be taken, especially in the light of the election of the new leader of the Conservative party, the promises being made and the general position of the party at the time. Therefore, this measure was introduced and attempts are being made to push it forward as quickly as possible.
  We should keep producing within their constituencies the voting records of Conservative Members to show where they stood on the poll tax. Conservative Members who have spoken in the debate have tried to show that they were minor rebels and to imply that some sort of mass rebellion took place. When was that rebellion and when did we eagerly await votes in the House to see which side had won? The voting results were not close, but showed solid majorities.
  The Committee that debated the poll tax legislation included three Conservative Members who were liable to rebel at any time, but never rebelled in unison because that might have caused a drawn vote and could have resulted in the legislation being returned to the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has since repaired his breach with the Conservative party. The mildest of the rebels was the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams was probably one of the major rebels. He wanted to have a low poll tax instead of a high one, but was not particularly arguing against the principle.
  Where did the Secretary of State for the Environment stand on all those issues? What of his famous rebellion that was supposed to take place in the House? He made three speeches and two interventions on the subject during the 1987–88 Session proposing differing views. When we debated subsequent measures such as statutory instruments he was not present. During the 1988–89 Session and the 1989–90 Session he made no contributions when we discussed measures associated with the poll tax. Where was the rebellion? As the parliamentary record shows, the Secretary of State was not present very often. He was out canvassing for the leadership of the Conservative party and did not take part in many of the votes.
  The measure includes some other oddities. Why does clause 117 (5) state that the legislation does not extend to Northern Ireland? The poll tax was never introduced in Northern Ireland, but the argument being used in favour of the new tax is that it is superior and will be the answer to all sorts of problems relating to local government finance. If so, is it the intention to introduce legislation relating to Northern Ireland? We are normally given some
  972
  sign that that is to happen. It is possible to introduce wide measures via Orders in Council whether by negative or positive procedure. It seems that Northern Ireland will not be touched by the legislation because it still has a reasonable and viable system of raising local government finance which the mass of the people pay. The rating system still applies in Northern Ireland, where they have never suffered the nonsense of the poll tax.
  Why does the legislation contain no mention of the changes that need to be made in standard spending assessments? With the exception of an authority in Dorset, my constituency receives the lowest grant per poll tax payer and has the lowest standard spending assessment. Anyone who knows anything about the district will realise that it suffers from social deprivation and requires funds. How can a formula be worked out which does not allow decent standard spending assessments and decent grants for such districts? I have previously explained to the House the fiddles involved and why the conditions of the standard spending assessments hit North-East Derbyshire harder than any other authority, although others are sorely hit. If we are reviewing the whole of local government finance, we should include debates on that subject. It was not just the principle of the poll tax that hit the authorities; the nonsense of standard spending assessments helped to push up the poll tax in many districts because money was not made available to local authorities.
  The most important element missing from the legislation involves what is to be done to overcome the harm to electoral registration that was and continues to be caused by the poll tax. A survey carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys revealed that 1 million people are missing from the register. The problem began in Scotland when the poll tax was introduced there and moved to England and Wales. It did not occur in Northern Ireland because it never had the poll tax. What action is being taken to restore 1 million people to the electoral register? What will the council tax do about that? Why are we not spending as much to encourage electoral registration as is being spent overseas to encourage expatriates to register and vote in this country?
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that the poll tax was not a poll tax because it had nothing to do with the electoral register. It had everything to do with it. We have a little time before the next election in which to put matters right if it is fought on next February's register. In the meantime, what legislation will we pass and what expenditure will we sanction to overcome this greatest of evils? Hon. Members should be more worried about the electoral register problem than about any of the other erosions of our civil liberties. The problem arose because of the unfairness of the poll tax. People dived for cover and kept themselves off the register—an understandable mistake by people facing bills which they could ill afford.
  I conclude with an historical analogy and a warning to the Government. It concerns the introduction of the first poll tax, which was promulgated not in 1371, but was introduced in 1367 as a flat rate measure which great masses of the poor did not pay. That is fantastically similar to the modern poll tax. Two years later, in 1369, a further measure was introduced—the poll tax mark II—bearing some similarity to this poll tax mark II. It was to be banded according to differing levels of wealth. On that occasion it was the rich who did not pay and who thus breached the legislation.

  973
  So in 1371 the country returned to the principle of a flat rate payment and that was when the peasants' revolt broke out. Thank goodness, in this repeat performance we will not have a mark II or mark III version of the poll tax. The legislation for the mark II version may be passed, but because of the coming election it will bite the dust along with the poll tax. Labour's proposed measure will be enacted instead. If it is not, and if Labour does not win the election, the farce that took place in the 14th century may be repeated.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. John Bowis: I shall refrain from returning to the 14th century.
  This evening we have heard two confessions of paternity. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) claimed to be the father of the Labour party's return to the rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) suggested that he had some involvement in the conception of the council tax. I shall not compete with him for that paternity because I suspect, along with the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), that paternity in matters of taxation is to be avoided if at all possible.
  There may be some surprise that I, who represent Battersea in the London borough of Wandsworth, should welcome the transfer of local government finance from the community charge to the council tax. In Wandsworth we showed how the community charge could and did work. I am not ashamed of the principles behind the community charge. They were the right answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). But there were good reasons why those principles could not be followed in practice.
  The proof of the pudding was in the electoral results in Wandsworth. In my constitutency last year the number of Conservative councillors there increased from six to 18, an increase repeated throughout Westminster, Ealing, Hillingdon and places such as Derby and West Lancashire. That showed that when people perceived that their vote could make a difference to the community charge, they used it in the Conservative cause.
  The electors in boroughs such as Lambeth, however, did not perceive that a vote could change control of the council, so they said "Ouch" to the Government, in effect. In Wandsworth the community charge has not even been an issue—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) will pay our zero rates this year, so no doubt he will support me. There is no point in our romping to victory in Wandsworth, with the help of the secret vote of the hon. Gentleman, if our party is not as successful elsewhere.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman seems to feel that his party met with great success in Wandsworth. Would he be willing to agree to the same financial contribution by central Government being provided to my district of Monklands so that we can see whether his enthusiasm will be shared there?
  Mr. Bowis: I will not contrast like with unlike, but I can compare like with like in the form of Wandsworth and next door Lambeth, a similar London borough. The grant per head of population from central Government to
  974
  Lambeth council was £1,500 compared with £1,000 to Wandsworth, in the year when Wandsworth's community charge was £148 and Lambeth's £548. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will learn and inwardly digest those figures and then ask his colleagues in the Labour party why they could not produce the same high-quality services at the lowest cost as those for which Wandsworth—unlike its socialist neighbours—has been known in London.
  There are reasons for this change. There have been some anomalies, and this Bill tackles some of them, not least those involving students, student nurses, apprentices and people on youth training schemes. Perhaps, too, we underestimated the involvement of spouses in joint decisions on households and family spending—they were probably more conscious of the costs of local government than we thought.
  Some Opposition Members question our failure to abolish the 20 per cent. minimum, but the reason for that is that it is incorporated in income support levels. People on income support in Wandsworth are not particularly anxious that the system should be changed, because if an element for the community charge is incorporated in income support but a person pays zero community charge, he is inevitably quids in. A person living in a high-spending Labour authority begins to suffer, however——
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the majority of people being hauled before the courts for non-payment of the poll tax are the very people who should have paid the 20 per cent. contribution? Would it not make economic sense if the Government acknowledged that and abolished it immediately?
  Mr. Bowis: The people being hauled before the courts in Labour council areas are being so hauled because those councils did not keep the community charge low enough for them to afford to pay it. The overspending by Labour councils has been a prime reason for this change. We know that in the year that the community charge was introduced Labour local authorities' spending plans increased by 30 per cent. That is why the system was painful and why we had to find a better way to raise money. Conservatives care not only about the quality of local services but about the cost to the local charge payer because that is as important to the vulnerable as the quality of service.
  The Opposition seek to return to the discredited rates system and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East can claim the credit for that. It would be a return to a system in which each property has to be valued and where home improvements are deterred. Its rolling revaluation would be based on a valuation that is 20 years out of date. Labour would insist that 20 per cent. of local government's costs be raised by local taxation. Overnight, that would increase every household bill by 50 per cent.
  The Leader of the Opposition is often quoted as having condemned the rating system. I shall quote not the right hon. Gentleman but his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Writing in The Daily Telegraph, and probably hoping that his hon. Friends would not see it, the right hon. Member for Gorton said:
  "The rates are irrational, inefficient and highly resented. The rating system makes no sense whatsoever. The right thing to do is to abolish it once and for all."
  I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was banished to foreign affairs.

  975
  Much of the debate has centred on whether it is right to cap. It is argued that capping is wrong if accountability suffers, but capping is necessary because of the unwillingness of Labour authorities to be reasonable in their spending. Wandsworth has shown that targets can be met or even bettered. That is why Wandsworth's community charge started at £148, dropped to £136 and was reduced to zero as a result of the Chancellor's £140 grant last year. Wandsworth now provides much better services than before.
  I had to look at services in Lambeth during the Vauxhall by-election and I saw dereliction and despair and people who are desperate for home ownership, which has been denied them. By comparison, the neighbouring council in Wandsworth has made efficiency savings that have enabled it to improve the quality of service. Tendering has produced savings of 33 per cent. and even when work remains in-house, tendering results in savings of 25 per cent. Staffing ratios have been cut to 2·1 per 1,000 compared with the inner London average of 3·7 per 1,000. A saving of 50 per cent. has been made in refuse collection. One tonne of refuse is collected per man per day in Southwark compared with 4 tonnes per man per day in Wandsworth.
  Library costs have been reduced by 45 per cent. but there has been a 30 per cent. increase in book lending. In the first 12 years of Conservative control in Wandsworth there have been £50 million worth of efficiency savings, and the 123 services provided by that council cost each resident £136 before the change in the last Budget. The results in Labour authorities are quite different. In Hillingdon the Labour council was ousted last year and the new Conservative council dropped the community charge from £435 to £370. In Merton the reverse was the case because on the day after Labour took control it announced that it would double the community charge.
  I shall give some more examples of how cost savings do not mean lowering the quality of service. Wandsworth recently took over education from the discredited Inner London Education Authority and is already providing free nursery education for every child. It is spending £71·03 per 1,000 of population on higher and further education compared with the inner London average of £51·50. The inner London average on special needs is £38 but Wandworth is spending £49. The inner London average at the chalk face, the money that goes to schools, is £144 per 1,000 of population but the figure for Wandsworth is £146. Bureaucracy in inner London costs £124 per 1,000 of population whereas Wandsworth spends £50.
  That is why we need to consider capping. Overspending does not have to occur because good quality services can be provided at reasonable cost. That is what capping is all about and it is why I welcome the element in the Bill which provides for that and deplore the Opposition's commitment to abolish it.
  We must look at income as well as spending. Wandsworth has rent arrears of £4 million. In Lambeth the amount is £35 million and in Southwark it is £60 million. In Wandsworth there are 90,000 housing benefit claims per year and 1 per cent. await assessment, not for weeks, which is the average in inner London, or for months, which is the average in Lambeth, but for two days. Labour high spending is not to improve services as the Opposition would suggest. Labour Liverpool spent £250,000 on councillors' media rooms and the Labour council in Dudley spent £21,000 teaching teachers how to
  976
  clap. Labour Hackney spent £70 million on new offices and Labour Lewisham sent advisers to the Caribbean for two months to learn about youth and leisure.
  London is fed up with Labour's level of service. People support the concept of capping and we support the Government's new proposals for the council tax because, ultimately, it will be fair. According to the Department's figures, in Wandsworth the A to G bands will produce a range of community charge on the same basis as this year—8 per cent. spending below target—of £90 in band A and £224 in band G for a two-person household. That shows that the charge will be manageable, even in an area such as Wandsworth which has shown that the community charge can work. It will be manageable as long as the grant settlement continues to take account of the borough's needs.
  I welcome the Bill's provisions for dealing with non-payment. It is not a question of can't pay, but can pay won't pay, and that is deeply resented by law-abiding citizens. In March last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) wrote to the Leader of the Opposition saying that the Anti-poll Tax Federation was Militant-inspired. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) replied that that was a hysterical smear. He was right. Not only was Militant involved, but Mr. Steve Nally, the organiser, was also a member of the Labour party. About 30 members of the party and many Labour councillors have campaigned for non-payment. Such antics should be penalised when it comes to serving on a council and dealing with other people's money.
  I deplore the statement by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) who, writing in Marxism Today, said:
  "I do not describe not paying the tax as civil disobedience."
  Decent people do consider that to be civil disobedience and unacceptable. That is why I believe that when the people of this country have an opportunity to vote, they will vote against the party that stands for non-payment and for high spending, inefficient, low-quality councils. They will vote for the party producing better quality, lower-cost councils under the council tax system.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) spoke of the "can't pay, won't pay" campaign. In previous debates on the poll tax, I have pointed out that I and almost all hon. Members fall into the category of those who can pay, and should pay, more. What is so morally wrong about the poll tax is that those who are better off pay considerably less, with the consequence that people on the lowest incomes pay more. The people have found that out and that is why the poll tax is so unpopular.
  One of the most interesting changes that I have seen in any Parliament—I have been around for far too long—is that which has occurred in this Parliament. Back-Benchers who for years have been loyally supporting their Government are now performing in a different role. They seem to think that they are already in opposition, because they spend all their time attacking the Labour party. Conservative Members supporting the Bill have been signally absent in this debate, probably for a good reason.
  As I said, I have been here for some time and I vividly remember the Second Reading debate and the Committee sittings not only on the Bill introducing the poll tax for

  977
  England but on what became the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. We are all familiar with extravagant claims by Ministers in winding-up speeches in Second Reading debates. I have here a quote from a Mr. Michael Ancram, who once represented a Scottish constituency and who has most recently been seen in Devizes, seeking, for the third time, selection in a constituency. He will soon qualify for the golden carpetbag.
  On 9 December 1986, in winding-up the Second Reading debate on that Bill, Mr. Ancram said:
  "The Bill is no short-term stop gap."
  Talking about poll tax, he continued:
  "It is no hurried or temporary expedient. It is a well considered and well worked out reform which sets up a new and viable system for financing local government for generations to come. It creates a new balance, a new fairness and a strengthening of local democracy and accountability which will stand the test of time."—[Official Report, 9 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 275.]
  He did not stand the test of time and nor did a number of his colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I served on the Committee and I remember them vividly. I have the Division list which followed that resounding speech from Mr. Ancram. Those who voted for Second Reading included John Corrie, Alexander Fletcher, Peter Fraser, Barry Henderson, Michael Hirst, Anna McCurley, John MacKay and Alexander Pollock, and Gerry Malone was a teller. They all lost their seats, as did the unfortunate person who chaired the Committee, Sir Albert McQuarrie.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: My memory on these matters is not terribly good. Is the Mr. Gerry Malone mentioned by my hon. Friend the same Mr. Gerry Malone who, as a delegate to the Tory party conference, demanded the poll tax for England "now"?
  Mr. Home Robertson: That may be so and he may be sorry about that because he will be standing in Winchester at the next election.
  What is even more interesting about the list is those who did not vote for Second Reading. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) did not vote for it, although he has told us that he supports the poll tax. A significant person who voted for Second Reading was the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Some of these people should show a little contrition.
  Mr. Foulkes: As my hon. Friend is going through this list of people, can he tell us whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—Honolulu Dick as he is known—was there?
  Mr. Home Robertson: That is erroneous. He was not in Honolulu; he was in Houston on private business. My hon. Friend must not go down that road.
  In fairness to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who opened today's debate, he has been remarkably consistent in his attitude to the poll tax. He was supporting it through thick and thin, against all the evidence, until fairly recently. He described it as a great success story, while at the same time describing the council tax as a roof tax, something that he reviled only a few months ago.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said earlier, the vultures are coming home to roost for the Tory party in Scotland. However, the Tories must not be allowed to forget the
  978
  misery and chaos of the poll tax, the distress that it has caused to so many of our constituents, of the disruption of local government that it has caused. Above all, they must not be allowed to forget the discredit that the poll tax has brought on the House of Commons and on Parliament. There is something fundamentally wrong with a Parliament that can allow such legislation to be inflicted on our people. Frequently, we hear Tories say that they voted for the Scottish Bill because it seemed a good idea at the time, or because they knew that the Tory party in Scotland was in difficulties and felt that it should be supported. That is the line taken by the right hon. Member for Henley. They did it, although they are now trying to wash their hands of it. They are responsible for the poll tax that has brought such discredit.
  Even if the Bill is passed, the poll tax will be with us this year and next year. The poorest people will still have to pay 20 per cent. of that poll tax. To add insult to further injury, the people whom I represent in the Lothian region—this is true of other regions—are heavily penalised by the shamelessly discriminatory system of distributing revenue support grant in Scotland. I know that the same applies in England and Wales.
  The quicker and far less risky way out of the poll tax—the way proposed by the Labour party—is a return to the rates. We know that that system can be made to work acceptably and efficiently. I would not leave it at that. Having returned to the rates, we should embark on a wide-ranging independent inquiry into local government finance, including local income tax and any other system. If a consensus were to develop that there was an alternative that should be pursued, we should get on with it.
  The Government have learnt nothing. The last local government Act introduced the poll tax. It was a panic reaction to what the Government perceived as a problem arising from the revaluation in Scotland. They legislated from the hip and shot themselves in the foot and they are doing it again. This will be another disaster that will reflect badly on them. If we do not vote against the Bill, it will reflect badly on Parliament.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. David Martin: No new tax can be considered in isolation from what has gone before. The original Elizabethan rating system, as everyone knows, outgrew its useful shelf time some time during the 19th century. Instead of tackling increasing inadequacies at their roots, Governments from the end of the 19th century until almost the end of this century grafted on to the system changes of monumental and often Byzantine complexity. The one sacred principle until modern times seemed to be the retention of the notional rental system with periodic revaluations—a system which few understood either in its origins or in its modern version.
  Government grants, both general and specific, funded out of central taxation took an increasing share of the burden of the rating system as the tasks of local government grew in quantity and depth. The way in which the various grants were calculated and distributed and the way in which they related to the original property element of the rating system meant that local government finance needed the ingenuity of an Abbé Sieyès for detailed explanations of their niceties and of precisely how they worked. Council treasurers began to be looked on almost

  979
  as those who in ancient times understood the Eleusinian mysteries. At last the problems were faced radically and head on with the creation of the community charge.
  Few people quarrelled with the principle that everyone should pay something. Even now, I find that people's minds have not changed on that. The crucial questions were how much and what was the bottom line in each individual case. If the headline amount of any tax is too much and the rebate or allowance system too miserly or unfairly based, the system will be unsustainable. Fortunately, these objections are met fairly and squarely in the proposals set out in the Bill.
  The council tax, with its banding arrangements, does not take an unreasonable amount even at the top of the scale, while the discounts and exemptions are based on reason as well. I thoroughly approve of the transitional arrangements and the capping powers that are designed particularly to stop councils shielding greatly increased expenditure in the first year of the new tax, as happened in the change from rates to the community charge. That was the single most damning feature of the charge on its introduction in Portsmouth and elsewhere. It was expected that the final bill would be under £200 a head and it turned out to be £308·50. Overspending meant that the rebate system was not properly triggered and from then on, if only because of the amounts, the principle underlying the community charge became impossible to defend.
  I spoke to a typical pensioner couple with a small occupational pension. Their rebated rates bill had been under £200 and between the two of them they were paying £617 under the community charge without a rebate being triggered. When told of that, I recalled Emperor Tiberius's answer to a governor who had written to him to recommend an increase in the burden of taxation. Tiberius replied that a good shepherd sheared his flock; he did not skin it. The Bill has many features which makes the shearing—it must never be a pleasant operation for the sheep, I imagine—at least defensible.
  The Labour party roundly criticises the Bill's provisions, yet Labour Members propose nothing better than a return to the old rating system, without any effective capping on unreasonable expenditure. During the afternoon and evening we have heard examples relating to the likes of Lambeth, Haringey, Hackney, Brent and Derbyshire. Such examples, when added to all the others, would result in a nightmare for London and many other unfortunate areas. However, under the Labour party—I think that it was Anthony Crosland who tried to stop this happening in the 1970s—it would be back in full swing.
  I turn briefly to an argument that has been advanced by some of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), for regional banding to be introduced for valuations in London and the south-east. Attractive though such an idea seems at first—who does not want his constituents to pay less, even if it is at the expense of others—the more the practicalities are investigated, the less it appeals. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define a fair boundary of any such region and outside that region there would be many with similarly valued properties who would clamour to receive the same treatment. This would be a fertile area of endless dispute. It would soon be reflected in the ballot boxes, let alone in further legislative changes in the House.
  Nor must we fashion a large and significant part of the proposed tax system, as we did with the community charge, around admittedly genuine worries about single,
  980
  elderly people—they are usually widows—who often remain in highly valued family homes and who will not love us for reintroducing a property tax. The 25 per cent. rebate for a single person is extremely welcome, but who would not wish for more on behalf of his or her constituents?
  Even though some will blame us for bringing back a more expensive tax compared with their experience with the community charge, I ask them to compare what they will pay under the council tax with their old rate bills, the rates being a system to which the Labour party has promised to return. I remind the House and those outside that under a Labour Government, bearing in mind all the spending plans of the Opposition, it would not be long before all the valuable contents of many people's homes—for example, the cherished walnut table bought for 30 bob in 1937 that is now valued at over £2,000—would fall to be taxed. Not far from any Labour Government is the desire, after a while when they need the money, for a wealth tax.
  Finally, I welcome the sensible arrangements in the Bill for students, which were caricatured ridiculously by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I welcome also the recognition of other suitable candidates for special consideration, including student nurses. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to take on board the fact that the relevant provisions will require detailed regulations. In the hope that councils can make progress in setting up the necessary arrangements, including the relevant software, I look forward to the rapid introduction of regulations. It is important that councils know where they stand so that they can pass on the relevant information to our constituents. I know that Labour Members are anxious that that should happen, as are Conservative Members. When the Bill becomes an Act and when Opposition Members find themselves on people's doorsteps, they will face the same questions—this always happens to them—time and time again. These are as follows: "What are you going to do? How are you going to pay for it?" When that happens, the virtues of what we propose will be extremely clear.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. David Lambie: I wish to make only one or two points in the short time available to me. I am disappointed with the attendance in the Chamber today, as I was with yesterday's attendance. This Bill is the flagship of the Government's legislative programme, and Labour Members are opposing it hook, line and sinker.
  Mr. John Marshall: All six of them.
  Mr. Lambie: It is a six-line Whip.
  The general public and those who watch our proceedings on television must wonder whether we are really fighting. We should have had a general election last Thursday, rather than three by-elections. We have only to look around the Chamber to know that this Parliament is finished; it is dead. A general election last Thursday would have settled once and for all the political policies that the country will follow for the next few years.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that he was glad that there was only one Bill covering England, Wales and Scotland. That will not go down well in Scotland. Scotland has its own system of local government that is quite different from that in England

  981
  and Wales. We have district councils and regional councils. We have a different system of valuation. In Scotland, it is carried out by assessors who are employed by the regional councils. In England and Wales, it is carried out by a branch of the Inland Revenue.
  I do not understand why we should be dealing with local government finance in Scotland in a Bill that covers the United Kingdom. The only reason is that after the by-election in Kincardine and Deeside only nine Conservative Members representing Scottish constituencies are left in the House, and the majority of those sit on the Government Front Bench. There would be no Scottish Tory Members to man a Standing Committee on a separate Scottish Bill. That is a disgrace both to this Parliament and to the Tory party in Scotland. If the Government cannot man a Committee, they should draft in English Members. The Scottish people would then realise that it is the Labour party, not the Conservative party, that represents Scotland.
  Scotland was the first area to have poll tax imposed on it. Why? I made many speeches during the passage of that legislation. I blame both local councillors in Scotland and Scottish Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, who were stupid enough to allow revaluation in Scotland to continue after the English stopped it in 1973. The Inland Revenue said that it did not have enough workers to carry out the revaluation in England and Wales, so from that date there were no revaluations of property.
  In Scotland, Members of Parliament from both sides of the House and local government employees and councillors stupidly said that they would continue with the revaluation, and so we had five-year revaluations until 1985. The way that the assessors in Scotland attacked the valuation of domestic property led to a revolt among Scottish Conservative voters living in the big houses of Scotland. As the Member of Parliament for my former constituency, I represented the town of Troon, a very Tory town that had more millionaires per head of population than any other area in the United Kingdom.
  That was the area that was attacked by the Tory Government in their valuations and that is why we had the revolt. That is why the people of Scotland rose up against the rating system. It was not because the rating system was bad, but because of the way in which the rating system was being carried out, attacking certain areas of domestic property, and, because the English had not carried out a revaluation since 1973, Scotland got out of line. Unfairly, the Scottish domestic ratepayer was badly hit and, in the area near to the constituency of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the majority were Conservative voters. We had to change and the poll tax was introduced in Scotland a year before it was introduced in England and Wales. Stupidly, the English followed us and made the same mistake.
  At present local taxation accounts for only 14 per cent. of local government expenditure in England and Wales and only 11 per cent. in Scotland. This is a point that I have made often in the House and on which I think that I have the support of the Adam Smith Institute which I hope will also be supported by many Conservative Members. Instead of local taxation in Scotland accounting
  982
  for only 11 per cent. of total local government expenditure, why do not the Government pay 100 per cent.? Why do not we set an example in Scotland, as we did for the poll tax? Why do not the Government abolish local rates in Scotland and pay a 100 per cent. grant to the Scottish local authorities, basing local accountability on the principle that local councillors will determine how that money should be spent?
  If we did that, we would do away with all these debates about local taxation, whether we should have the rating system or another system such as the poll tax or the council tax, and we would have a system which, at the end of the day, would give the local people the opportunity to determine priorities. This is one case where, again, I make the point that I am proud to stand here and support the policies of the Adam Smith Institute which every Tory Member should also support, but unfortunately they are afraid to do so because they are facing a general election, knowing that they will be out of power within six months.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: During the past two days we have heard a vast number of contributions and I pay tribute to the common sense and foresight of Labour Members who have not only pointed out the inequalities of the system that is still in being but the pitfalls that we see ahead of us.
  To begin with, I pay tribute to an intervention made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) who, earlier today, rightly pointed out that in a democracy Parliament should be expected to debate a measure such as this in a sane and sensible fashion.
  The guillotine motion after 10 o'clock tonight will attempt to preclude sensible contributions, attempt to preclude people from dealing with the difficulties and technicalities in the Bill, and pose a real problem for those of us who believe that local government is not a political football to be kicked about at whim, but an essential part of our democracy for the provision of essential services. The hon. Gentleman was brave to say what he did.
  The hon. Gentleman was far more brave than the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) who has adopted the role of reading out central office briefs in the House to apologise for the Conservative party. She invented a new phrase tonight about the council tax being a light touch on people's wallets. I believe that Dickens used that phrase in "Oliver Twist". It will have a similar connotation when people discover what drops through their letter boxes if they are foolish enough to vote Conservative at the next general election.
  We have also heard some honest interventions, however, The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) staggered to his feet to tell us that he did not believe a word of what Ministers were saying. He did not believe in the new property tax; he believed that it would constitute theft from the old ladies living down the road, who would consequently vote against the Tories.
  The right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) thinks that we should change the standard spending assessments. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said the same yesterday, but Ministers were unable to enlighten him about the method that might be used. The previous Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), now chairman of the

  983
  Conservative party—had promised two years ago that he would have a look at SSAs; that promise, however, came to nothing, as has every other Government promise relating to local administration.
  Yesterday, we heard 10 interventions from the Tory Benches on the Secretary of State's speech. They came from the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson); from the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall); from the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who wanted to retain the poll tax—I do not think that anyone has told her yet that the Conservatives propose to do away with it. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) had some worries. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) said that VAT should he increased: I suspect that he was giving away a secret Tory agenda.
  We heard from the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (I)r. Hampson), and from the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) spoke of abolishing the poll tax by April 1992. We could not agree more with that; we proposed it on 13 December last year, when the Government were introducing the Community Charges (Substitute Settings) Bill. A bigger waste of time has never been seen, for that legislation will be overturned by this Bill. We offered the Government time, saying, "Let us not waste each other's time: let us abolish the poll tax now, and get rid of it by April 1992." Would the Government agree? Of course not; at that stage, they were still clanging to the poll tax.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) also intervened in the Secretary of State's speech yesterday, expressing anxiety about the new tax. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) mentioned Derbyshire county council; I remind the hon. Gentleman that Labour took Amber Valley in the local elections in May.
  Hon. Members seem to think that the council tax is the best thing since sliced bread, but we know that the sliced bread is extremely stale. This is the same sort of tripe that Conservative Members came out with when they were defending the poll tax; the poll tax was indefensible, and the council tax is going the same way.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) rightly pointed out, surely it is time for a little contrition. Surely it is time for the present Home Secretary—who started all this in Cabinet, along with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—to apologise. The present Secretary of State for Employment saw the poll tax legislation through its Committee stage; perhaps he too will apologise. Perhaps the current Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the current Secretary of State for Wales—both of whom were responsible for the implementation of that legislation—will do the same. All those Ministers were promoted as a result of their work in that regard.
  The present Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities was still defending the poll tax at the time of the fated Ribble Valley by-election, only a few months ago. I shall not go into details about his speeches; that was done at great length on 12 June, and people can read the speeches at their leisure. The Minister declared, however, that any form of property tax would constitute a betrayal of what was then seen as the Thatcherite mantle, of middle England—Conservative England—and of those who had scrimped and saved to secure their homes. But times
  984
  change. People stand on their heads and wiggle their feet in the air. Some cannot tell whether people are standing on their heads or their feet, because the same kind of rubbish comes out. That is why we should be receiving apologies tonight from Conservative Members. Some bare their souls on their feet and some bare their souls in the bars.
  Behind the scenes, many who sit on the Conservative Benches are betraying their concern even before the Bill has received its Second Reading. They are as worried as we are about the implications for the people of this country. Those Conservative Members and the electorate know that we are not to blame for the mess that we are in. The Conservatives introduced the poll tax and made a mess of implementing it. The British people will hold them to account at the election.
  Local government faces nothing short of a catastrophe. Debt stands at unprecedented levels. The debt in England alone amounts to £1·5 billion. Two thirds of the Scottish population have warrants out against them. We expect 7·5 million orders to be issued against people in England. The law is in disrepute. Collection of the tax is in a shambles. Conservative Members, however, have the cheek to suggest that that is the fault of local government, not theirs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) yesterday asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), whether he would consider the abolition of the minimum 20 per cent. contribution. That is to be found at column 860 of Hansard. My hon. Friend said that it should be abolished this year, or at least in 1992–93. The hon. Member for Salisbury got to his feet and made the most amazing pronouncement in the two-day debate. It was one word. He asked "Why?" Why? Because it costs two and a half times as much to collect as the money that is received.
  The Audit Commission pointed out that 4 million people would be lifted out of the penury of having to pay it and that it would be possible to concentrate on those who can genuinely afford to pay but who do not. The administrative burden would be lifted from local government; it would then be able to concentrate on the job in hand. The Minister, however, does not give a damn about what is happening to people on the lowest incomes; he does not even understand what is happening to local government.
  It is no wonder that Ministers do not understand the problems local government faces in having to prepare for the final year of poll tax, in having to work out how to collect the current year's poll tax, in having to prepase the software for collection of the council tax. Local government is on the verge of collapse, but who gives a damn on the Conservative Benches about that and what it means for local government services? Instead of contrition, instead of apology, constant and unmitigated attacks are made on Labour councils that are struggling, in the most difficult areas of the country, to provide services.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about rents?
  Mr. Blunkett: Does the hon. Lady wish to intervene? I see that she does, so I shall certainly give way to her.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not only a question of many Labour-controlled councils not bothering to collect the community charge. Many of them do not even

  985
  bother to collect rents. Not even the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) can defend their policy not to collect rents.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Lady does not know what she is talking about.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Come along now—the hon. Lady has had her say.
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) could not have put it better. The hon. Lady's response admirably sums up, in one word, what the council tax is all about—absolute and unmitigated rubbish.
  Councils throughout the country are doing their utmost, including court cases that the police will not assist with and that the Home Office will not instruct the police to assist with, to collect the poll tax and, of course, any outstanding rates bills.
  We have a system of local government finance which has concentrated its attention on the poll tax payer, bringing in gearing which has resulted in enormous increases in bills, without any material increase in spending or improvements in services. We have witnessed the abolition of the local domestic business rate, the introduction of the non-domestic business rate and the way in which that has concentrated the power of decision-making still further in the hands of Ministers. It is a shambles, which has resulted in local government being undermined and the role of the local community being seen as a threat rather than as a partner trying to rebuild broken economies, help the unemployed and do something about essential services.
  Every time that Labour local authorities spend more money on education or social services Ministers claim credit for the increase in spending. Every time that it comes to capping regulations, those same authorities are blamed and pilloried for the spending for which Ministers have happily claimed the credit.
  Instead we need a sensible system with decent values, not a tax which assaults families. The present proposal, in all its glory, with the present valuation and discount system is an attack on the family.
  I do not know whether Conservative Members have given any thought to what the present discount system is likely to do—it is more likely to accelerate the disintegration of the family than to bring people together. It is the Norah Batty syndrome, if I may be sexist, where far from losing a million people off the register as happened during the last census because of the poll tax, in the next census men will be sent to the shed at the bottom of the garden to keep out of the way. We will have a nation of single widows, with men escaping from the tax and their spouses claiming the 25 per cent. discount.
  In the past two days we have heard a lot about students. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) rightly pointed out some of the anomalies that the Minister says he will reply to, such as the marrried student with two children who will receive a 25 per cent. discount but who will be exempt from the tax if he leaves his wife and family and moves in with his student friends down the road. That is the nonsense. Students in halls of
  986
  residence will allegedly be exempt from the tax. However, many halls of residence will have to pay business rate because many of them undertake business activities in the recesses. Those who know anything about the way in which universities and polytechnics work know that they are businesses and not merely halls of residence. Are we presuming that those students will not be expected to pay anything in the charge that they pay for staying in the halls of residence? If not, will halls of residence pay a business rate only during the recesses? Will it be assessed on a daily basis as the amount of council tax will be? Those are the types of question that need answers before we know what sort of chaos we are going to face with the council tax.
  Mr. Oppenheim: As the hon. Gentleman is clearly so hostile to the concept of a single person household discount, will he state clearly and unequivocally whether any future Labour Government would abolish it?
  Mr. Blunkett: Our fair rates proposals make the situation unequivocally clear. We say that we will protect single retired people, we will ensure that the rebate system is improved not only to help those people, but to target help on all those who need it and we will ensure that what people pay is based on their ability to pay and not on their status. We are not in the business of giving handouts to the Duke of Westminster because he happens to move out of the present matrimonial home and into a single person's flat. We are not in the business of expecting other people who can ill afford it to pick up the cost of a single person's discount for the rich. We are not in the business of putting on the backs of the poor the cost of the 50 per cent. discount that second homes will be accorded. That, too, is in the Bill.
  Every time the Government bring in something to protect the rich, the burden is passed to the rest of us. The poor will pay for the protection accorded to the better-off. That is what the proposed valuation and banding are all about. That is why we are so opposed to the system that charges the richest person in Westminster only £273 a year but the poorest person in Wigan £339 a year. That is why we are opposed to the poorest person in Westminster paying only £3 a week less in council tax than the richest, including some Tory Members.
  The banding system and property valuations are devised deliberately to protect the rich at the expense of the rest. That is why we know that people will not only feel that it is unfair and understand that it is unfair, but will at the general election bring home to roost the chickens that many Tory Members will be voting on at 10 pm tonight.
  The same applies to much else that languishes in this tax as an alternative to the ill-fated poll tax. Not for Tory Members the speed, simplicty and certainty of the broad-based tax that we should have. Not for them the buoyancy, cost-effectiveness, fairness and progressiveness that "Fair Rates" offers to the British people. Not for them the comprehensibility or even the logic spelt out by the Prime Minister shortly after his election as leader of the Conservative party when he rightly said that there was something wrong with a tax that resulted in 50 per cent. of the population having to receive a rebate or discount on the amount that they paid. Yet that is exactly what the council tax will involve.
  With the intricacies, unfairness and technicalities, it is no wonder that the Secretary of State for the Environment has declined to serve in Committee. No wonder he will not

  987
  join us three days a week from now until Christmas. Instead, he will have a fortnightly visit to Brian Walden on Walden's weekly interview. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) corrects me: it is rather that Brian Walden will visit the Secretary of State for lunch and take the cameras with him. No wonder the Secretary of State has been given a roving brief across Europe. He fails to understand even the one that he has.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Get on with it.
  Mr. Blunkett: A Tory Member shouts, "Get on with it". That is not surprising because it is difficult to protect the Secretary of State from his own inadequacies. As my hon. Friend the Member for, Garscadden said earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State has to rely on his Minister—the AA man, as he was described in the Financial Times. Although the Secretary of State knows nothing about the Bill, he knows the man who does, and that man does a good job.
  In the 40 minutes that we shall have to debate each clause it will be difficult to point out to Tory Members the Bill's inadequacies. It will take us until clause 100 before the poll tax is abolished. It will take more than the three weeks to reveal the confusion that abounds, but we shall do our best.
  We know that if, in the introduction of the council tax, the Government inflict on the British people what they did with the poll tax—the £10 billion that it has cost us, the increase in VAT to manipulate it and the innumerable changes to make it more acceptable—local government and the British people will face the same sort of inadequacies and misery.
  We have heard Conservative Members talk about the necessity of capping. We were told that capping would be necessary until the poll tax was introduced as that would bring accountability. We were then told that only a handful of high-spending authorities would be capped. Then we were told that when the poll tax really bit, capping would not be necessary. Now we are told that universal capping is necessary because the Secretary of State and his colleagues are frightened of trusting local people to make local decisions under the new banded system. No wonder they are frightened, because the way in which the council tax will be implemented will confuse people to the point where they will be unclear about who is paying what and who is making the decisions.
  The gearing procedure will result in a 1 per cent. increase in spending, incurring an average increase of between 7 and 8 per cent. in the local tax. The proposed national business rate will ensure that the narrowness of the domestic base under the council tax will inflict misery on local people. That is why our "Fair Rates" proposals offer a different solution.
  The 20 per cent. contribution will be abolished, the rebate system will be improved and single retired people will be protected. All that will ensure that the tax is fair and progressive. It will also ensure that it has a broad base and that the business rate is decentralised. We will introduce rebates for small businesses to protect those who are setting up in business or struggling to stay in business.
  The Labour party believes in fairness and justice. In the weeks ahead it is therefore beholden upon us to get across
  988
  the message that, once again, the Government have got it wrong. We are witnessing the third change in three years, a change that will produce further misery and confusion.
  My colleagues and I do not believe that the British people will be fooled a second time—one can take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. The general election will be the opportunity for which we have waited. That opportunity has been delayed too long. That general election will be fought not simply on fair rates, but on a fair Government. The people of Britain will understand clearly that to achieve that they must vote Labour.
  9.36 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): We have reached the end of the third full day's debate on the council tax. We had one day on the Queen's Speech, and now we have had two full days on Second Reading. I am bound to say that I do not believe that this debate has reached the level of fizz that one might have associated with a Bill that was to be fought doggedly tooth and nail by the Opposition.
  At the climax to the debate a few minutes ago the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) was addressing a single Labour Back Bencher. During much of the debate we have had no representation from the Liberals or the Scottish Nationalists. Indeed, when the wind-up began this evening there were no Liberals or Scottish Nationalists present.
  It has been an exhausting three days for the Labour Whips as they trawled the corridors of the Palace to try to find people who they could wheel in to speak in this debate. None the less, fortunately there have been fine contributions to the debate from the Conservative Benches. We have had such contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) included in his speech one of the pithiest denunciations of the rates that I have ever heard. We also heard fine contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who has a quarry of good stories from the London borough of Wandsworth.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) provided us with a model of how much can be put into a brief speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) asked me to consider the standard spending assessments. I assure him that we look at them every year, but he is aware, as he said during his speech, that there are two different objectives: one is to make the assessments as simple as possible; the other is to make them as fair as possible. The two objectives do not necessarily lie in the same direction.
  The Opposition raised the canard that some sort of register is required under the council tax. We have denied that categorically. It can only be obtuseness or a refusal to believe that can still lead the Opposition to make that claim.
  The basis of the council tax is, first, a property element. In that respect it is like the rates. We want to give discounts to single people—the Labour party does not—and single people will have every incentive to make themselves known. It is not like a council tax register with people not wishing to make themselves known. Single people have every reason to come forward and declare that they are

  989
  entitled to a discount. But if they do not come forward, there is no penalty. There is no statutory requirement to hold a register of such people. There is all the difference in the world between finding out who the single people are and having a statutory register as we have under the community charge.
  There is no difference in principle between what we propose for finding out about single people and what is proposed in the so-called Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), in which he would need to identify pensioners, pensioner couples and people on low incomes. There is no difference, either, between what we have under the community charge and under the rates in respect of identifying people who are entitled to help through social security benefit, if they are on low incomes.
  There has been a misunderstanding of the Government's plans from the point of view of social security benefits. Just as with the rates, when people in receipt of social security benefit had living with them someone who was not in receipt of benefit, there was a system known as non-dependent deductions—the hon. Member for Brightside will be well aware of that system—so, too, under the council tax it will be possible for the claimant—the person liable to the tax—simply to let us know, through a single declaration, about the other people in the household who may not be eligible for income support and who may be eligible to make a contribution to the council tax bill.
  There has been some confusion—I do not know why there should have been because it was made clear last night by the Secretary of State for Wales—about the position of students. There are two issues. First, students should not be counted as adults when we are deciding whether the single person discount should be given to a household. Students, including all student nurses, YTS trainees and apprentices, will be invisible. In other words, they will not count as though they were adults in a household. They will not stop a single person who is not in one of those categories from being able to qualify for the single person household discount.
  The second issue is that, if a household is composed entirely of students, it should be exempt. It is easy to do with halls of residence, but it is also easy to do where students are living in digs or even when they are the owners of properties. Where they are all students, they will be exempt and no payment will have to be made. In this case we include student nurses on Project 2000 because they are, like other college students, not eligible for social security benefit. In this second category we do not include other student nurses, YTS trainees and apprentices because all those people are entitled to social security benefits.
  If their incomes are low—if, for example, a student nurse has a low income—there will be no difficulty; she will be able to claim social security benefit, so there is no reason why she should be entitled to the exemption available to other students. I hope that that puts the matter beyond doubt, and I believe that my hon. Friends will greatly welcome that important development in the new council tax.
  The Government have chosen to have regional banding for Scotland, Wales and England. The council tax is
  990
  composed 50 per cent. of a property tax. I sometimes think that some of my hon. Friends who would like to see the tax in some way equalised between one place and another are hankering after a tax which this tax is not. With a tax based on property, it follows as night follows day that the amount people pay will vary according to where they live and the properties in which they live. Those who would like the tax to be the same for everyone, no matter where they live and no matter what property they live in, will be disappointed by the council tax because, frankly, it is not that sort of tax.
  Being a property tax—there is not now any contention between the two main parties about that—we can either tax the kind of house and say, for example, that all three-bedroom properties shall be taxed the same, in which case my hon. Friends should be aware that we would soon have tremendous anomalies as the same tax is placed on a Mayfair flat as is put on a flat in a mining village, or we can have regional banding, and then there must be boundaries between regions.
  There are no natural boundaries between property price regions, so let us assume that one would use the standard regions—the south-east, the east midlands, the west midlands and so on. There would then be extraordinary anomalies. For instance, taking a semidetached house worth £60,000 in Milton Keynes and a semi-detached house also worth £60,000 in Northampton, the household in Northampton would pay £88 more in tax simply because it happened to be across the regional boundary. Hon. Members should try to explain that to people in Northampton and Milton Keynes.
  Alternatively, people in an average house in Southampton would pay £89 less than people in Salisbury. I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) would be amused by that. People living in a semi-detached house in Cambridge would pay £89 more than people in a similar house in Oxford simply because they were in East Anglia rather than the south-east, even though the semi-detached house in Oxford had cost much more.
  Therefore, the only basis on which we could have a property tax and valuation would be on a national banding system because that would be understandable and objective. I agree that such a tax system based on the capital value of houses, on a national banding system, would be unfair unless we had taken care to provide for compressed rates of taxation. We do not say that if a house is worth eight times as much as another the tax bill should be eight times as much. That has been the position of Labour speaker after Labour speaker, but we could not tolerate such an unfair system. For people living in the same area, those in the most expensive properties should pay not more than three times as much—the maximum variation—as those in the least expensive properties.
  However, that is only part of the answer. The other part is what has already been done—the massive and permanent shift in funding from local to central taxation. In future, 15 per cent. of local spending will be raised in local taxation only in England and 11 per cent. of spending will be raised in local tax only in Scotland. My hon. Friends may fear that in some parts of the country we shall return to the oppressive and unfair bills which people received under the rates system. That is certainly not the Government's intention, and the Bill does not provide for that.

  991
  For example, in Barnet, the borough of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, the rates bill on a four-bedroomed detached house used to be £986. We now propose a council tax that would have produced a bill this year of £617. Last year, two of my hon. Friend's constituents in such a house paid £676 in community charge, so this year's council tax would have been cheaper for them—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) takes the prize, because the rates bill in Brent on a four-bedroomed house was £1,826. The council tax bill would have been £706, making the bill £1,120 less under the council tax. We heard yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). A four-bedroomed house in Harrow, West was charged £1,137 in rates. The council tax would have been £588, a reduction for his constituents of £549. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), whose rates bill on a four-bedroomed house was £1,280, would have received a council tax bill of £510—a reduction of £770.
  Mr. Gould: The Minister is giving extremely persuasive and interesting figures. Given the huge disparities which are of such enormous benefit to those at the top of the scale, who will pick up the bill? Who will bear responsibility for paying every penny of savings gained by top people?
  Mr. Portillo: I have already explained that the most important change that we have made is to shift the balance between what is paid centrally and what is paid locally, so I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. If he fears that in some houses lurk people on high incomes, those people will pay vast sums in income tax, VAT and corporation tax to provide the grants for local government.
  Mr. Gould: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Portillo: This is my speech, not the hon. Gentleman's, and I warn him that if I give way now it will be for the last time.
  Mr. Gould: In what the Minister has just said, I detect exactly the same argument that he and many others used to justify the flat rate principle of the poll tax. Is he not conceding and making clear something that was always true: the 2·5 per cent. VAT required from everyone who buys anything, which is paid to local government taxpayers, is entirely for the benefit of those who are most wealthy and best able to meet the bills?
  Mr. Portillo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the people who spend most on VAT are those who spend most on goods that attract VAT; they are not the poorest in society. Children's clothes, food, transport and fuel are all zero-rated under the VAT system. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if he were in power, he would repeal the increase in VAT? He spent much time today and yesterday denying that he would increase from 14 to 20 per cent. the proportion paid by local taxpayers. He now appears to be saing that he would repeal the increase in VAT. If he is not saying that he would repeal the increase in VAT, he is simply speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
  Mr. Gould: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No.
  Mr. Gould rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I heard the Minister of State say that he would not give way.
  Mr. Portillo: We have just heard from the hon. Gentleman that all our proposals for discounts for single people and alleviation of the top rates of the tax are anathema to the Labour party, which wants to return to the full rigours of the rates. Under Labour, people in a house worth £200,000 must pay five times as much as people living in a £40,000 house, regardless of regional disparities or anything else.
  Wherever the Labour party detects that there might be someone who could pay more under the rates, it wants every last penny out of that person. That is what we mean when we say that the Labour party is advocating an envy tax. We have just heard the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) dismiss the argument that people pay more income tax and VAT if they are on high incomes.
  What about the discounts? We have heard many Labour arguments against them. The Labour party fears that somewhere there might be a single person who is also a millionaire who could benefit from a single person's discount, so it is absolutely against the proposal. Under a Labour Government, there would be no relief to widows, single mothers or young people starting out in life who live on their own. According to the hon. Member for Brightside, under Labour's proposals there is to be a discount for single retired people, even if they are billionaires.
  There have been 70 changes of Labour party policy. I do not include in that 70 the number of occasions when the hon. Members for Brightside and for Dagenham have said contradictory things. I have always assumed that Brightside had it right and Dagenham was merely contributing a series of Gouldisms to the discussion.
  Among the many popular items in this Bill is the provision that councillors who will not pay their community charge or their council tax will not in future be entitled to vote on setting a budget for their local authorities——
  Mr. Blunkett: Come on.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman says that because there is a lingering interest among Labour Members in people who have avoided the community charge. We heard it yesterday from the hon. Member for Dagenham, who referred to the community charge register as a threat to civil rights. He talked of the hundreds of thousands who traded away their votes so as not to register for the community charge. The Labour party cloaks under expressions such as "attack on civil rights" the fact that such people have not registered for the tax and have been indulging in tax avoidance, a practice for which the Labour party still shows some sympathy.
  The Government are accused of changing their mind over local authority finance. I am accused of that; I am even accused of changing my hairstyle because of my attitude to local authority finance. Certainly I defended the community charge, which gave Labour councils in many areas the fright of their lives. I am asked whether I am sorry. I am sorry that we did not manage to pin the overspending of Labour authorities on those authorities and that we did not have a chance to repeat across the

  993
  country the electoral triumphs that we enjoyed in Trafford, Southend, Brent, Hillingdon, Ealing, Wandsworth and Westminster.
  So I am happy to say that the Government have changed their mind on local authority finance, but the world still goes round and the Conservative party is still a Conservative party. Has the Labour party ever changed its mind? Has it changed its mind on unilateral nuclear disarmament, or on the Common Market, or on nationalisation, or on trade unions, or on the free market? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Has the Labour party changed its mind on capitalism, or on the Soviet Union? Is there anything on which the Labour party has not changed its mind? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes: the poll tax."]
  One principle has been rescued form the wreckage of socialism—the principle that local authorities should not be capped and should be allowed to spend and spend as though there were no tomorrow. For the Labour party, there is no tomorrow.
  Is there one honest man left in the Labour party? Perhaps it is the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who fought an election on an honest programme and was defeated. Then there is the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who is willing to go to prison for his views. Perhaps it is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is willing to continue to enunciate the principle that there is no such thing as a free lunch. And what is the uniting feature of all these people? I have discovered a dress code among Labour party members. If an hon. Member's jacket and trousers do not match and his clothing in general does not reach the heights of elegance, we know that he is an honest man. The dark suits of the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen betray those who have turned their coats.
  The council tax is based on a new distribution of local and central finance. It consists of a property element and a personal element. It is fair and will be accepted as fair by the people. We shall take it through the House, despite the Labour party's opposition.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House proceeded to a Division——
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there is a bomb scare, and that hon. Members are finding it difficult to get access to the Lobbies. Will you advise us as to what can be done?
  Mr. Speaker: I am aware that there is some difficulty in getting into the building. I am having the matter looked into, and I shall make a statement about it in a few minutes.
  Later——
  Mr. Peter L. Pike( seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The time has elapsed when the doors should be locked. We all know that there is some disturbance outside—you have already said that you will make a statement on that—but it is unusual for the doors not to be locked by this stage in a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: There is a slight problem. There is some difficulty in Members getting to the House because a street has been closed. I propose to allow a further 10 minutes before the doors are locked.
  The House having divided: Ayes 334, Noes 245.

  Division No. 4]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alexander, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Allason, Rupert

  Dicks, Terry

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amos, Alan

  Dover, Den

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Ashby, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Eggar, Tim

  Atkins, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fallon, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Farr, Sir John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Favell, Tony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Benyon, W.

  Forth, Eric

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Franks, Cecil

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bowis, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bright, Graham

  Gorst, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

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

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gregory, Conal

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grist, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Butterfill, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hague, William

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hannam, John

  Chope, Christopher

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

  Churchill, Mr

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Harris, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hayward, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Cran, James

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Curry, David

  Hill, James

  995

  Hind, Kenneth

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Mudd, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

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

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Irvine, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Jack, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Jackson, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Janman, Tim

  Page, Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Paice, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Key, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Kilfedder, James

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Pawsey, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Knapman, Roger

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Portillo, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Knowles, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Knox, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Redwood, John

  Latham, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Lord, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Maclean, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shelton, Sir William

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Madel, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mans, Keith

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maples, John

  Speed, Keith

  Marland, Paul

  Speller, Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Robin

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stern, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stokes, Sir John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Sumberg, David

  Mills, Iain

  Summerson, Hugo

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thorne, Neil

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  996

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Tredinnick, David

  Whitney, Ray

  Trippier, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trotter, Neville

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wilkinson, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilshire, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walden, George

  Wood, Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Yeo, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Ward, John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Watts, John

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Alton, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Anderson, Donald

  Dixon, Don

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Doran, Frank

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Douglas, Dick

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Eastham, Ken

  Barron, Kevin

  Edwards, Huw

  Battle, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Beith, A. J.

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Bell, Stuart

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bellotti, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fearn, Ronald

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

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benton, Joseph

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fisher, Mark

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Flannery, Martin

  Blair, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Blunkett, David

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Fraser, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  George, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Graham, Thomas

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Carr, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cartwright, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hain, Peter

  Clay, Bob

  Hardy, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cohen, Harry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cox, Tom

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Crowther, Stan

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Howells, Geraint

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  997

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Patchett, Terry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pendry, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Janner, Greville

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Charles

  Radice, Giles

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Redmond, Martin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Kumar Ashok

  Reid, Dr John

  Lambie, David

  Richardson, Jo

  Lamond, James

  Robertson, George

  Leighton, Ron

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rogers, Allan

  Lewis, Terry

  Rooker, Jeff

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooney, Terence

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livsey, Richard

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Salmond, Alex

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAllion, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Short, Clare

  McCartney, Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McFall, John

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  McLeish, Henry

  Snape, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spearing, Nigel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Stephen, Nicol

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stott, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Strang, Gavin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Maxton, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meacher, Michael

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Wallace, James

  Michie. Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walley, Joan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wilson, Brian

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Winnick, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Murphy, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Nellist, Dave

  Wray, Jimmy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  O'Brien, William

  O'Hara, Edward

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mrs. Margaret Ewing.]
  The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 322.

  Division No. 5]

  [10.24 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Donald

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Allen, Graham

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Alton, David

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  998

  Ashton, Joe

  Fraser, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Barron, Kevin

  George, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beith, A. J.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bell, Stuart

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bellotti, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Graham, Thomas

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

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Benton, Joseph

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blair, Tony

  Hain, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Boateng, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boyes, Roland

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bradley, Keith

  Haynes, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Callaghan. Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howells, Geraint

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Carr, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clay, Bob

  Illsley, Eric

  Clelland, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Corbett, Robin

  Kennedy, Charles

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cox, Tom

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Crowther, Stan

  Kumar, A.

  Cryer, Bob

  Lambie, David

  Cummings, John

  Lamond, James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leighton, Ron

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livsey, Richard

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Doran, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Douglas, Dick

  McCartney, Ian

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McFall, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Eadie, Alexander

  McKelvey, William

  Eastham, Ken

  McLeish, Henry

  Edwards, Huw

  Maclennan, Robert

  Enright, D. A.

  McMaster, Gordon

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McWilliam, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Madden, Max

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marek, Dr John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fisher, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  Flannery, Martin

  Maxton, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Meacher, Michael

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  999

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Short, Clare

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Snape, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Spearing, Nigel

  Murphy, Paul

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Nellist, Dave

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stephen, N. R.

  O'Brien, William

  Stott, Roger

  O'Hara, Edward

  Strang, Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Parry, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Patchett, Terry

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Pendry, Tom

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Turner, Dennis

  Prescott, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wallace, James

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Walley, Joan

  Radice, Giles

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Redmond, Martin

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Richardson, Jo

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Robertson, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Winnick, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rooker, Jeff

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooney, Terence

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Salmond, Alex

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Andrew Welsh and

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Allason, Rupert

  Butcher, John

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Amos, Alan

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ashby, David

  Cash, William

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Atkins, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkinson, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Chope, Christopher

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Benyon, W.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Couchman, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Curry, David

  Body, Sir Richard

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

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dicks, Terry

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dunn, Bob

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brazier, Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bright, Graham

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Emery, Sir Peter

  1000

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Knox, David

  Favell, Tony

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Latham, Michael

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forth, Eric

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  French, Douglas

  Lord, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gill, Christopher

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Maclean, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Madel, David

  Gorst, John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maples, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Marlow, Tony

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grist, Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hague, William

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hannam, John

  Mills, Iain

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

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayes, Jerry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hayward, Robert

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hill, James

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Norris, Steve

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Page, Richard

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Paice, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Jack, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jackson, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Janman, Tim

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Key, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Kilfedder, James

  Portillo, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Price, Sir David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Knapman, Roger

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  1001

  Redwood, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thorne, Neil

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thurnham, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rost, Peter

  Tracey, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Trippier, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walden, George

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sims, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Watts, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  Whitney, Ray

  Speller, Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Squire, Robin

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Sumberg, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. David Lightbown, and Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

  Local Government Finance Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion and the Motion relating to Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
    10.38 pm
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole House will feel that what happened between 10 o'clock and 10.20 pm was unsatisfactory. I appreciate that it was extremely difficult for you to decide what to do in the circumstances of some
    1002
    hon. Members being unable to get into the House. The information that you had extended the Division time by 10 minutes was available to those of us in the House, but not to those outside it. As I understand it, some hon. Members could not get into the House before the Division was completed. Could you give some thought to what happened? We hope that it will never occur again, but if it does, may we have clear guidance so that those outside the House will know that if the police warn that it is unsafe to come into the House the Division either will or will not be extended? The present situation is unsatisfactory. I hope that clear guidance can be given in case this happens again.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised a point of order earlier. I recognise the difficulty of your position and the difficulty that arose. May I ask you to consider what happened in case it should recur, which we all hope it will not? Surely a Division should be brought to a conclusion only when hon. Members have unimpeded access to the House in accordance with the Sessional Orders. If there is any question about that, the extended time limit tends to be arbitrary, so I ask that consideration be given to the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall reflect carefully on the matter. I had to exercise my discretion and I decided in the light of the report from the Serjeant at Arms that 10 minutes was an adequate period. I hope that this will not happen again. If I had decided to call the Division again, up on the screen would have gone the sign "Division Off" and Members would have drifted away. I have to exercise discretion. If hon. Members know that there is to be a Division at 10 o'clock, they should get here well on time.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Finance Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) the remuneration of, and any expenses incurred by, listing officers in carrying out their functions under the Act (including the remuneration and expenses of persons, whether or not in the service of the Crown, to assist them);

    (b) any sums required to enable valuations to be carried out in accordance with the Act;

    (c) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act; and

    (d) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Wood.]

    WAYS AND MEANS

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE BILL
      Resolved,
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Finance Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of—
      1004

      (a) any sums received by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act; and

      (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into that Fund under any other enactment.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)
  10.41 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill—
  Committee
  1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 5th December 1991.
  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 5th December may continue until Eight o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 6th December.
  2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated—

  (a) shall meet on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock; and

  (b) shall allot 18 sittings to the consideration of the Bill.

  (2) The proceedings to be taken on each of those sittings shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column, of the following Table—

  TABLE

  Sitting

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  1st

  Clauses 1 to 5 and 70 to 74 and Schedule 5

  —

  2nd

  Clauses 1 to 5 and 70 to 74 and Schedule 5 so far as not disposed of

  —

  3rd

  Clauses 1 to 5 and 70 to 74 and Schedule 5 so far as not disposed of

  —

  4th

  Clauses 1 to 5 and 70 to 74 and Schedule 5 so far as not disposed of

  10.00 p.m.

  5th

  Clauses 6 to 13 and 75 to 80 and Schedule 1

  —

  6th

  Clauses 6 to 13 and 75 to 80 and Schedule 1 so far as not disposed of

  —

  7th

  Clauses 6 to 13 and 75 to 80 and Schedule 1 so far as not disposed of

  —

  8th

  Clauses 6 to 13 and 75 to 80 and Schedule 1 so far as not disposed of

  Midnight

  9th

  Clauses 14 to 19,81 to 83 and 97 and Schedules 2 to 4, 6 and 8

  —

  10th

  Clauses 14 to 19,81 to 83 and 97 and Schedules 2 to 4, 6 and 8 so far as not disposed of

  10.00 p.m.

  11th

  Clauses 20 to 29 and 84 to 92

  —

  12th

  Clauses 20 to 29 and 84 to 92 so far as not disposed of

  8.00 p.m.

  13th

  Clauses 30 to 52,65 to 69,93,95,96,98 and 99

  —

  14th

  Clauses 30 to 52,65 to 69,93,95,96,98 and 99 so far as not disposed of

  Midnight

  15th

  Clauses 53 to 64, 94 and 100 and Schedule 7

  —

  16th

  Clauses 53 to 64,94 and 100 and Schedule 7 so far as not disposed of

  10.00 p.m.

  17th

  Remaining proceedings

  —

  18th

  Remaining proceedings so far as not disposed of

  8.00 p.m.

  Report and Third Reading
  3.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days.
  (2) The proceedings to be taken on each of those days shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column, of the following Table—

  TABLE

  Allotted day

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  First day

  New Clauses

  10.00 p.m.

  Second day

  Remaining proceedings on consideration

  8.00 p.m.

  Third Reading

  10.00 p.m.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  4.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.
  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Extra time on allotted days
  8. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
  Private business
  9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bil on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
  Conclusion of proceedings
  10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  1007

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or that Motion is made by a member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
  Supplemental orders
  11.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  Saving
  12. Nothing in this Order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as arc to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  13.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
  Interpretation etc.
  14.—(1) In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Local Government Finance Bill.
  (2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) shall not apply to this Order.
  The House has already had three days of debate on the Bill, so hon. Members will understand why it is so important. Let me now spell out why the timetable motion is necessary.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Minister have made clear, the community charge is to be replaced at the earliest opportunity. The council tax is a fair, balanced and carefully thought-out approach to local government finance which builds constructively on previous attempts at reform and takes full account of the consultations that my right hon. Friend initiated a year ago.
  Following a full day of debate on the Loyal Address and two days on the Second Reading of the Bill, the country is none the wiser about what the Labour party proposes on local government finance, save in one crucial respect: we now know that it is committed to ending all control on local authority expenditure. Its one positive policy is to allow high-spending Labour local authorities to impose a crippling burden of local taxation on those areas where they operate, on top of the crippling burden on national taxation which its £35,000 million of extra spending commitments would impose on all taxpayers.
  We want to ensure that the Bill is taken through Parliament with appropriate speed, yet allowing full time for debate, for one simple reason: local authorities and local taxpayers need to know where they stand. For local authorities to set their budgets in good time for the start of the financial year, they expect as much advance notice as possible of the level of central Government grant and how the total is divided between the various local government services. They need that information before they finalise their budgets. They also need to know how much they will have to finance from locally raised taxation—from the community charge or its replacement, the council tax. How much more important, therefore, to give them as much time as possible when we are changing the whole basis of the local tax and they will have to collect the council tax for the first time.
  It is crucial to understand one issue in order to understand the need for the motion. We all agree on the abolition of the community charge at the earliest possible moment. At least that is what we thought we had agreed, but we now seem to be in some doubt whether that is what the Labour party wants. Before the Opposition changed their mind on the need for speed, or appeared to do so, they sometimes taunted us by saying that we should have already moved ahead with the replacement of the community charge. That shows how little the Opposition understand the practical realities.
  First, we had to undertake consultation and then frame the legislation. Now the parliamentary consideration of the legislation will commence. There then follows a crucial practical stage on which I wish to dwell—publishing the regulations following the Royal Assent to the Bill and the preparation by local authorities for the introduction of the council tax.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that one of the most important aspects of parliamentary procedure is to allow proper consultation between the various stages at which a Bill is read. How much time will there be between the end of the 18th sitting of the Committee and the Report and Third Reading? Can my right hon. Friend satisfy the House that there will be a genuine attempt to

  1009
  allow local authorities to consider what has been done in Committee and to make their proper representations on Report?
  Mr. MacGregor: That is a fair point. We shall ensure that between the Committee stage and Report the normal time is given—
  Mr. Budgen: How long?
  Mr. MacGregor: We will give the normal time and we will come to that when we come to it.
  Mr. Budgen: How many days?
  Mr. MacGregor: The number of days is stated in the motion that we are debating.
  Mr. Budgen: I apologise to my right hon. Friend, but plainly I did not put my point with sufficient clarity. I am talking not about the number of days on which the 18 Committee sittings are held, but the number of days that elapse between the last of the 18 sittings and Report.
  Mr. MacGregor: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the precise number of days because we never can at this stage. We will observe the normal rules. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I misunderstood him. [Interruption.] I thought that my hon. Friend was talking about the number of days for Report, which is mentioned in the motion. My hon. Friend sought to correct me from a sedentary position, but I now understand from the intervention made in the normal way that he was talking about the number of days between the end of the Committee stage and Report. I have already said that we will follow the normal rules, but at this stage I cannot say exactly how many days will elapse. [Interruption.] If the Opposition do not want to hear the arguments for the guillotine, it is up to them. I shall not be drawn further because one is never so far ahead when announcing the business of the House. It is also important to remember that there will be a great deal of time for consideration of the Bill in another place.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. Friend, I am sure inadvertently, has given the impression of being disingenuous on this matter. I thought that the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was perfectly clear. My hon. Friend asked how long there would be between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the beginning of the Report and subsequent stages of the Bill. Is it not the normal practice of the House that there should be a week, often two weeks, between the various stages? My right hon. Friend is more expert in such matters than I, given that he is the Leader of the House. Can he therefore tell us what that interval will be, because the Government must have planned for it?
  Mr. MacGregor: I did not understand and I was not being disingenuous. We will follow the normal rules for the period between—
  Mr. Budgen: How many days?
  Mr. MacGregor: Just a moment. We will follow the normal rules for the period between the Committee stage
  1010
  and Report. I cannot say at this stage, given that we are talking about December, exactly what the business will be that week and I shall not be drawn further on that matter.
  Mr. Bryan Gould: Answer the question.
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that one does not announce now the business for December. There is nothing unusual about that and I have been absolutely clear.
  Mr. Gould: Surely the Leader of the House can at least give his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) a sensible answer. We would understand it if some emergency occurred which made his answer invalid, because of the circumstances that arose. But he must be able to answer in terms of the Government's current intention about the length of time they think would be appropriate between the two stages.
  Mr. MacGregor: We shall follow the normal rules—[Interruption]—and I cannot be clearer than that. It is perfectly straightforward.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: We are wasting time.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I must get on because I have made the position clear.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I will not give way again. As for the suggestion that it would be reasonable to announce now the business of the House for December—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. Member, but at present four or five hon. Members are on their feet.
  Mr. Douglas: Perhaps you can help us and the Leader of the House, Mr. Speaker, as the learned Clerks are present. Can you explain what the normal procedure is? The right hon. Gentleman does not seem capable of telling us.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
  Mr. MacGregor: The House knows what it is. We shall provide the normal period of two weekends for consideration of the Committee stage. That is perfectly obvious.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: No, I must get on, having made the position clear.
  I had only started to develop the argument on why it was essential to have this motion. We all agree that 1 April 1993 is both the earliest and latest date for the implementation of the council tax—the earliest because we cannot do it earlier and the latest because we want to have the council tax in as quickly as possible. The Opposition have not faced up to the practical implications of that.
  There was a delay of one year and eight months between getting Royal Assent for the community charge and its introduction. That shows the formidable task that

  1011
  will face the Department of the Environment and local authorities in implementing the council tax, when it is in place.
  There are at least a dozen major areas for regulations, several of them involving more than one set of regulations. We intend to consult on the most important before Christmas and to have the regulations ready shortly after Royal Assent. We are also trying to speed up the introduction of the regulations by not giving the usual two months after Royal Assent before the Bill starts to come into practical effect. That is designed to assist local authorities. Others of the regulations will be tabled in the summer of 1992. I have a list of all the regulations that will be required, or at least the major areas for them, and they are quite formidable.
  If we did not get the Bill until towards the end of May, for example, it would be serious for local authorities. Only when Royal Assent is achieved can both the Department and local authorities have an assurance about the ways in which they can proceed on the implementation of the council tax.
  Mr. Douglas: What investigations will take place between the Scottish Office and sheriff officers about their role? It is becoming clear that the role of the sheriff officers in Scotland is extremely unsatisfactory. Does the Scottish Office intend to have such consultations and to make a report when, in particular, schedule 8 comes before the Committee?
  Mr. MacGregor: That is a matter for debate in Committee rather than for this debate on the timetable motion.
  Local authorities now say that they need a year after the major regulations have been made available to them, so there is a clear need for speed in this legislation if we are to give local authorities enough time to implement the council tax effectively and meet the 1 April 1993 deadline. Indeed, in the internal discussions now taking place between the Department and the local authorities, the latter are saying that they want the draft regulations and guidance on them as soon as possible and the formal regulations as soon as possible after that—[Interruption.]They need both. We intend to get the draft regulations on the major issues out for consultation before Christmas, but local authorities need the formal regulations as soon as possible so that they know exactly where they stand.
  Local authorities need the regulations for a variety of reasons, such as the introduction of the computer system. As anyone with experience of introducing a major computer system will know, it involves a huge number of man hours. Therefore, local authorities need to know many details as soon as possible before they can begin that. They also need them for the administrative systems—working out who is entitled to discounts—to set up the benefits and collection systems and for information gathering. The Department needs to have much of the feedback from local authorities by September so that it can work out grants, central Government expenditure implications of discounts, RSG distribution and so on. That is a clear reason why we need the Bill to move quickly.
  For all those reasons, we cannot meet the April 1993 deadline unless we move on the timescale that we have proposed to the House. We want to get on with the Bill quickly, but, at the same time, we want plenty of time to
  1012
  press the Opposition as hard as we can for an explanation of their policies on local government finance and to carry through the detailed consideration of the Bill.
  I suspect that the Labour party will oppose the timetable motion. Is that because, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked, they want to keep the community charge? Labour Members say no. They say that they have promised co-operation in repealing the community charge, but everyone knows that one cannot repeal one form of local government tax without replacing it. Now that we have a replacement in the form of the council tax, where is Labour's promised co-operation in getting rid of the community charge?
  I have already stated clearly why we need to follow the timetable to get the replacement in place by 1 April 1993. I suspect that Labour's opposition to the timetable motion is mainly to do with the absence of a clear policy on their part. Instead, they complain about the parliamentary proceedings that we are following. The timetable motion breaks new ground and I have explained the fundamental reason for that. It concerns the implementation of the council tax. However, I was also asked about the procedural point. I believe that this way of proceeding ensures a properly structured debate, which is in the best interests of the House and the country.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have not yet elaborated my argument. Once again, I am not allowed to do so before my hon. Friend asks me to give way, but I always give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all that talk about a properly structured debate simply means that the Government are taking away from the Opposition their right to put proper pressure on the Government and to clear the Government's minds about which points are important and which points can be conceded?
  Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not agree. Since 1979–80, we have had timetable motions on Bills after they have started in Standing Committee on 27 occasions. In so many of those, the guillotine motion was proposed after the Committee stage had started, but often at a point when no reasonable progress has been made.
  Our practice in the House as regards timetable motions has been to fall back on them as a response to much time being taken in Committee on the first few clauses of major Government Bills. Inevitably, with the pressure of other legislation on the time of the House, that means that discussion of what is left of timetabled Bills is taken at an accelerated pace. I am not making a party political point, because there are examples from both Labour and Conservative Administrations.
  In 1967–68, the Transport Bill, which had 169 clauses, took 91 hours in Committee to reach clause 38 before a guillotine was imposed which allowed a further 100 hours for the remaining 131 clauses and 18 schedules.
  In 1974–75, the Petroleum Submarine Pipe-lines Bill, which had 49 clauses, took 60 hours to reach clause 19 before a guillotine was imposed which allowed a further 22 hours for the remaining 30 clauses. A long time was spent on a few clauses and a short time was spent on the remaining large number of clauses. Exactly the same pattern has been followed with some of the most important Bills since 1979. In 1984–85, the Local

  1013
  Government Bill, with 98 clauses, which was not very different from this year's Bill, took 86 hours to reach clause 16 before a guillotine, which allowed a further 59 hours for the remaining 82 clauses.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: The Government are being shifty on the poll tax and the council tax. Local councils are facing terrible problems trying to collect money and people are having enormous difficulties paying their poll tax. The Government are now talking about giving a 100 per cent. rebate on the council tax. Why will they not give us time to debate the matter so that if the council tax comes into operation it will at least eliminate the problems of people who genuinely cannot pay and the difficulties faced by local authorities because of the subsequent lack of money? Will we have the chance for such debates, or will we continue to have such shifty debates when we do not discuss the fundamental issues?
  Mr. MacGregor: We are not having shifty debates. The hon. Gentleman's point can of course be debated in Committee. If he wants the 100 per cent. rebates which he mentioned to be implemented, he must want the Bill to be enacted as quickly as possible, which is another reason for moving on with the Bill.
  Many Bills, including the Local Government Finance Bill of 1987–88, spend a long time in Committee where a few clauses are discussed, the guillotine is then used and a much shorter time is spent discussing a much greater number of clauses. This Local Government Finance Bill has 117 clauses and 14 schedules. The timetable motion provides for just as much time to be spent, proportionately, on those clauses as did all the other Bills from the outset.
  Mr. John McFall: I was a member of the Committee that discussed the Local Government Finance Bill in 1987 when 182 clauses were proposed by the Government. More than 200 Lords amendments were proposed, with the result that the final legislation was thoroughly bad—so bad that today each and every Member encounters problems with the poll tax in their surgeries. Will those problems be repeated with this legislation because of the guillotine? That is what Members from all parties are afraid of and that is the nub of the problem which the Leader of the House should resolve.
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman should address the point that I made earlier: if he wants the council tax to be in place in April 1993, it is essential to follow the sort of timetable that we are suggesting.
  I should like to make a point that I have proposed as a personal point of view to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). It seems that the best use of precious parliamentary time is to ensure that the whole of a Bill of such importance is subject to adequate discussion and scrutiny and the timetable motion allows for precisely that. It will be for the Standing Committee to determine how long it spends on the various parts of the Bill. The timetable motion establishes a framework designed to guarantee that the
  1014
  whole Bill is given adequate discussion in Committee, despite any attempts to delay and filibuster on particular clauses.
  The times specified in the motion for when the knives fall on various groups of clauses merely determine when the Questions are put in Committee. If the Committee so wishes, there is nothing to stop it carrying on after that point on the next group of clauses, thus increasing the time available overall for discussion.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The right hon. Gentleman is missing an important point about Committees. It is all very well cramming all the hours in Committee into one week, but Oppositions depend on outside bodies—local authorities, local authority treasurers and local council leaders—to give them information about Bills. There will not be enough time for that with this Bill and that is a denial of democracy.
  Mr. MacGregor: I understand that, but there has been prolonged consultation on these proposals and the Bill has been available for a considerable number of days.
  We have to strike a balance between parliamentary consideration, which will take several months, and the need to get the council tax into operation by April 1993——
  Mr. David Blunkett: Given that the Committee will meet three days a week, starting at 10.30 am and breaking in the afternoon, does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that discussion after midnight is the right way to apply detailed scrutiny to legislation of this sort? We all know about the difficulties of debating at that time of night. Would not a debate held so late at night be more about mice and pumpkins than about the legislative framework for a sensible, democratic Parliament such as ours?
  Mr. MacGregor: I well recall debating Finance Bills introduced by the last Labour Government well after midnight in Committee. I repeat: we must endeavour to strike the right balance between a reasonable amount of time for parliamentary consideration and getting Royal Assent in time to introduce the council tax——
  Mr. John Maxton: One danger of the timetable motion is that, because the Bill has not been thought through properly by the Government, they will use the Committee stage to table large numbers of their own amendments to try to improve the Bill. The Chair will then give those amendments precedence over Opposition amendments. So the bulk of the time will be taken up with trying to clear up the mess that the Government have created.
  Mr. MacGregor: I can only repeat that we must strike a balance between parliamentary consideration and putting the council tax in place. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill has been thoroughly thought through.
  A timetable motion along these lines enhances the consideration of any Bill. That is why in my memorandum to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House I made clear my view that a much greater use of timetabling, as recommended by the Procedure Committee—the Chairman of that Committee is in his place this evening—would be an important improvement in the effectiveness of our procedures.

  1015
  If the Labour party opposes this motion, it can only be for one of three reasons. Perhaps Opposition Members fear the amount of time that we shall provide to expose the bankruptcy of their policies on local government finance; or perhaps they wish to deny the House enough time to debate the Bill in a structured way; or perhaps they wish to prevent the council tax from being properly prepared and implemented by 1993. That is why it is right to present the motion and to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
  The details of the motion are self-explanatory, but I should like to repeat one important point. As I have already made clear, nothing in the motion prevents the Committee from sitting after the guillotine falls in order to spend extra time on the clauses in what could be described as the next compartment. Ministers would obviously reflect the views of the Committee as a whole in deciding when to move the adjournment. I assure the House that, if it wishes, the Committee can sit much later into the night. Thus the total number of hours provided by the motion is very much a minimum. The times at which the guillotine falls have been agreed following discussions, but I am sure that none of us would wish to lay down to the Committee exactly how much time it must take.
  The proposals in the motion provide adequate time for debate to ensure that the whole of this vital Bill is subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny. We must ensure the minimum amount of time for the regulations to be promulgated, for guidance to be given to local authorities and for them to make the detailed preparations for the introduction of the council tax. If that is not done, the tax will not be in place by April 1993, which is what most hon. Members want and what we should like. I commend the motion to the House.
  11.11 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Leader of the House started his speech with an error and made a totally unconvincing case for the motion. He started by saying that the Bill has already had three days of debate. Presumably he was counting a day of the debate on the Gracious Speech which took place before the Bill had been published. He cannot say that the House had a day's debate on a Bill that it had not seen.
  Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that, uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman started with an error himself. I did not make an error. The Bill was published on the Friday before the debate on the Gracious Speech.
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he was following normal procedures. The motion owes everything to the Government's failed election strategy and nothing to the proper scrutiny of legislation that will affect every home in the land.
  Once again the Government are setting unenviable records with their summary attitude to important legislation. We have seen and heard it all before. For a decade the Government have offered local taxpayers salvation. First, there were the targets and penalties set by the Secretary of State for the Environment when he formerly held that office. Local Government Finance Bills came thick and fast throughout the 1980s and guillotines fell upon them with monotonous regularity. Targets and penalties, rate capping, retrospective legislation and the poll tax were all guillotined and railroaded through the
  1016
  House in the so-called interests of local taxpayers. They were all said to be the final solution to the problems of more accountability and a fairer deal for ratepayers. Here we are again with the latest Tory tax.
  The Conservative justification for those actions makes hilarious reading. Hansard is replete with justifications for the need for haste and change and the reason why the latest piece of Conservative manic legislation would put everything right. It never did. The consequences for local taxpayers, local services, local authority jobs and, of course, for local government in general are not funny. It was all incoherent opportunism then and it is all incoherent opportunism now, but it is again about to be given the force of law.
  The Government still lack any coherent philosophy on local government, or any principles on which to base their approach to local government in Britain. The poll tax—their flagship—is now to be ignominiously scrapped, but not for at least one more year.
  We have heard the same hollow arguments and transparent claims paraded by the Leader of the House and his right hon. and hon. Friends—a fairer system; it must be guillotined; it must be on the statute book as soon as possible. No one believes any of this any more. We have had too many bitter experiences. This time, the Tory imperative is not to save the taxpayer but—a vain attempt—to save their political skins.
  There were three lines about the poll tax in the Tory manifesto at the last general election. They cost the people of Britain £15 billion—£5 billion a line. When the Bill to introduce the poll tax was guillotined into law, the Secretary of State for Energy, who was then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), praised it. He said:
  "Our proposed community charge will introduce the accountability which is currently lacking … The Bill will achieve those objectives through the replacement of domestic rates by a fairer community charge, the introduction of a simpler and more stable system".
  Who believes that any more? He continued:
  "Local electors and local businesses are crying out for a change from an unfair system of local revenue raising to a more equitable one that will increase local government accountability and strengthen local democracy."—[Official Report, 22 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 28–32.]
  All that is to be thrown out of the window now. The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities actually said at the Tory party conference that the poll tax would be a vote winner. If it is so wonderful, why the headlong rush to get rid of it?
  When he was Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon adduced in support of the guillotine the fact that the Conservatives had a mandate for the poll tax. This is the first time that I can recall—it is probably a constitutional and historical first—a Government using a guillotine not to get their manifesto commitments in but to get their manifesto commitments out. That is what the Leader of the House is asking the House to do.
  It is instructive to reflect on how the House treated the poll tax Bill or, more fairly, the way that the Government treated it. On Second Reading, it had 131 clauses and 12 schedules. By the time that it came out of Committee, because of huge amendments and additions, it had 164 clauses and 16 schedules. It then went to another place, where it stayed for quite some time, and came back with

  1017
  417 new amendments on 66 pages. They too were railroaded through the House of Commons in a few short hours.
  The Leader of the House and his right hon. and hon. Friends no longer have any credibility on these matters, and they have the brass neck to come to the House and ask us to put up with it all again. Several times the Leader of the House spoke of following normal procedures when he is recommending abnormal procedures.
  Mr. Budgen: Is it not plain that the Leader of the House was saying that he hoped to have the minimum possible period between the end of the Committee stage and Report? That may be a legitimate way to deal with a non-controversial Bill that does not require a great deal of consultation, but this is a major constitutional Bill on which we want the responses not only of officers in local government but of locally elected people and the population generally. There ought to be not a bare minimum but a proper period of national consultation.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I know that in truth the Leader of the House shares his view. Recently the right hon. Gentleman attended a sitting of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). In evidence, he said:
  "The Opposition must have adequate opportunity to oppose, and its legitimate rights must be sustained."
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman said only a few days ago. Yet here he is flattening at one fell swoop by means of a guillotine motion the Opposition's right to oppose. The right hon. Gentleman cannot face both ways, one way in the Chamber and in an entirely different way when giving evidence to the right hon. Member for Westmorland Lonsdale and others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) said, there will not be adequate time and opportunity for Government Back-Bench Members to obtain briefing on amendments, let alone Opposition Members.
  There has been talk of normal procedures. As the proposed Committee will sit on three consecutive days each week and sometimes, on the admission of the Leader of the House, late into the night, will he guarantee that Committee Hansards will be available in the normal way for Committee members to scrutinise what Ministers have said in debates that may not have finished, or in debates that may be germane to subsequent debates and amendments? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the assurance that the reports will be available? Would he like to give us that assurance now? Come on! The answer is no answer at all. That is the response of a Minister who a few moments ago was telling the House that normal procedures would be followed. We know that no precedent for the procedures that we are discussing has ever been proposed before by any Government on any Bill, not even on a tuppenny-ha'penny Bill of no consequence let alone a Bill of the magnitude and significance that we are discussing.
  The Government's proposals would be easy to understand if they had a reasonable record on these matters, but I have made clear briefly that their record is abysmal. The hon. Member for Enfield and Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and others have abandoned their commitment—this certainly goes for the Under-Secretary
  1018
  of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and most Conservative Members—to the poll tax. All of them—I say that unless a Conservative Member wants to intervene to say that he opposed it—marched through the Government Lobby in support of it, and did so on many occasions. They supported also guillotine motions that related to it. They seem to have changed their tune somewhat tonight.
  The poll tax legislation was guillotined in and it will be guillotined out, but it will not entirely disappear until we have a Labour Government after the next general election.
  We face a familiar scene but one that has a new twist. There is to be unprecedented forcing of legislation through the House. It is clear that when the political future of Tory Members is at stake they care little about the proper scrutiny of tax proposals and the expenditure of public money.
  The poll tax Bill and the new Tory tax Bill bear some comparison. The earlier measure had 131 clauses and 12 schedules when it began its tortuous journey through the House. The Bill that is before us has 117 clauses and 14 schedules. The previous measure was in Committee for 72 hours before it was guillotined. Unlike that which the Leader of the House implied, there was no question of any filibuster. I led the opposition to it on behalf of the Labour party and, far from filibustering, I recall that the Government tabled more amendments in Committee than the Opposition. We were anxious to proceed to the important parts of the Bill. In total, that Bill had 136 hours in Committee. For a Bill of not dissimilar length and importance, the Leader of the House is suggesting 80 to 100 hours for scrutiny, yet he has the nerve to say that he is proposing normal procedures. In fact, he is breaking with all precedent, and he knows it.
  This guillotine motion is symptomatic of a Government who have come to treat the House of Commons, and, for that matter, the British people, with total contempt in their approach to local government finance. It is a Government who cannot be trusted with the reform of local government finance, just as they cannot be trusted with the future of the national health service, our children's education or the handling of the economy.
  The timetable for the council tax Bill has been determined by one criterion above all others—the panic-stricken attempt by the Prime Minister to hang on to office, with a discredited group of Ministers hanging on to his coat tails. That is the real reason why we are here tonight. The motion makes a mockery of the procedures of the House and its proper role in the scrutiny of Bills. We should not be surprised by the way the Government are acting in forcing through yet another of their ill-conceived pieces of local government legislation, because that has been the hallmark of their time in office.
  Why is the House being asked to accept the unprecedented step of having a Standing Committee for a major Bill that sits on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and, from what the Leader of the House implied, could be in almost continuous session?
  The Prime Minister should seriously consider the proposal of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which is rightly concerned that poll tax collection will become even more difficult in coming months because of the mess and confusion that the Government have created. The AMA has suggested a national advertising campaign drawing the public's attention to their liability to pay the poll tax, which is not yet even abolished. There could even

  1019
  be a large poster sited across the road from 10 Downing street for the Prime Minister's benefit. After all, the Government have always been more than ready to spend millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on lavish advertising campaigns to promote other aspects of Government policy, so why should not they do so on this occasion?
  The unpalatable fact remains for us all that every person who gets a poll tax bill in this financial year will find one dropping on his doormat next financial year as well. No one is in any doubt about where the responsibility lies for that. In spite of the bluster of the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and others have repeatedly offered to co-operate, as we did in the last Session of Parliament, on Bills to abolish the poll tax immediately. The delay in abolishing that piece of Tory folly is entirely due to the Government's unwillingness to co-operate in getting rid of it as quickly as possible.
  Try as the Government might, fiddle with the evidence as they might, the Government will not escape, first, the responsibility for poll tax itself, and, secondly, their unenviable record in railroading rotten legislation through the House. For those reasons, we shall certainly oppose the motion.
  11.28 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) enjoyed making that speech and the House enjoyed some of his remarks. The trouble is that many of them were carbon copies of speeches made from that Bench over the past 20 years.
  I and many hon. Members in the House tonight have listened to a vast number of guillotine debates. They are predictable. I have not participated in one before, but I thought that it was perhaps worth making a contribution on this occasion, for a variety of reasons—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) bothered to listen, he would discover why I am making this speech. I shall listen to his speech without the discourtesy of interrupting him.
  What clearly emerges is that the Government want the Bill to go through. Every Government wants its legislation to go through. Every Opposition express their anger at the contempt with which the House is being treated and the contempt with which local government is being treated and always accuse the Government of flagrantly abusing the processes of democracy.
  It is easy to make the sort of speech that the hon. Member for Copeland made. He merely has to look back at speeches made by hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber during the past 20 years, changing the quotations, the odd word arid the title of the Bill. In that way he can make his speech without any preparation. He adapts the words of his predecessors and the Government spokesman does the same. The tragedy is that none of the speeches will alter a single vote when it comes to the Division.
  Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that in the whole of the period between 1945 and 1951, when the House was considering the most major social changes, there were only three guillotine motions, and that in 1988 there were 13? Does not my hon. Friend think that at the
  1020
  very least he should address the allegation that the Government have got into the habit of bashing their legislation through under the guillotine?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Some of us were elected to carry through legislation detailed in election addresses, and I propose to continue to do that. As for the other point that my hon. Friend made, that is such a hoary chestnut that it has been answered over and over again and I do not propose to waste the time of the House repeating ad nauseam the arguments which, if he had been present, he would have heard on previous occasions.
  The purpose of the motion is, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, to give enough time to discuss each clause sensibly. Let me now say why I decided to speak in the debate. My first experience of participating in a guillotined debate was when I was a junior Minister with responsibility for housing in 1979–80 when we put through the right-to-buy legislation. We sat afternoon and night, ploughing on, wasting time on early clauses until the macho characteristics of the Opposition had been sufficiently satisfied and the Government business managers had been sufficiently satisfied to table a guillotine motion. The trouble was that much of the argument was useless because it was addressed to unimportant clauses and many of the important clauses were not properly dealt with. That was not the way to proceed.
  Timetable motions always lead the Opposition to claim that not enough time has been given. Let me draw the attention of the House to the report of the Select Committee on Procedure which was published on 23 April 1985. On page 25, it says:
  "Timetables on controversial bills"—
  no one would argue that this is not a controversial bill—
  "should be introduced much earlier than at present. To this end there should be a Legislative Business Committee … of thirteen Members appointed by the Committee of Selection".
  It goes on to say that that Committee
  "should consider all Government bills committed to a Standing Committee. If it considers that a Bill is likely to require more than twenty-five hours in standing committee"—
  I guess that everyone thinks that—
  "the LBC should recommend a maximum number of hours for consideration of the Bill by the standing committee."
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has recommended a minimum, not a maximum, number of hours. It goes on to say:
  "Such recommendations … should be implemented without debate."
  That report was carried by eight votes to one with the support of Labour, Liberal and Conservative Members. That is the point that should be addressed. I am speaking of the considered view of the Procedure Committee, not some decision made by a fly-by-night business managers' Committee. The Procedure Committee is a very distinguished body.
  Mr. Wilkinson: No one is casting aspersions on the Procedure Committee, or disputing its merits; I am sure that it was both distinguished and wise. None the less, we must conduct our affairs according to the procedures that are currently in place.
  Furthermore—if we are to deal with hypothetical examples—it could equally be said that a pre-legislative Select Committee should be established to take evidence from experts. My hon. Friend's remarks derive from a recommendation based on the proposition that a

  1021
  pre-legislative Committee should decide how much time should be allocated. No such consensus is involved in our procedure, however; we must decide on the merits of the motion that we are debating.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The Leader of the House has read the Procedure Committee's report, and has decided that this is how we should proceed. I remind the House that among the members of that Committee was the right hon. J. Enoch Powell, who gave his approval—and there was no stauncher defender of the rights of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is another great expert on these matters. Such people will not be bludgeoned into presenting foolish proposals.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman misses the vital point that the Select Committee is composed of Members of all parties. This pig's ear of a motion has been decided by hon. Members on only one side of the House—perhaps by only one or two people. That is a negation of our responsibility to decide, as a House, what the House should do. It should not be a case of the Secretary of State's deciding what the Opposition should do. It is one thing for a special Committee, perhaps a Select Committee, to make a judgment; it is another for a motion such as this to be rammed down our throats.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman puts his case very reasonably, but I cannot agree. If the Procedure Committee, having received masses of evidence, weighed that evidence and reached a conclusion with the support of all parties in the House, says that a maximum number of hours should be laid down, and my right hon. Friend proposes a minimum number, it is clear that he has gone beyond what the Committee proposed. I think that that is more than reasonable.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has omitted a vital point. He has not told us what happened when the House received the report from that—as he described it—distinguished Committee. What did the House do about it?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Alas, like so many Select Committee reports, it was not adopted. Long ago, I served on that Committee. It produces extremely good reports, but, unfortunately, they are not always given debating time, and they are not always accepted. I hope that, when the House accepts the motion later tonight, a precedent will be set.
  Let me be frank. I should like all legislation to be timetabled. That was hinted at in a review of legislation presented a long time ago by Sir David Renton, which was warmly supported.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I promise that I shall do so when I finish this passage; I would not dream of not giving way to my hon. Friend.
  There is no point in the House deciding that it will examine the hours during which it sits and the conditions in which it works if it does not intend to reform the structure of legislation. That is why I hope that the passing of the motion will create a precedent. It will affect both
  1022
  sides of the House. Governments become the Opposition and the Opposition become the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] Of course. I am looking ahead to the year 2000. On this occasion, though, I am trying not to be too partisan; it is too important an issue. We must try to ensure that the House is given sufficient time to consider legislation so that all the clauses can be considered properly.
  Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that respect for the authority of the law arises not because the Government have bashed legislation through but because that legislation has been subjected to the full procedure then in force, so that by the time it has been considered each and every one of us can be said to have given our consent to it? The danger when dealing with legislation of this sort, which has been the subject of contempt and non-collection, is that those who pay reluctantly may feel that the legislation that comes out of this truncated procedure has not been accorded the proper majesty of the procedure and that in some way it can be treated with contempt, as though it were lesser law.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It is a pity that my hon. Friend prejudices his case by using the words "bashed through." They are not words that his predecessor would have used. Moreover, I do not believe that what he has said is relevant to the debate. The mere fact of having three times the amount of time to consider the legislation would not necessarily make it any better. We might hear more speeches from my hon. Friend, but the legislation would not necessarily be improved in any way. Therefore, the House would be well advised to pass the motion. We know from the start exactly when each clause will be given time and we shall be able to decide how much time we want to spend on individual clauses.
  I have tried to get away from the usual quoting of five guillotines in one night and X number of guillotines in 1945. That is not the point. The point is whether this is the way to space out the legislation, giving sufficient time for consideration of each clause. What we do not want to do, as so often happens, is to find that 10, 20 or 30 clauses have to go through on the nod because the knife has come down and that we have to leave it to the other place to do our work for us. By this means we shall do our work in a more efficient way than we have done up to now.
  11.42 pm
  Mr. David Bellotti: At the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), I thought that the Government had written his script, but as he proceeded I realised that even the Government could not have written it for him.
  After listening to the debate, it seems to me that the Government are in a very large hole which they continue to dig. There has been no consultation on the timetable with the Opposition parties. They may have wished to suggest how the Government should proceed. No Opposition Member likes the council tax, but we dislike the poll tax, too, and we are only too willing to help the Government get rid of it at the very first opportunity. However, having introduced the poll tax and inflicted such suffering on the people of this country, the Government

  1023
  are only too pleased to grab at the first thing they see in an effort to get themselves off the poll tax hook as quickly as possible.
  The proposed timetable is absolutely crazy for the size of the task. Local government finance is one of the most complex issues that the House will ever have to debate. Although we shall have 75 hours plus—depending on the time that some of the sittings finish—the proceedings will have to be concluded in just two weeks and two days. There will be little time for reflection between one Committee sitting and the next. There will be little time to consider something that is very important, such as whether a particular clause that was considered at the previous sitting will have an effect on following clauses.
  Why are the Government rushing the Bill through in such a way? If the council tax has merit, surely they will want to persuade hon. Members and the general public that it is worth looking forward to. But no, the reverse is true. This must be a deliberate act by the Government because they do not want people outside to realise what the tax will be like for them.
  Conservative Back-Benchers have shown their dislike for the council tax in the debate on Second Reading. If they showed such dislike at that stage, clearly there will be considerable disputes in Committee and even more disagreement when the general public learn about the tax. That is why the Government have to rush the Bill through before too many people realise what the tax will be like.
  The rush also displays the Government's attitude towards local government. I was first elected to a district council in 1979—a very significant year. Every year since then the Government have attacked what that local authority, on which I sat for 12 years, has tried to do, whether it be the delivery of services, or raising the resources to pay for them. The Government have centralised control and in some cases they have inflicted a vindictiveness which is not merely unwelcome but which stops the local authorities providing some of those services.
  Central Government should be working in partnership with local government. The Bill should be discussed until local government reaches the consensus that it also believes that local taxation is the right method to pay for the services that they and not the House have to deliver.
  When one considers the costs that the Government are prepared to allocate to set up the council tax, all is revealed. They will meet only three quarters of the cost, in the same year that local government will continue to lose millions of pounds of poll tax which they cannot collect as a result of action by the same Government. Not only will millions of pounds be lost, but millions of people will lose out under the council tax because the charges will be greater for them than they were under the poll tax.
  The Government have already got many of their sums wrong. They have over-estimated the value of properties and, as a result, the tax will go up. The Government still have not answered some questions to the satisfaction of the House—including some Conservative as well as Opposition Members. For example, if they are going to exempt the majority of students and those on income support from 1993, cannot they exempt everyone from the 20 per cent. of the poll tax that they have to pay from 1992? That could be provided for in a clause in the Bill. We could pass it with the timetabled Bill and we could stop some of
  1024
  the suffering. A number of right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested that during the past two days of debate, but we have heard nothing from the Government about it.
  It will be necessary carefully to study some of the clauses in the 163 pages of the Bill. The Government believe that students will be exempt, but there is a grey area. What happens if some students live in a property with some working adults? The Government have not answered that question, so we shall need to debate it and table amendments.
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I provided the answers.
  Mr. Bellotti: I was here for the winding-up speeches and I am not satisfied with the answers. We shall have to consider the matter carefully in Committee and there may be a case for some amendments.
  Another grey area is the right of entry to property. It cannot be right that the House could pass a law that would permit estate agents to enter homes at 24 hours' notice to ascertain what they are like inside. That right is in the Bill. There need to be more safeguards and the 24 hours' notice needs to be extended. Is it right that banks, building societies and other institutions should be required, with 21 days' notice, to give information about valuation of properties? The contract between an individual and a bank or building society will be deviated from because the Government could require that information to be given to a valuation officer. Many aspects of the Bill will require serious consideration in Committee and the timetable motion does not provide the time necessary.
  Dr. Norman A Godman: Does not the timetable motion simply make plain the Government's contempt for this place? At a moment when there is growing uncertainty about the power of this place vis-à-vis central institutions of the European Community, the Government make matters worse by treating the House so disgracefully.
  Mr. Bellotti: The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point. The Government want to centralise decision-making and keep power here at Westminster. They do not want local authorities to have powers to raise funds or to deliver services. That is the crux of the Bill and all the local government legislation that the Government have introduced since 1979.
  There is another reason why the motion is so necessary and it becomes clear when one looks at how the council tax will affect individuals. I shall give one example, although there are dozens. Hon. Members will understand why I choose West Oxfordshire. Under the poll tax two people there pay £481, but under the council tax that sum will increase to over £500. In the south-east, in particular in Eastbourne and Sussex, there are dozens of such examples. The majority of people will be worse off under the council tax.
  Obviously, the Government are trying to rush the Bill through Parliament as quickly as they can, hoping to attract as little attention as possible, and to get the general election over with in the hope of being returned. They are in for a shock. People are waking up. After the poll tax fiasco, they will look carefully at the council tax. They will not allow it to pass as they did the poll tax.
  The Government had other opportunities that they could have taken, but they turned their face against them.

  1025
  As an hon. Member said earlier, this is another missed opportunity for local government finance. The Government made great play of accountability, but local government can be made accountable in other ways—not to the House, but to the people who elect them to deliver services. There should be and is no need to cap a local authority. One could introduce a fair voting system. Whatever system we have, councillors should be accountable to their local electorate, not to this place.
  I am disappointed that the Government have not yet seriously considered the one tax that has been proved to work in other European countries and the north Americas, and that is a local income tax. No one can dispute that it is easy to collect. It is cheap to administer—certainly cheaper than the rates, the poll tax or the council tax. We will not have an opportunity to debate that in Committee, so it is right to draw attention to it now. Above all, to use a phrase which the Government, Opposition and general public have used many times, a local income tax is certainly related to the ability to pay. It, too, could be in place by April 1993—the exact timetable that the Government have for the council tax.
  The Leader of the House began by saying that the proposals were carefully thought through. I cannot understand how he can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that when, clearly, they have been rushed. He said that the proposals were balanced, but they are unfair. People will find it an unfair tax. The proposals are certainly not well thought out. The Leader of the House said that they were. Does that mean that there will be no Government amendments in Committee? That would be interesting.
  The Bill and the guillotine come from a Government who are on their last legs. With the poll tax the Government shot themselves in the stomach. With the council tax they will shoot themselves in the head.
  11.54 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: I do not believe that the House, confronted by a Bill of this complexity and contentiousness, can be altogether happy about the arrangements for its consideration in Committee. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is operating under constraints and that he feels that those arrangements represent the best way to proceed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) demonstrated characteristic generosity in trying to elevate the nature of the debate into a consideration of timetabling generally. We know that procedural reform is now in vogue and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has a strong disposition towards general and automatic timetabling. It is a disposition with which I wholly agree.
  On this occasion the House is entitled, given the nature of the automatic timetable, to stop for a moment and to put a question mark against whether the organisation of automatic timetabling should be within the gift of the Whips' Office—the usual channels, that immaculate organisation whose skill and credibility is admired by all—or whether the House, perhaps in a mood of self-survival——
  Dr. Godman: Generosity.
  Mr. Biffen: It depends on how one judges such things. Would the House seek to be the authority for such automatic timetabling?
  This evening the usual channels, through my right hon. Friend, are the authors of the automatic timetable. I accept that, but the House would be well advised to suspend judgment on whether that authority should lie with the usual channels or, more generally, with the House.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) mentioned what was said on this subject in the excellent report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues. The words of Hansard speak little, but the Division lists say it all: they are padded with payroll. The House may well wonder why. Were all the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State turned into constitutional enthusiasts? I suggest that the usual channels have a strong interest in seeing that they control this important piece of procedure. That may be what the House will accept, but let the House be fully aware of the nature of the decision.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad to have the chance to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), whom I certainly regard as far and away the most successful Leader of the House in all my time here. It was following the right hon. Gentleman's removal from that high post that the Government fell apart. I accept that it has taken a few years for the process to be completed, but everyone who studies the history books will be able to trace the downfall of the Thatcher Government—as some may still call it—to the time when she was foolish enough to remove the right hon. Gentleman from the duties that he was carrying out so successfully.
  Because I have such regard for the right hon. Gentleman, it makes me all the more discontented to disagree with him about the proposition of permanent or automatic timetables. Of course, if such a procedure were adopted by the House it would be better to have it subject to agreement between the usual channels than merely on the diktat of the Government. That would be an improvement. Even so, there is a great deal to be said against timetable motions. I have attended more debates on these matters than any other hon. Member and I vividly recall many of them. But on none of those occasions did I put the case in the way that the Leader of the House put his case tonight, making it all the more necessary for us to oppose him now.
  I never put the case for a timetable motion on the ground that we should make it a permanent feature of our parliamentary procedures. I took that view for many good reasons, partly because I always believed that it would play far too much into the hands of the Government. All Governments like to have the opportunity of introducing guillotines at certain times, but that desire should be resisted for the good reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). That is why we should be cautious about proceeding in the way proposed by the Leader of the House.
  Although I listened with interest to the case adduced by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee which has made the recommendations, I still believe that the House would

  1027
  be making a great mistake to accept the motion, for it would add to the automatic nature, as it were, of debates and would play into the hands of the Government of the day, thereby strengthening their position over that of the House.
  Let us not forget the experience of the past 10 years, during which time we have had more experience of guillotine motions than in the whole of the previous history of Parliament. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West contrasted that with what was done by the great reforming Government of 1945, who put through the House a huge weight of measures. That Government were able to carry through virtually all that legislation with hardly any resort to guillotine motions.
  It was, of course, more difficult in the 1970s, when Governments did not have majorities of that nature. Such circumstances add to the temptation on Government, and sometimes the temptation must be accepted. But progressively more guillotines have been introduced. They have also been introduced earlier on measures and Ministers have come forward, as though it is a matter of no significance, to recommend new guillotine procedures, some in novel circumstances. That poses a great danger to the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman made the weakest speech in favour of a guillotine motion that I have ever heard from a Leader of the House and that is saying something. He really had no case—[Interruption.] I repeat a proposition that I made to a previous Leader of the House. If hon. Members would like to debate the five guillotine motions that I introduced, I should be happy, if the Leader of the House was prepared to give us time, to debate those matters. Hon. Members would then see what good measures I introduced and with what democratic reticence I did it, which is more than the Leader of the House can claim for the way he adduced his case tonight. At the time when those measures were being skilfully and carefully introduced, we were also carrying through a whole range of highly necessary reforming legislation. Had the right hon. Gentleman followed that example, he might have put forward a better case tonight.
  Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the generosity he bestowed on the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who moved the guillotine motion on the original poll tax measure applying to Scotland? Some of the strictures of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North should, perhaps, be considered again.
  Mr. Foot: I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman had that black mark on his past, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. It shows that none of us is perfect, not even the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that it will be a lesson to him in future. It is a reason not for more guillotines, but for fewer.
  The truth of the matter was expressed by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has spoken so well on such questions in recent years arid protested each time the Government resorted to fresh guillotine motions. He said that, together with the Bill, the Government had presented
  "the most extraordinary guillotine that has ever been introduced into the House"—[Official Report, 11 November 1991: Vol. 198, c. 858.]
  1028
  That is a perfectly good description, especially as this is not just a procedural matter. How the House conducts its affairs, particularly on questions affecting taxation of our constituents, is of great importance.
  The Government have introduced a tax that has not been a triumphant success. I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who thought that the poll tax was a winner. He is an extremely agile performer. Indeed, he needs to have that agility to defend such contradictory positions on subsequent occasions and it is noble of him to come along tonight and not insist that his leader, the Secretary of State for the Environment, who called it the "Tory tax'', should be present. It is a disgrace that the Minister responsible for the Bill is not present for such an important guillotine motion. I am sure that, when the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North was Leader of the House and presented a guillotine motion, he always sought to ensure that the Minister responsible was present. I cannot recall an occasion since I have been in Parliament when a Minister sent along an underling, however agile and accomplished he may be. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate is indeed accomplished in defending all those propositions.
  It is an additional insult to the House that not only has a motion been introduced in extraordinary circumstances, but it has been brought in to deal with a tax that will affect all our constituents. People throughout the country will ask what hon. Members had to say on each clause. In the poll tax debates we were told, "Of course the country is in favour of it. The arguments are overwhelming. We'll push it through under the guillotine." My hon. Friends and I warned the Government what would happen if they tried to push through legislation in that fashion, but they would not listen. They said that they knew best and had to get their legislation speedily on to the statute book to ensure that local authorities would have the maximum time to deal with it. Now, they have had to eat their words on every aspect of that legislation.
  One would think that a Government responsible for one of the worst Acts of Parliament ever introduced in the history of Parliament, and having introduced it so recently, would, in trying to remedy the situation, at least invite both sides of the House to give their views on the subject. Several Conservative Members have shown that they know much more about the Bill than does the Secretary of State, who does not even dare to come to the House and deal with the questions himself.
  This is a unique case because the Leader of the House implies that, if he gets away with the motion this time, the Government will introduce more and more such motions. Although there will be few opportunities for the Government to do so, I hope that no future Government will agree to the permanent timetabling of motions.
  Such a system would reduce a power of Back Benchers to oppose the Executive and it would be wrong for us to embark on it. Therefore, I hope that all Members, not just Opposition Members, will throw out this motion. The Leader of the House could make a great contribution if he were to say that, having listened to the debate, he had decided to withdraw the provision on his own authority without giving a fig for what the Cabinet might tell him tomorrow morning.
  12.10 am
  Sir Peter Emery: It is always great fun to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), particularly when he uses such a charming argument that every guillotine motion moved by the socialist Government is marvellously democratic, and every such motion moved by the Tory Government is to be condemned and thought to be absolutely useless. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was no need to have guillotine motions in 1945 when the Labour Government were proposing a massive legislative programme. In those times, the House sat more frequently until 9 am, having sat all night, than at any other time in the history of the House this century. It is an attempt to overcome such problems that Governments of different parties have moved towards using timetable motions in order to enact legislation.
  Mr. Budgen: Does not my hon. Friend agree that such sittings impose a good discipline on the House, particularly from a Tory viewpoint? We used to believe that it would be good to have less legislation. If legislation is inconvenient for the House of Commons, there may be less of it and it may be better considered.
  Sir Peter Emery: The interesting fact is that the amount of Government legislation has decreased during the past four parliamentary Sessions—we are working towards exactly what my hon. Friend was urging. That is not a bad proposal for all of us to accept.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government who were elected on the claim of taking legislation from people's backs has produced much more delegated legislation than the previous Labour Government? While the Conservative Government may have taken business off the Floor of the House, they have handed it to Ministers to produce orders and regulations which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, receive very little scrutiny.
  Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman knows that he and I would agree absolutely that the amount of delegated legislation from all Governments has greatly increased over the years and, I believe, should be decreased.
  It is of interest to consider which issues the House should address when deciding whether to proceed with a timetable motion. Whether or not we like it, there has been a major move among Members towards dealing with legislation in a sensible manner and using timetable motions. Such a movement never existed when I entered the House in the late 1950s. John Silkin, a former Labour party Chief Whip, told the Procedure Committee that he had been massively against any timetable motion when he took the post, but was persuaded absolutely and he gave evidence to the Committee that the best way to deal with legislation was to move more and more towards sensible timetabling.
  I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) about the danger of leaving timetabling only in Government hands. He will know that, after the Government turned out a greater number of Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and Whips to defeat the Procedure Committee's recommendations on a one-line Whip than on any three-line Whip that Session, the Procedure Committee reconsidered how to deal with the matter.
  1030
  It was then recommended that each Committee should nominate at the time of selection a number of Members who if necessary could act as a sub-Committee and who would decide after 12½ hours whether there was any need to appoint a date when the Bill should be ordered out of that Committee. If they decided that the Bill was proceeding normally, no action was to be taken. If it was thought, however, that there was undue delay, a date was to be stipulated. If after another 12½ it was still seen that the Bill was not proceeding sensibly, the timetable was to be put into operation by the Members considering the Bill, to ensure that every clause of the Bill was considered before it was reported. That would have put the power in the hands of the Committee itself, and it would be very much better than leaving the matter in the hands of Government—but the system does not obtain now, which is why this motion has been tabled.
  Mr. Maxton: At long last the hon. Gentleman has got to the point. His speech so far would have been fine had we been discussing the procedures of the House and a Select Committee report on them—but tonight we are debating a specific motion on a specific piece of legislation which the Government are railroading through the House.
  Sir Peter Emery: That is precisely because the Procedure Committee's recommendation was not implemented. Now the Government have to decide when the legislation should be on the statute book to allow local authorities to operate it properly. Having made that decision, it is right that they should try to ensure that every part of the Bill is discussed by the date that they have set.
  Do the Opposition really suggest that it makes sense to spend the first 12 or 15 sittings debating clauses 1 to 5, followed by a guillotine and then six or seven sittings on the whole of the rest of the Bill? That is how guillotines have worked in the past. It is bad for legislation, bad for procedure and bad for the House.
  Mr. Wilkinson: If that happened, it would not necessarily be a bad thing, certainly in the case of this Bill. In most legislation, the early clauses are the most important, and subsequent clauses are virtually consequential. Clause 5, on banding, is crucial to the interests of my constituents, and it merits much more time than is allowed for it in this motion.
  Sir Peter Emery: I can understand my hon. Friend's point, but four days of debate, three of them to run to any hour, have been allowed for the sort of debate that he wants.
  Mr. Budgen: Long debates on the earlier stages of legislation are usually held in the knowledge that there will be a guillotine. If there were no anticipation that the Government were going to resort to the guillotine, it would he in the interests of the whole Committee to consider the parts of a Bill that were not contentious quickly and then to concentrate on the politically sensitive issues, on which the Government would have to make concessions from time to time. It is because Governments have so frequently recently resorted to guillotines that they have distorted and corrupted the way in which Committees consider Bills.
  Sir Peter Emery: I do not accept my hon. Friend's judgment. In a perfect world what he suggests may be the case, but this is not a perfect world. In practice, most of the

  1031
  time before a guillotine is spent on a few clauses because the Opposition, in trying to prove their virility, stage a long debate at the beginning of the Bill to try to force the Government to impose the guillotine. It was the same when we were in opposition.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Emery: I should like to deal with one intervention before I accept another.
  After the imposition of the guillotine the rest of the Bill frequently goes to the House of Lords with major parts of it not debated. That cannot be right.
  Mrs. Fyfe: When did the hon. Gentleman last serve on a Standing Committee?
  Sir Peter Emery: In the year before last.
  Having decided when the Bill should be ordered out of Committee, the Government will try to ensure that every part of it can be properly debated. The Opposition might want to spend more time on the Bill, but do they not want every part of the Bill to be debated? If they do, and if the Government want the Bill to leave the Committee by a set date, the guillotine is justified.
  It is much better to have the guillotine at the start of the Bill than to introduce it after eight or 10 sittings, causing the remainder of the Bill to be rushed through. Such a rush would be most unsatisfactory for the Opposition and for organisations which wish to have their case presented by the Opposition. I am not necessarily in favour of a guillotine on the Bill, but as there is no better way it is preferable to introduce it now than to leave it until later.
  12.22 am
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), was somewhat unconvincing. If he had said that, as a matter of principle and policy, we should make the changes that he advocated rather than saying that we should make them in a pragmatic and opportunistic way on a specific issue, we might have taken a different view.
  The House is being treated almost with contempt because of what the Government see as necessary in terms of their election date strategy. The legislation has nothing to do with the role of local government in a democratic society, with the provision of vital local services or with the contribution of local people. It is being hurried through because of the Government's political difficulties. That is not the best way to approach important procedural matters.
  Shortly before I came to the House in 1982 I was active in local government. I remember sitting in the Visitors' Box and listening to a debate on the rate support grant settlement for Scotland, and being appalled that an order on something that affected every house, family and ratepayer in the land was rushed through in an hour and a half, and decided on the basis of the payroll vote.
  If I was appalled then, I am even more appalled tonight. The Government are attempting to railroad through a measure that does not take on board the spectacular failure of their last attempt to deal with local government finance—the poll tax. They might have had the modesty, before coming to the House with a Bill such as this, to ask whether the system set out in it will work. I humbly suggest that it will not. Rushed through as it was, the poll tax had
  1032
  immense repercussions that included not just the removal of the Prime Minister but difficulties in one local authority after the other so that dedicated people of all political parties had to spend their time not as they wanted, serving their electorate in committees and departments, but in coping with the agonies of an undemocratic system that could not be administered, does not work and has failed to collect £370 million over the past two years. Now we are asked by the Government who introduced that system to accept a banding arrangement that is based on hostages to fortune and is clearly aimed at helping the better-off. Ability to pay has been forgotten.
  When the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) rebuked the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), he said that both stood on the same election manifesto, and implied that that meant that they were both committed to the poll tax. If that is so, and if the Government are changing a major part of their platform at the last general election, the people of Britain should be asked for their opinion.
  The Government are trying to push through a major policy change that does not take on board, as every councillor in the land would be entitled to argue, the importance of relating local government finance with local government structure. In Scotland, the Secretary of State refuses to appoint a commission and to involve himself in real consultations, although he is a party to these changes. In the debates on earlier major changes—in England with the benefit of the Maude report, in Scotland with the Wheatley report, and there was also the Layfield committee, to which I gave evidence—there was an attempt to tie together the two issues of finance and structure. However, that is not being done in the proposals in the Bill.
  I was glad that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) spoke in the debate. For all his faults, he attempted to be a genuine leader of all the House. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is temporarily absent and cannot hear me say that he would do well to emulate the pattern set by the right hon. Member for Shropshire. North.
  He would have given more thought to these issues. He would have involved himself in more consultation with hon. Members on both sides of the House. Bearing in mind that the Leader of the House should serve right hon. And hon. Members on both sides of the House, I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North would have made the personal attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) that was made by the Leader of the House last week. Clearly the right hon. Gentleman felt that it was necessary to do so, but the House is not being well served by him. If it were, the proposals that are before us would not be debated in this way.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have rightly put up a fight for local democracy. They have reminded the House of the importance of the relationship between itself and local government. It is crucial that we retain good local services, but the best people to decide how good or how bad their local services, should be are local electorates. The Government's further attempt at centralising these matters is unacceptable. Local authorities are facing enough problems as it is. There has been the colossal problem of coping with the poll tax, along with the problems of warrant sales, debtors' legislation and all that has arisen from the Government's policies.

  1033
  Many right hon. and hon. Members will have shared my experiences in their surgeries. I find that one of the main issues is safety on the streets—law and order. Some of my colleagues and I met the new chief constable of Strathclyde, who made it plain that the service is grossly undermanned. How can Coatbridge, a town of 50,000 people in my constituency, be serviced by six policemen for an entire weekend?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart) rose——
  Mr. Clarke: If the Minister wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way.
  Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why Strathclyde regional council has consistently employed a policy of keeping its police force below the Scottish Office authorised establishment, a policy that is followed by no other regional council in Scotland, including all the other Labour-held regional councils?
  Mr. Clarke: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would advance that argument and so I was delighted to allow him to intervene to enable him to do so. Strathclyde regional council gave the answer to the chief constable. If the Minister gives a little of his time to talking to the chief constable, as my colleagues and I did——
  Mr. Stewart: I have done that.
  Mr. Clarke: If he does so, first, he will learn that Strathclyde represents half of Scotland, and inevitably has greater difficulties than the smaller regions, and, secondly, he will understand that it has to match the resources that are made available from the Scottish Office. If the Government are hammering Strathclyde day after day on these issues, the problems will not disappear.
  If the Minister is lucky enough to be re-elected, he will find himself on the Opposition Benches. He knows, however, as he sits on the Government Front Bench, that the revenue allocation for the policing of the whole of Scotland this year was £9 million, half of which was taken up not by Strathclyde—the largest authority that represents half of Scotland—but by Dumfries and Galloway. That arose because of the revenue consequences of capital expenditure. Let us not pretend that the Minister, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), can blame Strathclyde for its problems and for those of other parts of the country. Is it suggested that the Government can implement their health service policy, including the rundown of the mental health sector in greater Glasgow, without causing problems for the social work department in greater Glasgow and the housing departments in the 19 districts?
  In a case in Hamilton today, the sheriff very reluctantly sent a man with mental health problems to prison for two years, and he made it clear that it was because he had nowhere else to send him. That is community care in Strathclyde. The Government time after time make it difficult for local authorities by reducing rate support grant and housing support grant, by introducing legislation with a guillotine, by changing social security arrangements, by being mean-minded over housing benefits and so on, and the consequence is the sort of case that occurred in Hamilton today.
  1034
  Lord Pym had a point when he said that a landslide victory could be abused. A large number of hon. Members may support the Government tonight, but they will be unhappy. To be fair, some of them have made that clear, including the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). They will be even more unhappy in a few months when the public reach their conclusions. Even more important than that, if we believe in parliamentary democracy, in a positive role for local government and for duly elected local councillors, and if we see a future in Europe—whatever the arguments—it cannot be right that the Government again and again should bully local authorities into taking the sorts of decision that are clearly as unacceptable to them as they are to the most vulnerable of their electorate.
  What is happening tonight is another exercise in the arrogance of intellect and the brutality of power. Because that is so unhealthy, the British people will reject it, and they will do so before very long.
  12.36 am
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I shall not detain the House in arguing about the proposals that were put forward by the Select Committee on Procedure and then rejected by the House. I shall make just one observation about that. If those proposals had been approved by the House, they would have given much greater power to the Government of the day, and there is no doubt that the House would have balanced that granting of greater power in one direction by checks and balances in other directions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) had an idea of how that greater power might be checked.
  Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be uncomfortable if they support the guillotine motion tonight. I shall offer a few words on two points, perhaps to increase their discomfort. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends must feel some embarrassment about their personal position on what is now openly described as the poll tax. It is now said by those who give guidance to the press that there was no genuine majority for the poll tax in the Cabinet. It is also said that there would have been no genuine majority if there had been a free vote in the House. I do not know whether that is so. However, while the people who guide the media are offering those words out of the corners of their mouths, they might reflect that it would be good if there were at least open discussion in the House of the substitute for the poll tax.
  That is particularly important because of the way in which the public have scandalously disregarded the law on the collection of the poll tax. That is not a small matter. I may speak as a pompous lawyer, but the disregard of the law that has occurred in relation to the poll tax is a serious matter. Surely respect for the law involves the belief in the public as a whole that the procedures of law-making have been meticulously followed. If not, there is a danger that the law will be seen as "Major's" law, "Heseltine's" law or "Thatcher's" law and will not have the authority that it should have as emanating from Parliament, after a period of discussion, consultation, argument and voting upon all the issues. That must be important on this tax.
  The more one looks at the way in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave what was a rather unfortunately vague answer when he was asked about the time lapse between the end of the Committee stage and the

  1035
  Report stage, the more it becomes obvious, does it not, that those who will have to enforce the tax will not feel that they have been properly involved in the legislative procedure?
  Who are the people who will be involved in enforcing the tax? They will be, for instance, police officers. We hear that at present the police are telling the magistrates courts that they are sorry but they do not have time to chase up poll tax defaulters. That is an unfortunate attitude for the police to take.
  If there is no proper period of consultation, how, for instance, will the land and house agents feel—those in the private sector who will be involved in the assessment of the bands? How will the councillors feel if they have not been properly consulted? Shall we just have some response from the various associations of metropolitan authorities, the umbrella organisations, without any proper consultation?
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend has expressed concern that some of his colleagues may feel some discomfort later this evening. We should be concerned if my hon. Friend were to suffer any discomfort later this evening. Therefore, so that we know that he will not be suffering such discomfort, perhaps he would like to take this opportunity to confirm to the House that he only voted for the poll tax reluctantly, with his arm twisted firmly behind his back, and that when the timetable motion for the poll tax was tabled, or any such motions, he voted against those as well.
  Mr. Budgen: I voted for the timetable motion on the poll tax and, of course, every hon. Member compromises to some extent on those measures which they support and those which they oppose. I am not pretending for a moment that my record of fearlessly and carefully considering every piece of legislation that comes before the House is better than that of anybody else. But my point is that the performance of the Conservative party generally in relation to the poll tax is not one of which most of us are frightfully proud and most of us who feel slightly embarrassed by it all would say that at the very least on this second attempt we might try to consider it rather better.
  As most Conservative Members have a certain amount of scepticism of Governments and of the legislative procedure, we take the view that we few prejudiced party politicians do not encompass the wisdom of the nation. It is not a bad plan to have at any rate a few of the views of the ordinary people who will be paying the tax and of the professional people who may be enforcing it, whether they be estate agents, local government officers or councillors. Our embarrassment, surely, should make us slightly more respectful of other, different opinions.
  Those of us who are Unionists are particularly anxious for the authority of this Parliament to be recognised in Scotland. We do not concede the argument that the Tories have no mandate to rule there; but the Tories, and the present Government, have a mandate only for such time as they follow the procedures of the House and are genuinely able to tell the people of Scotland, "The procedures of the House—which are rarely truncated—fully take into account your minority views, your support for Labour candidates and the fact that there are so few Conservative Members in Scotland." When we truncate those procedures, as we are doing tonight, we damage the rule of
  1036
  law and the authority of the present Conservative Government; and, in my view, we misbehave in a very short-sighted way.
  Those splendid gentlemen who are saying, out of the corners of their mouths, that there never was much support for the poll tax are also saying that there is now a new spirit within the Government: a spirit of consensus, good manners, listening to others and not shouting them down. In other words, there is a general negation of both passion and rudeness. There is undoubtedly much to be said for consensus and politeness. Although I am not good at either myself, I fully recognise the advantages of that style of political leadership.
  Surely, however, the high point of what I suppose even the Tory papers described as Thatcher triumphalism occurred in 1988—and 1988 marked an all-time high in the number of guillotine motions. There were no fewer than 13. As I have said, only three were needed to achieve the great socialist revolution that took place between 1945 and 1951.
  If the current Administration wish to demonstrate that they have some concern for views with which they disagree, I suggest to the Prime Minister that that is not best achieved by means of, for instance, a well-publicised meeting with a leader of the homosexual community. It is best achieved through respect for the House of Commons; through tolerance of the boredom and inconvenience of debate; and through not regarding the legislative procedure as though it were a kind of factory.
  Above all, we should demonstrate our wish to conciliate—and our understanding of different points of view—through a recognition that the proper following of the procedures of the House, unwillingness to truncate debate and the acceptance of passion and inconvenience can show that we truly accept that ours is a divergent society, in which many views exist and all must be respected.
  12.48 am
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that he was not frightfully proud of the Government's record on the poll tax. I think that I have just learned what understatement really means.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Government's mandate in Scotland would be lost when they refused to follow the procedures of the House. He should appreciate that the Government are doing precisely that by not implementing Standing Orders and forming a Scottish Select Committee. In the hon. Gentleman's own language, the pass has already been sold.
  This is a major measure that will affect every man, woman and child, because of the nature of local government services, and every local authority throughout the length and breadth of the land. Therefore, it is incredible that the Government advocate the minimum amount of discussion rather than the maximum amount of scrutiny of the measure. The last occasion when similar arguments were put forward about curtailing the debate on local government finance was when the Government introduced the poll tax. They got it wrong then; they have got it wrong now.
  The Leader of the House described the Bill as fair, balanced and a carefully thought out approach, based on experience. Actual experience amounted to rushing

  1037
  through the poll tax legislation, which was an absolute disaster. The Government made a hash of it then by adopting these tactics. They are repeating the same mistakes now. The Leader of the House was clearly flustered and unable to explain the timetable and the Government's real reasons for acting in this fashion. With Christmas approaching, this measure is being rushed through the House as quickly as possible—the very opposite of cool, clear consideration of a fundamental measure that will affect everybody in the land.
  Mr. Marlow: These are important issues and I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. How does he react to the fact that the legislation on the poll tax and the legislation on this Bill will probably take up about ten times as much parliamentary time as the legislation that comes out of Maastricht, which is probably 10 to a hundred times more important than these very important issues?
  Mr. Welsh: This is a massively important issue that deserves the closest scrutiny. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I find it ironic that important Scottish measures are lumped in here, at the back of what is basically an English Bill. It is intolerable and unacceptable that my country should be treated in this way by the House of Commons.
  Mr. Maxton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, find intolerable the way that Scotland is being treated, due to the fact that there is no separate Bill for Scotland. However, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposed the poll tax on the basis of a non-payment campaign in Scotland. They withdrew from the non-payment campaign on the day that the Government announced that they would introduce the council tax. In other words, they withdrew their opposition to the poll tax on the basis of the council tax. I do not understand, therefore, why they oppose this measure.
  Mr. Welsh: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's confusion, because his party is thoroughly confused on this issue and has backslided at every opportunity in carrying out the behest of a Tory Government. My party's stand has been absolutely clear. As a result of the campaign that we fought we not only defeated the poll tax but we brought the Government out. If the hon. Gentleman looks at his own party's record, he will find that it is not one of which he can be proud.
  By means of the guillotine motion the Government seek to curtail debate and scrutiny as they throw their second attempt at local government finance reform at us. I want the poll tax to be abolished and thrown where it deserves to be—on the scrapheap of history—but its replacement has to be better scrutinised than this. Local government finance is to be fundamentally altered by the ridiculous procedure of a rushed guillotine timetable. The Government got it totally wrong last time. I have absolutely no confidence that they will not get it equally wrong this time.
  The Government had no mandate to introduce the poll tax, and they have no mandate for this Bill or for the guillotine. The Scots have rejected the Conservatives in opinion polls and at elections, yet this new tax is to be imposed without proper discussion. This so-called
  1038
  listening Government seem to be amazingly deaf when it comes to by-elections, but the people of Scotland, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are telling the Government exactly how they feel about measures such as this.
  I find it even more ludicrous that this situation should arise as the Government's power wanes at the tail end of a Parliament. They are determined to squeeze the last ounce out of their waning power and are frightened to face the people to get a new mandate. When that day arrives I am sure that they will not get a mandate.
  If we allow this timetable to happen, it is not democracy in any shape or form; it is simply a large majority being forced through by a whipping system, irrespective of how the people feel.
  This legislation is typical of the unrepresentative nature of the House when dealing with Scottish matters. Scottish clauses are being lumped on to legislation that is basically English, with minimal time for scrutiny. It is not good enough and it is certainly no way to run my country.
  Past mistakes are being repeated and if the Government had any sense they would realise what they are doing. They are lumbering on without learning from what they have done. In Scotland they tried to change local government structure massively by altering it before they altered national Government. Sensible reconstruction of local authorities in Scotland can take place only once the national parliamentary situation has been sorted out.
  Similarly, the Government got local government finance wrong with the poll tax. Now the self-same Tory Gadarene swine are rushing towards an unworkable council tax. The Government should have learnt. The poll tax was thrown through without proper scrutiny or discussion and the council tax is being treated in exactly the same way. In the case of the poll tax the result was that the Government put an immense burden on to local authorities, which could not cope with an unworkable, uncollectable and vastly unfair taxation system. I have no faith that the Government have learnt their lesson and will get it right this time. This is simply a Government panic. Here we go again—half baked, poorly scrutinised, guillotined legislation is being churned out against the wishes of the people.
  Local authorities are reeling under the effects of the ghastly poll tax. They are telling the Government that the council tax is unworkable and badly conceived but, once again, they are not being heard. In spite of that, the tax will be speeded through Parliament and through the local authorities in the same pathetic way that gave us the poll tax fiasco.
  When Scotland needs to be protected against ill-thought-out and totally inappropriate legislation, tonight's guillotine does entirely the opposite. If anything, it illustrates the need for a Scottish Parliament, where we could consider the real needs of our country in the required detail and produce appropriate and workable legislation. The House cannot do that.
  This legislation is being produced by a House of Commons that is prepared to ignore its Standing Orders and will not set up a Select Committee for Scotland. The tax is perfect material for consideration by such a Committee, or surely we could send the Scottish clauses to the Scottish Grand Committee to be debated thoroughly and be given more time, or a Commission could consider

  1039
  it. However, none of that is happening because of the Government's procedure which is producing minimum scrutiny of this legislation.
  The only guillotine that counts is the one that will soon fall on the Government, when they are at last forced to meet the people, and to face up to their responsibilities and past actions at the next general election. Tonight's action—using Whips and their majority and stopping scrutiny—does not stop criticism, nor does it stop the Government from again making fundamental and costly mistakes. If they will not listen to us, perhaps they will listen to some of their Back Benchers, who are telling them where they are going wrong.
  The amendment tabled by the Scottish National party was not selected but we are certainly against a council tax Bill which does not base the level of taxation cm the fundamental principle of ability to pay, which perpetuates the bureaucratic expense and the complexities of the poll tax and which does not abolish the basic minimum 20 per cent. charge levied on the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society. The council tax continues that section of the law on diligence in Scotland that allows the continuance of warrant sales, which are abhorrent to modern democracy.
  The Government are again making fundamental and unnecessary mistakes. The guillotine shows that in their dying days they are intent on not listening to the people, but the day of reckoning is fast approaching and I look forward to it.
  1 am
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Tonight the Leader of the House, whose arguments are normally replete with Scottish intellectual rigour, was unusually laid back, almost blasé, in his proposal of this guillotine motion. He said that the guillotine was a normal procedure and went on to adduce the argument that it was in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure. The Government, by use of the payroll, voted down those recommendations. It would have been more appropriate for him to use that argument had he first tabled a motion and sought consensus across the House and our approval of those recommendations. Indeed, he departed from his usual good-humoured, earnest desire to please and his main intent seemed to be to get this embarrassing, awkward business out of the way as soon as possible.
  I did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. After all, it is, if one dares use the metaphor, the flagship of this parliamentary Session. Moreover, the previous flagship, the poll tax, was launched with its torpedo tubes open. We do not want to repeat that performance. We need to learn from the mistake of the passage of the poll tax into legislation without appropriate consideration.
  The Bill has 117 clauses and 14 schedules. I very much doubt whether they can be properly considered within the timetable laid down. The poll tax legislation had 19 days in Standing Committee. This Bill has but nine and it is certainly no less complicated. Indeed, experts on local government on both sides have said that local government finance is perhaps the most complicated subject that we have to address in the House of Commons. If it is so complicated, most of us who are neophytes or certainly relatively inexpert will need proper time to address the matter sensibly.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the poll tax legislation had about twice the length of time in Standing Committee as this Bill will have. Moreover, the Scottish Bill preceded it, so the Government had the opportunity of a learning curve, yet still they managed to make an unholy mess of it.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Lady makes her arguments in her own way and they are relevant.
  Not only are we to have but nine days in Standing Committee, but we are to have only two for Report and Third Reading. I take it also from the reluctance of the Leader of the House to spell out how much time there will be between Committee and Report that the period will be relatively short.
  On Report those of us who were not members of the Standing Committee will have only a short time in which to deal with the serious issues raised in that Committee and, perhaps more significantly, with those that have been brought to our attention in the brief interval between the Committee stage and Report.
  We are assured that the council tax will be fairer. I wonder whether people outside will consider it to be fairer if it has not been considered properly. Their experience with the poll tax was a painful one and that tax was not considered properly.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Might the explanation for the Government's haste simply be that they have no confidence that the House could ever improve a piece of legislation that comes from the draftsmen?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I do not believe that to be the case. The real reason is that given by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House. I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team well with the Bill and the last thing that I want to do is to make their task more difficult. The reason for the haste is that the Government must allow sufficient time for the Bill to he implemented in 1 April 1993. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that that date is the first and last day for implementation—the alpha and the omega. I hope that it is not the dies irae for the British people.
  I am not sure that the precedents are wholly reassuring. In the previous Session we had a guillotine on the Dangerous Dogs Bill—I acknowledge that it was before the Second Reading—and a guillotine on the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill. Perhaps of more significance is the guillotine, again after Second Reading, that was placed on the Counter Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill—the incomes policy legislation—in the 1972–73 Session. That Bill proved fatal for the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). In the 1977–78 Session we had a post-Second Reading guillotine on the Wales and Scotland Bills, the devolution measures, which was fatal for the Administration of Lord Callaghan.
  I hope that my right hon. Friends will think again. I was not seeking to be reactionary when I said that our old procedures have some merit. I argued in favour of front loading—for more time, which is the normal state of affairs—for the earlier clauses of the Bill even if we have to face a guillotine on the later clauses.
  Clause 5, which relates to banding in England and Wales, and clause 74, which relates to banding in Scotland, are to be taken together with other clauses in two days. I

  1041
  know that the sittings may go late, but that does not necessarily mean that the difficult subject of banding and how to secure equity will be addressed sufficiently in the time available.
  I know that my constituents, if they are in band E or above—that is nearly all of them—will pay more under the council tax than they do under the poll tax. It is proposed that clause 11 and the other discount provisions relating to single people living alone—perhaps retired people and single parents—shall be discussed in only two days. I also question whether that will prove sufficient time.
  With the best will in the world I wish the measure success and hope that the council tax proves fair. No legislation could be riddled with more inconsistencies than the old poll tax and I appreciate that need for its abolition. But the guillotine which is proposed is a bad precedent for the House and I doubt whether such a tight timetable will give our constituents confidence in the Bill. Although I voted in a positive spirit for the Second Reading, I cannot vote for the timetable motion tonight.
  1.11 am
  Mr. Allen McKay: The poll tax was introduced because at a conference the Prime Minister, shooting from the hip, decided to get rid of the hated rates. When the poll tax measure was in Committee, objections were raised by Opposition and Conservative Members. The Government decided that no Opposition, and few Conservative, amendments would be accepted. The result was the poll tax mess that we predicted would occur.
  Almost the same thing is happening with the council tax. The Government promised to get rid of the poll tax in the way that they promised to dispose of the old rating system. The result is this pig's ear of a Bill, which is being rushed through. Normally, a guillotine is introduced after parts of a measure have been debated in Committee, with the understanding of both sides of the House and with both sides agreeing on the clauses that should be debated in the time available.
  When any measure is debated in Committee, the Opposition rely on advice from various outside bodies. When we debated the poll tax in Committee, hon. Members on both sides put forward constructive arguments, our constituents having made representations. The timetable motion as proposed will not permit that to happen, even though the Leader of the House said that we could sit through the night, every night.
  If we are to debate the council tax on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays through the night, how shall we be able, with such a continuous performance, to take advice from interested parties and at the same time represent the interests of our constituents? In other words, the Government are not allowing hon. Members to pursue their duties on behalf of their constituents. It is no ordinary Bill. It will affect every citizen. We shall not have time adequately to represent the wishes of our constituents.
  In the poll tax debates my hon. Friends and I were accused of wanting to retain the rating system. Time and again the Government quoted stories about little old ladies paying more rates than others. I asked the treasurer of my local authority what would happen under the council tax
  1042
  system and discovered that everyone, even the little old ladies, would pay twice as much, even four or five times more than, as they are paying in poll tax. Had the rating system been in force, 70 per cent. of my constituents would have paid less.
  Some of those aspects should be reflected in the Bill, but we shall not have the time. Because of the interest in the Bill, which affects all hon. Members and their constituents, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will want to enter the debate. Normally, before a Bill is guillotined the Government ask their side to be quiet so that they can get the Bill through, but once a Committee debate is guillotined, the Bill starts to go through. The normal time element for opposition to a Bill does not exist purely because Conservative Members, quite rightly, want to take their full time, knowing that the guillotine rather than the normal channels will stop the debate.
  I am also concerned that a precedent is being created. People will not forget how the House has been treated. I am afraid—I hope that it will not happen—that other Ministers will take a cue from the Secretary of the State for the Environment and guillotine Bills before they reach their Committee stage. I hope that a Labour Government will not use this precedent when introducing their legislation because it is against democracy. People look to this place to be democratic and they will judge how the House has been treated. That, in turn, is how people outside are treated—by not having their views fully explained.
  1.17 am
  Mr. Bryan Gould: There were few apologists for this measure in the debate—I counted perhaps one and a half. That is hardly surprising, given the draconian nature of the guillotine and the weak and unconvincing case that the Leader of the House made in its support.
  The motion leaves the House and the Committee bound and gagged. It denies the Opposition their proper role and prevents proper debate of this important measure. Moreover, it reduces to vanishing point the chance of properly scrutinising the Bill.
  The debate has not been about the principle of automatically timetabling legislation, although an interesting debate could be had on that question, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said. Rather, the debate is about the precise measure, which does not just truncate debate or structure it to suit the Government, but compresses that debate into just nine days, and those nine days into a total period of just 16 days. That compression damages the proper process of the House and makes the Committee's work impossible. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) in an intervention.
  People outside the House may not fully understand our objections. They may think that we are objecting to long hours and hard work—far from it. Hon. Members should know that, if a Committee is to do its work properly, its members need time to think, consider and respond to Ministers. We need time to draft amendments and prepare the arguments. Above all, we need time to consult outside interests and organisations that have views to express, as well as time to deliver speeches and conduct the debates.

  1043
  That is to say nothing of the time that will undoubtedly be taken by Government amendments because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out, the poll tax Bill was substantially amended by the Government. Indeed, that is one of the bad habits that the Government have got into. Not only have they formed the habit of introducing guillotine motions—26 since they took office in 1979 and 13 in a single Session—but they have also fallen into the bad habit of introducing literally hundreds of amendments to their own badly drafted Bills.
  The motion shows a complete misunderstanding of one of Parliament's major roles—a point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). One of the functions of the House is to act as a sounding board, a public forum and a means by which debate can inform the public who can then influence the debate. Unless we have time for that process, the hon. Gentleman is surely right. He described a difficult issue in a delicate and sensitive manner—the baleful way in which the poll tax has reduced respect for the law. That respect can hardly be increased if the successor to the poll tax is yet again rushed through the House without proper debate.
  Why is the measure being advanced——
  Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No, I am sorry, but we are short of time. As many hon. Members have said, a guillotine motion is usually introduced in response to delaying tactics from the Opposition which have resulted in a failure to achieve reasonable progress. However, that is not the case with this measure. There has been no opportunity for delay as today and yesterday are the first two days of proper debate of the issue in this Session of Parliament. There has certainly been no opportunity for the Opposition to delay matters; the guillotine motion was prepared and programmed long before Second Reading.
  It cannot be argued that the Government are forestalling what they fear might be delaying tactics. The Opposition have always made it clear—and I say it again directly and with all the sincerity that I can command—that the Opposition have no interest in filibustering. We have always made it clear that we would be prepared to consider and talk to the Government about a reasonable timetable that would not jeopardise the Bill's passage. The Opposition have never been given the chance to discuss those subjects with the Government. We were simply told of the timetable peremptorily and unilaterally, and informed that it would be enforced by guillotine.
  As the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for the Environment have to their discredit sometimes tried to pretend, Ministers might wish to make themselves buffoons by suggesting that the Opposition want to keep the poll tax. I do not believe that anybody could seriously believe such a ridiculous assertion, but it does nothing for an already disreputable measure when Ministers take refuge in such patent and ludicrous dishonesty.
  The Government's next excuse is that it is necessary to truncate debate to meet the timetable required to get rid of the poll tax. If that were true—I do not believe that it is—it would be nothing more than the Government yet again entering a plea of guilty. Who created the need to act so quickly and in a manner which abuses the House? The Government who created the poll tax are now in a panic to dissociate themselves from the measure. They turned down the most direct and sensible way to get rid of the poll
  1044
  tax on a reasonable timetable. The Government saddled themselves with the timetable and the need to abuse the procedure of the House as they now propose.
  It is not true that there is a need for speed on the Bill if the 1993 timetable is to be adhered to. All the local government experts agree that that goal is virtually unattainable, but the obstacles to it have nothing to do with the legislation; they have to do with the administrative burdens now borne by local government. Those problems include having to deal with the dying days of the poll tax and, as the Prime Minister says, having to collect an uncollectable tax. The difficulties relate to setting budgets and responding to capping levels which have not yet been announced. If the Government are sensitive to the needs of local government, why have they delayed making those announcements and thus increased the problems facing local government treasurers? The delays relate to the difficulties in preparing the necessary software highlighted by the software companies and to the new valuation registers—matters which are certainly not dependent on the Bill. The delays also relate to the preparation of lists, whether or not they are called registers or are required under the Bill.
  Given the doubts and the difficulties, it is little wonder that there is a real question whether the 1993 date can be met. But none of that is relevant to the case for forcing through this Bill. The real reason for the unseemly haste, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) pointed out, is the Government's electoral timetable. They dare not face the electorate without this Bill on the statute book. It matters not whether it is implemented, or whether there are lengthy delays. Just in case the Government should, one of these days, summon up the nerve to face the electorate, perhaps in March or April, they have to have the decks cleared and this measure enacted into law. That is why this ridiculous timetable is being forced on us.
  Another and even less reputable reason for the haste is that the Government know full well—there has been ample evidence of it already—that if the House is allowed to do its job properly, there will be time for proper debate and time for concern in the country to grow—for knowledge about the Government's proposals to spread, for public fears to find their expression, for hon. Members to understand their constituents' problems, for responses to be made to the excuses and explanations offered by Ministers. The haste is just as much to gag Conservative Members as to gag the Opposition.
  This is a breathtaking piece of irresponsibility. What was it that went wrong with the poll tax? Surely no one now defends the poll tax, or pretends that it was anything other than an unmitigated disaster—for local government, for millions of people and families, and for respect for the law. Have Conservative Members forgotten all the confident and optimistic predictions made about the poll tax—those blithe assurances, the refusal to listen, the arrogant sweeping away of objections, the scorning of the doubters, the pressure put on the rebels; and then, as the true scale of the disaster became apparent, the gradual wringing out of concessions, the prices paid to buy off the Opposition, the late changes rushed through, the chaos that ensued, the billions of pounds thrown at the problem, the political upheaval which did for a Prime Minister and brought about a change of leadership in the Conservative party? Have Conservative Members learnt nothing from all that? Are they prepared to go through it all again,

  1045
  accepting the assurances, blocking their ears, listening to no criticisms? I cannot believe so. Surely they will not accept all those assurances and predictions again.
  There can be no excuses this time, no pleas of innocence. Conservative Members will not be forgiven if they allow through yet another hastily prepared, ill-thought-out, disastrously applied piece of legislation. Yet that is the risk that we probably now run. To those with any regard for good government, this measure is a disgrace. It will shame all who vote for it. There is an increasingly notorious offence which I understand is called ram-raiding. This measure is certainly an example of ram-raiding. There is only one defence against this sort of action by a Government. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should do their job and meet their responsibilities. I ask them to do precisely that.
  1.28 am
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): During the debate, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred, not unkindly, to my junior position in the Government. I hope that I approach the debate with due humility, given that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and two former Leaders of the House have contributed to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) led us into consideration of questions such as whether Bills should be timetabled from the outset; and, if so, whether such decisions should be in the hands of the Government or of a Select Committee. He was right to raise those weighty issues, although they are not issues on which I wish to give an opinion now. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) reminded us more than once that we should speak to the motion.
  The House was privileged to hear from the "Big Daddy" of the guillotine motion, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. No debate on such a motion is complete without him. Like the Flying Dutchman, condemned for ever to roam the world's oceans, the right hon. Gentleman is condemned for ever to attend debates on guillotine motions in an attempt to expiate his past sins in that area. I listened with great attention to the right hon. Gentleman and agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that it was a most disappointing experience. His reasons for using the guillotine in the past, which were appropriate at the time but are inappropriate now, were apparently that Labour legislation was very good and his guillotine motions showed the requisite democratic reticence. The House found that an unconvincing explanation.
  We have spent three days debating the council tax. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made a shaky start by saying that the first of those days, during the debate on the Gracious Speech, was before the Bill was published. That is wrong because the Bill and the Local Government Bill were published before that. During those three days the Labour party engaged in a great struggle to get people to fill the Opposition Benches and to speak. It has been an exhausting experience for the Opposition, who, although they imposed a three-line Whip, have not been able to keep the House on their side. Many Opposition Members who will obey the three-line Whip
  1046
  and vote against the motion will do so with a heavy heart. That is because they believe that the correct way for the House to organise its procedures is to have a timetable motion from the beginning.
  Mr. Blunkett: That is a different matter.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman's intervention gives away the identity of at least one hon. Member who agrees with that view.
  Mr. Budgen: Surely that is a proper attitude for a Labour politician. Labour believes in legislation, in plenty of state intervention in everybody's affairs. Generally speaking, that is not the attitude of Tories.
  Mr. Portillo: I was asked to concentrate on the motion and the Bill and that is what I intend to do. I want the Bill to be properly debated. It was breathtaking to be told by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that we should have approached the Opposition to see whether we could negotiate a deal. I did that and was told straight away that no deal was possible. I would not normally reveal such matters, and do so only because the hon. Member for Dagenham, who was not present at the discussions, was nevertheless involved in putting out a press release after the discussions. No deal was available and we are proceeding with the guillotine.
  Dr Cunningham: I am reluctant to intervene, but I cannot allow the Minister to get away with that. He is misleading the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am sure that even at this late hour the hon. Gentleman will wish to withdraw that.
  Dr Cunningham: I withdraw my comment about misleading the House. The Minister is not being candid with the House. Neither the Minister nor the Leader of the House made any attempt, nor was an attempt made through the usual channels, to hold any serious discussions about the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is not being candid. My version of events is that the Labour party said from the outset that it would be unable to negotiate a deal. The hon. Member for Dagenham was not there, so he cannot comment on it. I do not blame the Labour party for not being able to reach a deal with us on that. However, the hon. Member for Dagenham should not say that there was no effort to do a deal. There was an offer of a deal, but I understand why the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) could not accept it.
  Mr. Blunkett: It is important that we get the facts on the record. I have a simple question for the Minister: is it true that the Government said that, whatever the deal might be, they intended to get the Bill through the House by Christmas?
  Mr. Portillo: Yes, and that is our absolute intention. We have been addressing two audiences throughout the debate—the outside audience, whom the Opposition want to convince that this is a shock horror experience, and the audience in the House. It is known in the House that the reality is a choice between many hours in Committee characterised by filibuster and slow progress, and a number of hours in Committee in which we make reasonable progress.

  1047
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverharnpton, South-West said that there were three guillotines between 1945 and 1951 and 13 in 1988. That tells me much more about the behaviour of Oppositions than about the behaviour of Governments. It would not have been possible for the Government of 1945–51 to get through the legislation if they had faced the delaying tactics that have characterised the progress of Bills in the past 11 to 12 years.
  For example, in 1988, the Local Government Finance Bill was going through its stages in the House. After 61 hours in Committee, only 16 clauses had been considered. Consequently, the other 115 clauses had to be handled in 62 hours. After 58 hours in Committee, only nine clauses of the Water Bill had been considered. Consequently, the other 171 clauses had to be considered in 61 hours. Only five clauses of the Football Spectators Bill had been considered before the guillotine was introduced. Although I am sure that he did not intend it, it sounded as though my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was saying, "Never mind the quality, feel the width." What matters is not how long we spend in Committee, so that we can report those hours to people outside, but what we achieve in that time.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I was struck by the Minister's litany of the hours kept by the Committee considering the Local Government Finance Bill because I served on the Committee. Before the guillotine motion, the longest speech in those proceedings was by the then Minister of State.
  Dr. Cunningham: Two hours.
  Mr. Portillo: If the Minister spoke for two hours, that means that in the other 59 hours the Committee considered 16 clauses, so the hon. Gentleman's intervention does not alter my point.
  The timetable has been organised in such a way that the divisions in the debate—knives as we call them—fall in places that allow the most time in debate to be given to the most contentious issues. Furthermore, the divisions will allow the Scottish points to be taken with their English equivalent so that we can have a single debate on common issues.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: Let me finish my point. One of the great advantages of this method of proceeding is that we can guarantee a debate about Scottish questions. We do not risk, as we would have done if we had handled the Bill in any other way, leaving those matters which come at the end of the Bill—as the Scottish provisions do—not to be debated fully. As a result of the way in which the knives fall, all the Scottish provisions can be thoroughly debated, although they will not be debated separately.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister allow me?
  Mr. Portillo: Three weeks is not a long time to debate a Bill, but the number of hours that we can devote to the Bill during that period will be perfectly adequate.
  Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to lay down to the House how the Chairman of the Committee that has been established will decide how the debates in Committee will take place? That is what the Minister has told us.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Barracking the Minister is not benefiting the debate. The House should listen to what the Minister has to say in the last few minutes of the debate.
  Mr. Portillo: I am convinced that we shall have adequate time to discuss the Bill and that because we have organised the time and allocated it we shall have a higher quality of debate. More issues will be debated fully and the Bill will be better scrutinised than many of the measures that have been cited as precedents. I believe that the public want us to get on with abolishing the community charge and replacing it with the council tax. We owe them that and I think that the House should approve the guillotine motion.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 233.

  Division No. 6]

  [1.40 am

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cormack, Patrick

  Alexander, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Allason, Rupert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Amess, David

  Curry, David

  Amos, Alan

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

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkinson, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bellingham, Henry

  Eggar, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Benyon, W.

  Evennett, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fallon, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Favell, Tony

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Body, Sir Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Franks, Cecil

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fry, Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

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

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Burns, Simon

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butterfill, John

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Gregory, Conal

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Grist, Ian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grylls, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Chope, Christopher

  Hague, William

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hannam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  1049

  Harris, David

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Norris, Steve

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James

  Page, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Portillo, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Price, Sir David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Irvine, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Janman, Tim

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kilfedder, James

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rost, Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Speller, Tony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Squire, Robin

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maples, John

  Stokes, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Summerson, Hugo

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thorne, Neil

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mills, Iain

  Tracey, Richard

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trippier, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Viggers, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Walden, George

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Walker, Bill (T'slde North)

  1050

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Wood, Timothy

  Ward, John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Yeo, Tim

  Warren, Kenneth

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Watts, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Whitney, Ray

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Allen, Graham

  Edwards, Huw

  Alton, David

  Enright, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Faulds, Andrew

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Battle, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Flynn, Paul

  Beith, A. J.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Derek

  Bellotti, David

  Foulkes, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fraser, John

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Benton, Joseph

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galloway, George

  Blair, Tony

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Blunkett, David

  George, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Boyes, Roland

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bradley, Keith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gordon, Mildred

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carr, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cartwright, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clay, Bob

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Clelland, David

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Geraint

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cox, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Ingram, Adam

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Kumar, Ashok

  Dewar, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Dixon, Don

  Lamond, James

  Dobson, Frank

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Doran, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Douglas, Dick

  Litherland, Robert

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livsey, Richard

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  1051

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Redmond, Martin

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McAllion, John

  Reid, Dr John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Richardson, Jo

  McCartney, Ian

  Robertson, George

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  McFall, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Rooker, Jeff

  McKelvey, William

  Rooney, Terence

  McLeish, Henry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salmond, Alex

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meale, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Alun

  Stephen, Nicol

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Strang, Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Straw, Jack

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morley, Elliot

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wallace, James

  Mullin, Chris

  Walley, Joan

  Murphy, Paul

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Nellist, Dave

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  O'Brien, William

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Brian

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Worthington, Tony

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wray, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Prescott, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Martyn Jones.

  Radice, Giles

  Randall. Stuart

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Benefits (Student Entitlement)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick]
1.53 am
Mr. John McAllion: This debate is taking place in the early hours of the morning, but the presence of so many of my hon. Friends underlines the importance which the Opposition attach to it, which contrasts starkly with the importance that the Government attach to it.
The debate is officially designated
"the subject of loss of student entitlement to housing benefit and income support".
I do not think that there can be any quarrel with those terms. I suspect that not only would the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security concede that students have lost their entitlement to housing benefit and income support; she would probably boast that it is the Government's official policy that students should lose such entitlement.
On 23 August 1991 the Minister wrote to me setting out clearly the Government's attitude. She reiterated the Governments view
"first expressed by us in 1985 that the majority of full-time students should not have access to benefits as a means of supporting themselves whilst studying."
That view—first expressed six years ago—has now been given effect, and it is universally accepted that students are denied housing benefit and, in the majority of cases, housing support. The disagreement between the two sides of the House arises in regard to the effect that that has on students.
The Government would have us believe that students have never had it so good. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), the Prime Minister said that the Government's introduction of student loans had given students more money to cover their living costs—25 per cent. more in 1990–91 than in the previous year. He described that as a substantial real-terms increase and a generous package of support.
The Prime Minister is not alone in making such claims. They are made by all Ministers who are confronted with allegations of student poverty and hardship. In a "Dear Colleague" letter circulated to all Members of Parliament, the Secretary of State for Education and Science warned us earlier in the year to beware of students who came to us during the recess pleading poverty. He went on to repeat the Prime Minister's bland assurance that, far from experiencing poverty, most students were better off than they had ever been before.
The Secretary of State acknowledged that some students might be genuinely worried about their finances. He asked students, "Are you really trying hard enough to get jobs during the vacation? Don't just look for a job in jobcentres"—after all, the Government have closed down most of them—"but get out and actively look for temporary work elsewhere."
Mr. Huw Edwards: "On your bike".
Mr. McAllion: As my hon. Friend says, it was a variation on the advice offered to the unemployed by a former Tory Minister. Such advice is becoming as offensive, ignorant and out of touch as it was when first uttered by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) many years ago. The Government's claim that

1053
students are better off as a result of student loans simply is not true; nor is it true that loans make up for the loss of income support and housing benefit.
Let us look more closely at the Government's argument. In his "Dear Colleague" letter, the Secretary of State referred to the benefit that students could previously have claimed. He lumped together housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit, arriving at an average benefit entitlement over the summer recess of £327. He did not explain how he arrived at that figure, but it turns out—conveniently—to be £93 less than the £420 student loan that the Government are now making available.
The Secretary of State concluded that students were now being more than compensated for the loss of their benefit entitlement. But how does he arrive at that figure of £327? Others have arrived at very different sums. Using the Government's own figures, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has calculated that an unemployed claimant aged between 18 and 24—as most students are—would have received £31·15 a week income support during the 12-week vacation: a total of £373·80. That is a much higher figure than the one given by the Secretary of State.
The association also calculated that, over and above income support, the same claimant would have received £360 in housing benefit, on a typical rent of £30 a week. It calculated that a typical out-of-work student entitled to housing benefit and income support could have expected to receive £733·80 over the 12-week vacation. It is that position of fundamental weakness and poverty that forces them to apply for the Government's student loans.
Ministers will try to hide from the reality. In his "Dear Colleague" letter the Secretary of State tells us that the uprating of student grants in 1990–91 was over and above the extra money made available through student loans. They say that an additional £420 in student loans and an uprating of 5.5 per cent. in grant is the basis for their claim that students have never had it so good—that they are getting more money now than ever before.
I have already dealt with the £420 loan, which does not even come near to compensating students for the loss of £733 in housing benefit and income support. But what about the 5.5 per cent uprating? When it was introduced in September of last year, the rate of inflation was almost twice 5.5 per cent.: it was 10.9 per cent. Admittedly we should compare the average rate of inflation for the whole of 1991 with the previous year. When we do so, we find that the inflation rate comes down somewhat, but it comes down to 7.9 per cent., which is still 2.5 per cent. above the Government's so-called uprating. The reality is that, far from being an uprating over and above other increases, this is yet another real terms decrease in students' real incomes. This year the grant has been frozen at last year's level, with no uprating for inflation.
What are we left with? First, with the withdrawal of housing benefit and income support and their replacement by student loans, students now get less, not more, money. Secondly, the so-called uprating has also meant that, in real terms, there is less, not more, money for students. Ministers can claim until they are blue in the face that students are getting more money and that they have never had it so good, but they cannot justify those claims by reference to the facts, which show that students are
1054
significantly worse off than they were previously. As a far better man than anyone in this House once said, "facts are chiels that winna ding", even for Tory Ministers.
The citizens advice bureaux evidence compared student incomes with the incomes of those who are in receipt of income support, which represents the minimum subsistence level below which no one in our society is meant to fall. What are these minimum subsistence levels? For a single claimant in the age bracket 18 to 24, it is £1,619.80 in income support per year, plus £1,560 for full housing benefit. That amounts to a total yearly income of £3,179.80. What is the subsistence level for students? It is £2,265 for the full grant and £420 for the student loan—in total a yearly income of just £2,685. That is almost £500 below the minimum subsistence level for the poorest people in our society.
That level of income has been described by the Prime Minister and the Government as a generous settlement for students, but the citizens advice bureaux provide a very different description. They say that student grants, taken together with student loans, cannot provide enough to cover even the most basic needs of the poorest members in our society. The Prime Minister answered a question that I put to him earlier this year by referring to the fact that he did not believe that I live in the real world. In view, however, of what he said about student support, compared with what the citizens advice bureaux say about student support—the citizens advice bureaux deal with real students suffering real hardship in the real world, while the Prime Minister hides himself away behind locked gates in 10 Downing street—there is only one conclusion that can be arrived at: that the citizens advice bureaux are right, because they live in the real world. The Prime Minister and all the other Ministers are wrong because they do not live in the real world.
Their reply will be, "What about the access funds?" Given that only £25 million were allocated to access funds for the whole of the United Kingdom, the answer must be, "What about the access funds?" The Government's intention was that these funds would be a way of helping with one-off exceptional circumstances affecting only a small minority of students, but the reality is that once again they have been shown to be completely wrong. Throughout the country access funds have been stretched way beyond the limit. Many colleges ran out of money long before they ran out of students needing help. The Minister of State, Scottish Office, shakes his head, but he knows that the Government conceded this point when they announced that they would allow colleges to anticipate up to 10 per cent. of next year's allocation to relieve the pressure on this year's inadequate allocation.
In Dundee in the first year more than 2,000 students applied to the access fund and more than £300,000 was allocated to them. It is not enough. The truth is that we are dealing not with one-off exceptional cases of hardship, affecting only a small minority of students, but with a widespread and damaging problem affecting thousands of students.
During the recess I held a number of surgeries in Dundee colleges, which were specifically for students. I was not short of students who applied for help in the most distressing of circumstances: mature students with spouses and children, who had been denied housing benefit and income support to which they had previously been entitled; landlords pressing for rent payments and students with no money to pay; arrears of rent building up; poll tax

1055
arrears building up; overdrafts being extended; electricity supplies being cut off, in some cases to parents and children. Again and again I heard the same story of deepening poverty driving students to take the decision to drop out of education.
Recently Aberdeen university carried out a survey which revealed that 15 per cent. of students were considering quitting their courses because of financial hardship. That is an appalling situation, but it is made more appalling because it mainly affects students from the poorest backgrounds, those whose parents are on low incomes and who get no financial help from their parents because they cannot afford to give it. Mature students with young families, who are on their own financially and are burdened with the heaviest of financial commitments, are having to scrape by on an inadequate student grant and an even more inadequate student loan.
Dundee is an area of high unemployment, with few jobs to be had. I came across a number of cases where, in an attempt to increase their chances of employment, people had returned to college to try to get better qualifications. However, because they had been unemployed, they had not earned enough money in the previous three years to qualify for the mature student allowance, and so it was denied to them. They also lost their entitlement to housing benefit and income support, upon which they had been very dependent as they were unemployed. Many had children. Under income support regulations they were allowed £17 for each child every week, but under the student grant regulations they were allowed just £8 for each child per week. They too have children, with similar needs, but they are allocated much less because, rather than staying on the dole, their parents wished to return to college and get qualifications to get them back into work. All of those things were barriers, discouraging and preventing access to education for the poorest people in our society. Those are the people who need access to education most of all.
All those facts give the lie to the Government's claim that they are extending educational opportunity to everyone and that they are genuinely interested in creating a classless society. I am prepared to be convinced that that is not the case and that the Government mean well and intend to try to open up educational opportunity to everyone, no matter their class background. But if I am to believe that, when the Minister replies to the debate she will have to commit herself to two very simple propositions: first, that the Government will institute a full review of student financial support as a matter of urgency; secondly, that they will commit themselves to restoring to all students the housing benefit and income support that the Government have taken away from them. If that commitment is not made, the Government stand condemned of having betrayed a whole generation of the poorest people in our society by taking away their only means of escaping from poverty, access to education opportunity.
2.9 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe) rose—
Mr. Ernie Ross: Come on, get on with it. Do better.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman's attitude does not do justice to the seriousness of this debate. I take the matters raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) very seriously and I suggest that we debate them in a sensible manner.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East for raising these issues. He has mentioned most of them in earlier correspondence with me and I see many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who have also mentioned them, either in correspondence or in parliamentary questions. I especially welcome my hon. Friends from the Scottish Office to the debate.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the changes made to students' entitlement to housing benefit and income support were not made in isolation. The withdrawal of most full-time students' entitlement to those benefits took place at a time when substantial additional resources were being made available to students through the education system. The issues were discussed many times both in this House and in another place last year, and the social security regulations which gave effect to the changes were fully debated and approved by both Houses. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if I were to explain the background to the Government's overall policy on the financial support of full-time students.
As long ago as 1985 we set out our intention to remove students' general entitlement to certain benefits. Since that point we have taken a number of steps to reduce students' reliance on benefits. That culminated in the general withdrawal of income support and housing benefit in the 1990–91 academic year.
Our view then, which is undiminished today and is at the centre of the debate, is that it ought not to be the function of the social security system to support students, not only because of the administrative burden placed on the Department's local benefit offices and local authorities, but because there already exists a maintenance system for those in full-time education. Therefore, as I have frequently said in letters to Opposition Members and to my hon. Friends, we regard the support of students as the proper duty of the education system, rather than of the social security system, although there are exceptions that we support under the social security system.
The Government have often been accused of singling out students for special treatment under the rules. That is because there are alternative sources of financial support—provided from public funds—available to them. Opposition Members may wish to argue about the level of those funds. The thrust of the debate is whether the education system or the social security system is the right source of student support. I should have hoped that there was some consensus on both sides of the House that the responsibility for student support should remain with the educational maintenance system.
Our commitment to that principle was given greater weight by the fact that benefit claims for students frequently presented administrative problems out of all proportion to the amounts of benefit finally awarded and the duration of the benefit periods. Benefit offices faced periodical surges in claims which were complicated to assess and frequently resulted in no award of benefit being made. It seemed to us nonsense that the benefit system should be duplicating the role of educational provision in that way. It also seemed undesirable for students to become dependent on benefits while in full-time education. Social security benefits are intended to assist those people

1057
who, for whatever reason, find themselves in circumstances where they are unable to support themselves and those circumstances could not reasonably be avoided.
Of course, we recognised that we would have to provide the wherewithal for students to support themselves. In the current academic year, the full-year loan facility plus the grant is more than 30 per cent. higher than in 1989–90. This support is 6 per cent. more than was available in 1991.
These increases will have resulted in the vast majority of students being better off overall. Research commissioned by the Department of Education and Science indicated that the average loss of benefits among students who actually claimed them—and they were a minority—would have been some £327 in the past academic year. By comparison, the average loan available is £420.
However, we are well aware that there are some students who, even with the increase in support from the grant and loan, may experience financial difficulties. That is why the Government have established the access funds.
It has been a fashion among Opposition Members—indeed, this was reported by the hon. Gentleman tonight—to suggest that the access funds alone are intended to compensate for the withdrawal of benefits generally and that the £25 million, which he correctly quoted, must, therefore, be inadequate. This is not the case. These funds are only one element of the package of extra resources for students which I mentioned a moment ago.
As I have already said, most students will have extra financial support available to them without having to call upon the access funds. Those funds are there to assist students who face particular financial difficulties and who, as a result, may not be able to take up or resume their studies.
I think that it would be helpful if, at this point, I were to remind the House that we have made special provision for students in certain groups. Hon. Members will appreciate, I am sure, that there are some students who have financial needs above and beyond those of their peers. I am thinking in particular of disabled students and students with children. The benefit regulations make specific provision for those students, or in some cases their partners, to receive both income support and housing benefit provided that they meet the general qualifying conditions for those benefits. The new top-up loan provides additional resources for those groups as well as for other students. The existence in the benefit system to which they have access of a generous £10 weekly disregard on income from a top-up loan means that many students in those vulnerable groups will be better off under the new arrangements.
I know that the hon. Member for Dundee, East is particularly concerned about students' ability to meet accommodation costs from within their resources. Clearly, this is one area of student expenditure that can vary quite markedly throughout the country. The student grant has always been intended to provide for accommodation and therefore to some extent reflects variations in costs. The regional variation in the level of grant has been, and continues to be, reflected in the way in which housing benefit for eligible students is calculated. Housing benefit is not payable for the first £16·25 of rent outside London or £23·45 of rent within London for any student. For some years housing benefit has not been available to students in
1058
halls of residence or similar accommodation. Therefore, students generally only really looked to housing benefit to top up their accommodation needs and only then if they were in property not owned by their college.
In fact, only about half of young higher education students live in privately rented accommodation. The Department's own statistical information suggests that in May 1989 fewer than 15 per cent. of students were claiming housing benefit and only 2 per cent. claimed in the summer vacation.
In recent months a good deal of concern has been expressed about students no longer having access to benefits over the summer vacation. The impression one gets is that, in the past, every student relied on income support, at least over the summer period. That is a fallacy. In the summer of 1989 DSS local offices kept a count of student claims; there were 135,000 during that long vacation. That represents less than a quarter of the student population affected by the benefit changes. Clearly, some students called upon the access funds in the summer period. In July, the higher education institutions were told that they could anticipate up to 10 per cent. of their access fund allocation for the 1991–92 academic year.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East called on us to promise a review, but that comes down to a running review and immediate flexibility. In this academic year the Department of Education and Science has also provided additional guidance to institutions administering the access funds. That is intended to assist them in determining how the funds might best be dispersed. The Government remain of the view that the educational establishments are well placed to assess the financial needs and priorities of their students.
Mr. McAllion: In common with the Minister from the Scottish Office, the Minister rightly says that the institutions are best equipped to know the needs of their students. Those responsible for the access funds at Dundee university wrote to me to say that their funds had run out even before the summer recess had begun. There was no additional help for students who found themselves in trouble in the summer. What advice would the Minister offer to a student who has a full student grant and a student loan but who is still £500 below the income support level, the minimum subsistence level for any individual in society? That student is unable to get help from his educational institution because it has run out of its access funds. What should that student do?
Miss Widdecombe: The grant and loan system is designed to cover the entire academic year, not just part of it.
Secondly, access funds are administered by the institutions, which are best able to decide what is needed. We have reviewed the problem that occurred and, as I said, we have issued additional guidance to such institutions to try to make sure that the problem does not recur. Students, with a combination of loan, grant and access funds, are well provided for over the course of an entire year.
Hon. Members will be aware that the access fund allocations for the current academic year have already been made. As before, their distribution among institutions takes account of student numbers and regional variations in housing costs. The institutions are required to

1059
monitor their use of the access funds and the Secretary of State for Education and Science has undertaken to review the operation of the funds in due course.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East raised a number of important issues this evening. I am grateful for the opportunity to put the Government's views on the matter, but underlying all that I have said is a fundamental conviction that the education system, not social security benefits, should provide for the maintenance of students.
It makes no sense for two such complex systems of financial support to attempt to meet the same needs other than in the most exceptional circumstances. The educational maintenance system is specifically designed with the financial needs of students in mind and we have made substantial new resources available to ensure that those needs are met.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Why do the Government believe that for people on low incomes in employment the social security system, especially through family credit, has a vital role to play, yet for people on low incomes in education the social security system, through housing benefit, plays no role?
Miss Widdecombe: Because, until the Government introduced family credit, there was no comprehensive assistance for people in work on low incomes in terms of
1060
the benefits system. There is assistance available for students' education through the educational maintenance system and what is currently in operation is the best method for the support of students. There is no point in running two systems side by side.
If the hon. Gentleman has specific cases of hardship which he wishes to raise, there is a straightforward means of doing so. He should write to the Secretary of State for Education and Science setting out the problems, and the same goes for problems in respect of Dundee university. If there is a specific matter in the system which is the Minister's responsibility and which is causing concern, the Minister can respond to it.
I see no point in taking an already elaborate system and running it alongside another elaborate system, rather than having one straightforward source of student income. Indeed, it must be more comprehensible to, and dignified for, students to get the whole of their resources from the education system rather than from a mixture of social security and the education system. So there is an administrative advantage and an advantage in terms of comprehensibility in having a single system. The Government's point is made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Two o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Sir Allan Green
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what financial arrangements were made with the previous Director of Public Prosecutions as to compensation for his years of service.

  The Attorney-General
  The previous Director of Public Prosecutions has a pension entitlement, not payable until August 1997. He will receive now an ex-gratia payment of three months salary.

  McKenzies Friend
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost to public funds of the Treasury Solicitor contesting the case in the Appeal Court in July on McKenzie's friend, what fees were paid to the barrister who acted as amicus curiae; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Treasury counsel was instructed by the Treasury Solicitor to appear as an amicus curiae in the case of Rv. Leicester City Justices ex parte Barrow at the request of the Court of Appeal. Counsel did not appear in order to "contest" the appeal, but in order to assist the court on matters of law. The cost to public funds of such assistance to the Court of Appeal was £2,412·45. The amount of the fee paid to counsel is a matter of professional confidence between solicitor and counsel.

TRANSPORT

  Stoke-Derby Link Road
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he can report progress on the Stoke-Derby link road and the Derby southern spur.

  Mr. Chope
  Good progress is being made and the link road between Stoke and Derby is on target for completion in 1996.

  I hope to be able to announce a decision on the route of the Derby southern bypass and spur by Christmas and to publish the remaining statutory orders for side road alterations and the compulsory purchase of the necessary land in the spring of 1992.

  Tyre Tread Depths
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish in full the new requirements on tyre tread depth regulations;
  426
  (2) if he will publish the date of making and the date of implementation of the new construction and use regulations concerning tyre tread depths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  From 1 January 1992 the grooves of the tread pattern of every tyre fitted to the wheels of cars, light vans and their trailers must be of a depth of at least 1·6nirn throughout a continuous band situated in the central three-quarters of the breadth of tread and round the entire circumference of the tyre. They will replace the current standard of lmm of tread across three quarters of the tread pattern and visible tread in the remaining quarter. Vehicles first used before 3 January 1933 are exempt from these new requirements, because in many cases they have resilient, rather than pneumatic, tyres. The new standards on tyre tread depths of cars, light vans and their trailers are covered by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment No. 4) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990 No. 1981) which were made on 28 September 1990.

  Ipswich—Cambridge Rail Service
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the public service grants he has made to British Rail for the purpose of keeping open rail services between Ispwich and Cambridge over each of the past five years; whether those train services are meeting the performance targets and obligations laid down by his Department; if he will list those targets and obligations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Public service obligation (PSO) grant is a block grant paid towards the cost of maintaining all supported services. In 1990–91 British Rail received £699.9 million in PSO grant.

  The quality of service standards applicable to services of this type are that 90 per cent. of trains should arrive within five minutes of the scheduled time and no more than 1 per cent. of trains should be cancelled. Performance against these standards is not monitored by the Department on a line by line basis. However, for the Anglia sub-sector, of which the Ipswich-Cambridge route is part, 86·9 per cent. of trains arrived within five minutes of their scheduled time and 2 per cent. of trains were cancelled in the year to September 1991.

  A45, Bury St. Edmunds
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what portions of the A45 at Risby near Bury St. Edmunds are or have been closed over the past four weeks; and if he will publish a list of previous closures of this trunk road within five miles to the east and west of Bury St. Edmunds in each of the past five years, indicating in each case for how long portions of this highway were closed and how much public money was spent in each case, and in total for repairs or other purposes.

  Mr. Chope
  The westbound carriageway at Risby is currently being reconstructed and resurfaced.

  Previous closures are attached. These do not include emergency works, routine maintenance or works for public utilities.
  427

  Year

  Location

  Scheme

  Cost £000s

  Duration

  Traffic management

  1985–86

  Rougham-Moreton Hall

  Carriageway maintenance and widening

  1,200

  12 weeks

  Contraflow and lane closures

  1987–88

  Risby westbound on slip road

  Repairs/resurfacing

  40

  2 weeks

  Lane closures

  1988–89

  Beyton-Bury bypass

  Carriageway maintenance and overlay

  1,000

  22 weeks

  Contraflow and lane closures

  1988–89

  Risby-Westley

  Safety fence works

  100

  19 weeks

  Lane closures

  1989–90

  Risby westbound carriageway

  Resurfacing

  75

  2 weeks

  Lane closure

  1989–90

  Risby-Rougham

  Surface dressing

  50

  2 days

  Lane closure

  1990–91

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Reconstruction-overlay

  4,000

  20 weeks

  Contraflow

  1990–91

  Various sites

  Surface dressing

  50

  2–3 days

  Lane closures

  1990–91

  Risby-Kentford

  Safety fencing

  130

  6 weeks

  Lane closures

  1990–91

  Rougham

  Closure of gap

  50

  3 weeks

  Lane closures

  1990–91

  Various sites

  French drain renewal

  70

  4 weeks

  Lane closures

  Car Pooling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has carried out into congestion reduction from incentives for car pooling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  An extensive programme of research was conducted following the Transport Act 1978 which liberalised the rules governing car sharing. It was apparent from this work and subsequent initiatives that it is particularly difficult to organise formal car pooling schemes and that when successful they can have the effect of reducing public transport patronage. We continue to keep the matter under review.

  Shipping (Toxic Substances)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government are taking to secure changes to United Nations shipping regulations in respect of classification of the toxicity of transported substances according to the results of LD50 tests.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom Government have been actively involved in discussion within OECD of an alternative to the LD50 methodology. If an alternative is agreed, the appropriate United Nations Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods will consider the effect on transport regulations generally.

  Lighthouses
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what borrowing limits apply to each general lighthouse authority;

  for each of the last five years, what is the amount of money allocated from the reserves of the General Lighthouse Fund to supplement light due costs;

  if he will give the current level of liquid reserves available to the General Lighthouse Fund; and what is his current estimate of the level expected in March 1992.

  (4) Mr. McLoughlin
  Under section 662A of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (as inserted by the Merchant Shipping Act 1988) the borrowing limit applying to the General Lighthouse Fund is £100 million. This is not disaggregated to each general lighthouse authority. In the last five years the GLF reserves have met the following shortfalls of the income required to meet total operating costs plus depreciation:

  Year

  £ million

  1986–87

  3·2

  1987–88

  1·9

  1988–89

  5·9

  428

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  8·9

  1990–91

  111·8

  1 Provisional.

  The liquid reserves stood at £22·1 million at the end of October and are expected to be around or below £20 million by March 1992.

  A4
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies or plans are in hand for alterations at the junctions on the A4 road between Brentford and Hammersmith.

  Mr. Chope
  The report of the M4-A4 corridor study by Howard Humphreys and Partners was published on 3 October. It recommends a new link between the M4 and the A4 to relieve congestion on the elevated dual two-lane section of the motorway between junctions 1 and 2 and also recommends various improvements to A4 junctions. The report is now the subject of consultation. The improvement of the A4 junction with the A316 at Hogarth roundabout has been investigated by Sir William Halcrow and Partners Limited, as has the A4 junction with the A406/A205 at Chiswick roundabout. These reports are being considered. Frank Graham Consulting Engineers Ltd, the Department's agent for this part of the A4, is investigating right-of-way priorities at Hogarth roundabout and the provision of signals at Chiswick roundabout to cater for traffic from the Chiswick Park development in Chiswick High road. Their work is still at an early stage.

  Dock Workers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many hours dock workers have worked per week on average in each of the last five years in each of the major ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Weekly average hours worked within the dock labour scheme as a whole were published in the annual reports of the National Dock Labour Board and were as follows (including overtime but excluding "under-employed" hours):

  1986

  1987

  1988

  39·5

  41·0

  42·0

  I have no information on ports outside the scheme, or for the period from 1989 when it was abolished.

  Ports (Operational Leases)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to give effect to section 17 of the Ports Act; and what particular regard his plans have for operational leases.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is intended that the affirmative order provided for in section 17(8) of the Act shall be laid before Parliament shortly. At the present time, the draft proposals for the provisions of the order, including provisions for leases of operational land, are the subject of consultation with the trust ports. It is too early therefore to say what the precise nature of those provisions will be.

  Rural Bus Routes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total number of rural bus service routes in 1980 and the total number in 1990 in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Between 1982 (the earliest year for which statistics are available) and 1990–91, vehicle mileage in the English shire counties increased by 19 per cent. But no breakdown between rural and urban mileage is available within this total; nor is information available on numbers of routes.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the proportion of(a) Wales's and (b) Britain's railway network which is electrified; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no electrified lines in Wales; as at 31 March 1991, 30 per cent. of British Rail's network was electrified or in the process of being electrified as a result of projects approved or under construction.

  RNIB Needs Survey
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the report "Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain—The RNIB Needs Survey"; what action he will be taking in relation to its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department of Transport has not yet received a copy of the report. We have asked the RNIB to send us one urgently so that we can consider it fully.

  Nuclear Transport Routes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he possesses in regard to the reasons for the diversion of the Pacific Teal away from its planned route from Japan to Barrow in Furness via the Panama canal during its voyage in December 1989 to February 1990; and what was the effect on the safe operation of the ship.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The ships of Pacific Nuclear Transport Limited are capable of taking any of a number of different non-stop routes from Japan to Europe and have done so on a number of occasions. In this instance, because of uncertainties relating to transit of the Panama canal at that time, the decision was taken to use another route.

  Departmental Restructuring
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the recent restructuring of his Department and its implications for shipping and ports policy; if he will give details of the establishment in his Department as it relates to shipping and ports related posts; and if he will indicate which posts are currently unfilled or vacant.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Some changes were made with effect from 2 September to the responsibilities of a number of directorates in the Department, but these had no implications for shipping and ports policy. There are some 1,020 shipping and ports related posts in the Department including 483 coastguard grades. As at 8 November there were five administrative vacancies, 13 specialist vacancies and 29 vacancies in coastguard grades.

  Trust Ports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the liquid assets currently held by each trust port on 31 July 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Port authorities produce annual accounts, but I have no information on their mid-year financial positions.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he plans to ensure that the objectives set out in the transfer schemes for trust ports are made binding on the successful bidder; and what safeguards exist to ensure that memoranda and articles agreed by him in respect of the new company will not be changed following the completion of the sale to the successful bidder.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The purpose of a transfer scheme is to effect the transfer of a trust port's existing undertaking to a successor company with a view to the subsequent disposal of that company's securities: such schemes do not contain operational objectives for the successor company. However, in cases where a port is to be sold to a single buyer, objectives of sale are agreed between the authority concerned and the Government. Prospective purchasers will then be required to demonstrate to the authority in the bidding process how they intend to meet those objectives, and this information will be taken into account by an authority in their assessment of competing bids.

  Such objectives cannot by their nature be legally binding. In determining the company's business objectives, and in deciding whether to make alterations to its memorandum and articles however, the new owner of the port will need to take account of the plans on which his bid has been based, and the statutory powers and duties of the company. The relevant provisions of the Companies Act 1985 relating to alterations to the memorandum and articles will of course apply in the same way as they do to any other company.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how amendments made by him to the proposed transfer schemes of trust ports are to be incorporated into competing bids.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Before finalising their bids, prospective purchasers of a trust port will have the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the provisions of any order made
  431
  under section 9 of the Ports Act 1991, confirming that port's transfer scheme with or without modifications. They will therefore be able to determine their final bid in the light of any modification which may have been made.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of those trust ports which have to date submitted proposals to privatise under the provisions of the Ports Act 1991; and if he will give in respect of each the timetable for(a) the deadline by which representations have to be received, (b) the completion date of the transfer of the trust port to the newly established company, and for (c) the date when it is expected to name the successful bidder.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To date, four ports have formally submitted schemes of transfer: Tees and Hartlepool port authority, Medway ports authority, the Port of London authority for the port of Tilbury, and Clyde ports authority. The deadline for the end of the representations period in each case is as follows: for Tees, 24 September; for Medway, 2 October; for Clyde, 13 December. There is under the Act no representations period for the Port of Tilbury. The dates for completion of the transfer schemes and the naming of the successful bidder in each case are not yet known. The former will depend on the extent and nature of the modifications to any particular scheme that appears necessary in the light of representations and other factors and after consulting the relevant authority. The latter will depend on the date on which each authority recommends a bidder and the timing of the decision on whether to accept that recommendation.

  Driving Licences
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the name of the marketing company that advised DVLC (Swansea) on its use of the drivers' licence computer base for the purpose of test-marketing the potential for commercial firms to advertise their services to applicants for driving licences.

  Mr. Chope
  The company advising the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on the market research necessary to establish the potential of its database and dispatch equipment is Marketing Triangle Ltd.

  Promotional Leaflets
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the driver and vehicle licensing centre intends to continue to send out promotional leaflets for the British School of Motoring with provisional driving licences.

  Mr. Chope
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency concluded the test mailing on 4 October. No new mailing will take place until the results of the market research have been fully evaluated. In deciding future policy in this area, account will be taken of representations received.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the management of the Docklands light railway; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  We intend that there should be new management arrangements for the DLR. The railway has 432
  a vital role in the regeneration of Docklands, and there is a strong case for uniting it with the London Docklands development corporation, whose prime objective that regeneration is. Subject to the outcome of any necessary consultations, I therefore intend asking the chairman of London Regional Transport to transfer responsibility for the DLR to the LDDC. The effective date of the transfer will be announced when the necessary procedures and detailed arrangements are completed.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what objectives he has set for the new chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I sent the following letter recently to Mr. Christopher Chataway:This letter sets out the objectives which the Government wishes you to pursue as Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority in fulfilment of the statutory functions of the Board. In the case of conflict between these objectives and the Authority's statutory duties, the statutory duties must prevail.

  General Objectives
  Safety. Your overriding objective must be to ensure that the CAA continues to promote, in an efficient and cost-effective way, high standards of safety in all aspects of civil aviation. I have made it clear that safety is the responsibility of the CAA and it is not my intention to interfere in the discharge of its duties.
  Regulation. Subject to your responsibility for safety, and to other explicit statutory requirements, the Authority should impose as few burdens as possible on those whose activities it regulates. The United Kingdom civil aviation industry had to bear the full costs of regulation and the Authority must therefore continually strive to ensure that regulation is no greater than necessary.
  I would expect your charges in relation to the services of the Economic Regulation and Safety Regulation Groups to cover their costs and to provide the required rate of return on investment without rising faster than the rate of inflation, taking one year with another, unless there were very good reasons for them to do so, and in all events to be as low as is compatible with the proper discharge of their responsibilities.
  Costs and Quality of Service. The Authority should keep its costs under constant review and, where appropriate, should devise formal cost reduction programmes. Quality of service should also be carefully monitored. In the light of these considerations and or your overriding safety objective, in the course of your first year of appointment you should review all performance targets and indicators (including the development of appropriate unit cost indicators) for the Authority, and put to me proposals for the future, with a view to our agreeing them in time for inclusion of the targets in the 1992 Corporate Plan. You should continue to keep under review your arrangements for consulting users about the Authority's charges and I would be glad if you would cover this point in particular in your first annual report to me.
  The Environment. While I have primary responsibility for regulating environmental disturbance attributable to civil aviation, in planning and providing its air traffic control services, the Authority should assess the possible effects of any changes on the environment, including the effects of noise. The Department should be notified in any cases where the Authority considers that adverse effects are likely to be significant. The Authority should also maintain its capacity to provide expert technical advice on environmental problems.
  External Relations. The Authority must continue to seek to maintain good communications with Parliament, industry and the public so that each properly understands the CAA's various roles. It will be your continuing responsibility to deal, in correspondence and otherwise, with the concerns of Members of both Houses of Parliament as they affect the Authority's activities.
  The Authority is both a regulator of the industry and a monopoly supplier of many air traffic control services, and you should ensure that the industry is kept in close touch with your plans, and has full opportunities to tell you of their

  433
  views. The Safety Regulation Group Finance Advisory Committee is an example of a valuable consultation mechanism, and you should ensure that it is continued effectively.
  Public Sector Financial Disciplines. The Authority should continue to stay within its External Financing Limit each year and the associated investment approvals limits. It should also continue to provide the Government with regular, timely flows of information so that the Authority's performance can be monitored both generally and more specifically against agreed strategies and targets and the External Financing Limit.
  Over the three year period ending in 1991–92, the Authority has been working to a target annual average rate of return on average capital employed of 8 per cent. on a current cost basis; this target has applied to all the Authority's activities, except UK airspace air traffic services and Highland and Islands Airports Ltd. You should plan on the basis that this target will be maintained for the next three-year period, beginning in 1992–93, but it will be subject to review in the autumn of this year.
  Corporate Planning. The Authority should prepare Corporate Plans reflecting the objectives in this letter (and the outcome of the previous annual Investment and Financing Review), including the External Financing Limit. Each year's plan should be submitted to me no later than April each year.
  Organisation. You should ensure that an appropriate structure and management systems are in place to provide a cost-effective and commercial approach within the Authority, with effective control of both capital and current expenditure, so that the Authority can take a corporate view of its priorities, set targets for parts of the business and ensure that they are achieved.
  The recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on National Air Traffic Services (NATS) made a number of recommendations, almost all of which were accepted by the Authority. These recommendations should be implemented in a timely fashion. I attach particular importance to those recommendations concerning manpower planning, for which appropriate systems need to be developed without delay.

  Objectives for Economic Regulation
  Within the relevant statutory requirements, and working with the Department in the international arena, the Authority should act to ensure that as far as possible, the United Kingdom travelling public is served by a healthy competitive multi-airline industry. Further steps towards liberalisation and the creation of a single market within the European Community will bring important changes in the next few years (on matters such as route licensing, the approval of fares, and probably the allocation of airport slots). The Authority should continue to be ready to advise the Government on necessary changes to policy and to legislation, and to revise its Statement of Policies on air transport licensing appropriately in response to changes in both.
  It is important that the Economic Regulation Group's costs remain under effective control, so that increases in charges are kept to a minimum.

  Objectives for National Air Traffic Services
  The National Air Traffic Services (NATS) is run jointly between the Authority and the Ministry of Defence with staff provided by each. You should be aware of the Ministerial Directions to NATS which I shall soon be revising with the Secretary of State for Defence. The Directions will continue to require NATS to provide airspace capacity, on a cost effective and timely basis, to meet the needs of airspace users both civil and military but, recognising the increasing demand from aircraft operations, they will invite you—in consultation as necessary with the Secretary of State for Defence—to advise me on appropriate action in the event of demand for airspace exceeding capacity.
  To this end it is essential that NATS' capital programme is implemented in a thorough and effective way, with due attention paid to project appraisal and to the delivery of projects (notably the New En-Route Centre and the Central Control Function) punctually and to budget. This will be a key responsibility for the new Chief Executive of NATS. The Authority have already made significant changes in NATS'
  434
  project management arrangements, but it is important that these are maintained and followed through, and that the possible need for further changes is kept always in mind.
  I also attach great importance to effective international working on air traffic control (ATC) matters; I look to the Authority for full support in helping to implement the plan endorsed by the European Civil Aviation Conference Ministers for harmonising and progressively integrating their ATC systems. Together with the Chief Executive of NATS, I should like you in due course to consider with your Board whether the new NATS organisational structure is proving to be appropriate to the ever-increasing international dimension of ATC work.
  There have been long-running negotiations with BAA on the provision of aerodrome navigation services. I hope it will be possible to bring these to a conclusion soon, to put this important relationship on a firm footing.

  Objectives for Safety Regulation
  The Authority has its own safety responsibilities, but ie is important that recommendations by the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) which are accepted should be followed up with all due promptness. I should like you to continue to send me a report annually on the way in which this is being done.
  My predecessor was concerned at last year's increases in the charges made by the Authority's Safety Regulation Group. Since then a review of the Group's operation has been conducted and recommendations have been made. I would be grateful for a report by the end of the financial year as to what has been done in the light of the consultants' report.
  The Group's future staffing levels and the level of charges to industry should reflect improvements in efficiency and working practices without of course compromising the effectiveness of the Group's safety functions. Progress on achieving this should be included in your annual reports on the achievement of your objectives.
  The Safety Regulation Group is already playing a prominent role in international organisations such as the European Joint Aviation Authorities and should continue to do so. However, I would ask you to ensure that, as the role of such bodies grows, there should he as little duplication as possible between their work and that of the Group.

  Objectives for Scottish Aerodromes
  The primary objective for the Authority's Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. (HIAL) subsidiary should be to seek to break even on its non-oil related operations after grant, consistent with ensuring that the aerodromes continue to meet the social needs of the communities which they serve. I would also be glad if you would examine the scope for unit cost indicators for HIAL.

  General
  The CAA is established as a nationalised industry separate from Government, and as such it should be free to pursue objectives and responsibilities, within the Corporate Plan accepted by the Government and the Internal Financing Review provision agreed for the next three years. You and your Board are responsible for the day-to-day management of the Authority and can expect to carry this out without interference from Government. At the same time, I am accountable to Parliament for the overall performance of the Authority and I have specific functions in relation to a variety of matters affecting the Authority. It is therefore important that I and my officials have access to the information that bears on my responsibilities, and you should ensure that there continues to be close relationship between my Department and the Authority on all matters of mutual concern.
  I expect from time to time to review these objectives with you. I attach importance to receiving regular reports at the end of each financial year on your progress in implementing these objectives.

  Vehicle Registration Numbers
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a progress report on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's scheme to sell attractive registration numbers.

  Mr. Chope
  This highly successful and innovative scheme has proved to be very popular with the British motoring public. Since sales began in December 1989 over 100,000 numbers have been sold providing total receipts of over £55 million. Particular interest has been shown in the latest range of numbers to be made available taken from the 'A' prefix series which went on sale from 19 August this year. So far over 33,000 have been sold and they allow motorists who have vehicles registered on or after 1 August 1983 to obtain personalised numbers at a reasonable price. Numbers taken from the current issue 'J' prefix series are also available specifically for new car buyers. I have placed copies of the latest sales information leaflets in the Library.

  Roadside Tests
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set an annual target for the number of roadside tests of emissions from heavy goods vehicles undertaken by his vehicles inspectorate.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: A total of 113,000 HGV's were inspected at the roadside during 1990–91, and a similar number will be inspected this financial year. All these vehicles are checked for excessive smoke. Wherever possible vehicles are selected for roadside checking where they appear to be emitting a high level of smoke.

  Annual remuneration with effect from 1 April 1991

  Chairman

  Marmaduke Hussey, Esq.

  £54,145

  On the basis of four days per week.

  Vice-chairman

  On the basis if one and half days per week.

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Barnett, PC

  £13,890

  National Governor for Northern Ireland

  Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, KCB

  £13,890

  National Governor for Wales

  John Parry, Esq, CBE,

  £13,890

  National Governor for Scotland

  Professor Sir Graham Hills

  £13,890

  Governors:

  Dr. John Roberts

  £6,945

  On the basis of one day per week.

  Baroness James of Holland Park, OBE

  £6,945

  Bill Jordan, Esq.

  £6,945

  Keith Oates, Esq.

  £6,945

  Dr. Jane Glover

  £6,945

  Mrs. Shahwar Sadeque

  £6,945

  Lord Nicholas Gordon-Lennox, KCMG, KCVO

  £6,945

  The annual remuneration was increased by 7·5 per cent. from 1 April 1991 and is due to be increased by a further 1.9 per cent. from 1 December 1991. The increases are in line with those approved for groups covered by the Top Salaries Review Body.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to the outcome

THE ARTS

  British Library
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions are taking place between himself, the PSA, the main contractor and the Dutch supplier of the equipment for the basement book store at the British Library to ensure that the equipment fully meets its specification and that, if any modifications cause its in-service date to be delayed, proper compensation will be paid.

  Mr. Renton
  Both PSA Services and the construction manager have been in detailed contractual discussions since July with the Dutch supplier to ensure that the product meets its specification and is fit for its purpose. A number of technical shortcomings have already been rectified. The payment of compensation for demonstrated damage is part of the discussions. I am being kept fully informed.

  The British Library is shorty to recommence testing to determine the extent of movement, if any, of books on the shelves, during book retrieval operations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  BBC
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the BBC governing body and their current salaries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The membership of the BBC Board of Governors and their annual remuneration is as follows:

  of the meeting between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and the Trade Association of Television Retailers, held on 29 October, concerning the BBC's commercial use of the licence database.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I informed the RETRA representatives that I understood that the Director General of Fair Trading considered the BBC's Telecover promotion likely to promote competition; and that the Data Protection
  437
  Registrar did not believe the BBC's use of licensing data for other purposes contravened the Data Protection Act 1984 provided the data protection principles were observed. I said also that the BBC had said that they would not promote Telecover in using future licensing data.

  I invited the RETRA representatives to contribute to the forthcoming debate preceding the expiry of the BBC's charter in 1996, and to discussion of the draft EC directive on data protection.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost of keeping a prisoner(a) in prison and (b) in a police cell.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  During the financial year 1990–91 the average weekly cost of keeping a prisoner in prison was £384 and in a police cell £1,400.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the work of the Animal Procedures Committee in 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The cost of the work of the Animal Procedures Committee and its research sub-committee during 1990, which includes the fee paid to the chairman, the travelling and subsistence costs of its members and a notional amount to cover the servicing of the committee, was in the region of £29,000.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the amounts of revenue raised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in 1990 in fees for certificates of designation of scientific procedures establishments, in fees for personal licences and in fees for certificates of designation of breeding and supplying establishments.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Some £1·7 million was collected in respect of certificates of designation and personal licences in force during 1990.

  Nationality Applications
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of applications waiting for consideration for British nationality on 1 November.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As at 31 October 1991, the number of applications for British citizenship awaiting determination was 54,897, of which more than 30,000 were at various stages of consideration.

  Door Supervisors
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to control the activity of door supervisors on licensed premises.

  Mr. John Patten
  As a result of a meeting in September 1990 with representatives of organisations using and providing door supervisors, a survey of police forces was conducted earlier this year to provide information on the nature and extent of problems associated with door supervisors and on any schemes which had been set up to tackle these problems on licensed premises where identified.
  438
  The survey revealed that most parts of the country are experiencing some problems with door supervisors, including incidents of violent behaviour. Most of the local registration schemes in existence or planned focus on 1.he need for identification, and to a lesser extent training, of door supervisors. In many cases, registration of door supervisors is a condition of the issue or renewal of a public entertainments licence. In some cases it is required that the employment of individual door supervisors be approved by a local committee, comprising representatives of the police and local authorities.

  It is not possible at this stage to evaluate the effectiveness of these schemes since most of them are of relatively recent origin. The operation of a representative sample is, however, currently being monitored. We aim to have the interim results of this exercise next spring, to consult with interested parties and to publish a final report before the end of 1992. Our intention is then to issue guidelines to all police forces on the most effective means by which conduct of door supervisors may be controlled. In the meantime the Home Office will maintain close contact with interested parties.

  National Crime Intelligence Service
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the date on which the new Welsh regional office of the national criminal intelligence service will be set up in Cardiff.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The location of branch offices of the national criminal intelligence service is being determined by a balance of operational and financial considerations. Current plans are that the branch office covering the police forces in south Wales and south-west England will be sited in Bristol.

  Press Complaints Commission
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend and I met the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission on 14 March. The Home Office keeps in touch with the commission, and I met the chairman on 30 October.

  Firearms
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those hunts that hold(a) firearms licences and (b) shotgun licences and the people whose names appear on the licences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for the grant of firearm and shot gun certificates lies with local chief officers of police. Details of certificates on issue are not held centrally.

  Police Science and Technology Group
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what goods or services are to be supplied by the successful tenderer to the Home Office Police Department science and technology group tender 87/91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The successful tenderer, British Telecom plc, will provide cardphone facilities at prison service establishments in England and Wales.

  Chief Constables (Salaries)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names and salaries of each of the chief constables in Britain.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Chief constables' current rates of pay are set out in Home Office Circular 70/1991. The names of all chief constables can be found in the Police and Constabulary Almanac. Copies of both documents are in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the total cost that was incurred in 1990–91 in pursuing poll tax enforcement procedures through the courts.

  Mr. John Patten
  About £3·4 million.

  Niggers with Attitude Case
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the judgment in the NWA—Niggers with Attitude—case at Redbridge on 7 November, he will bring forward proposals to amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

  Mr. John Patten
  I cannot comment on the decision of a court in a particular case. The Government recognise that there is concern about the effectiveness of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. This is traditionally an area for Private Members and the Government are prepared to support any suitable proposals for amendments which would make the law more effective and which appear likely to command sufficient public and parliamentary support.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per sitting hour of a magistrates court.

  Mr. John Patten
  The average hourly running cost of magistrates courts in 1990/91 was £216·85.

  Drug Traffickers
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards further bilateral treaties to provide for the confiscation of the assets of drug traffickers.

  Mr. John Patten
  The United Kingdom has now concluded 23 such agreements or arrangements: 20 in respect of the proceeds of drug trafficking and three concerning the proceeds of all serious crimes. Ten of these agreements or arrangements are in force. In addition, the United Kingdom is able to assist 28 further countries in tracing, freezing and confiscating drug trafficking proceeds by virtue of our recent ratification of the 1988 United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (the Vienna convention). Details are as follows:

  (i) Bilateral agreements or arrangements to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking have been concluded with:

  Anguilla

  Argentina

  440

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Barbados

  Bermuda

  Canada

  Cayman Islands

  Germany

  Gibraltar

  Guyana

  Hong Kong

  Malaysia

  Mexico

  Montserrat

  Saudi Arabia

  Spain

  Switzerland

  United States of America

  (ii) Bilateral agreements to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of all serious crimes have been concluded with:

  Italy

  Nigeria

  Sweden

  (iii) The following agreements or arrangements are in force:

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Canada

  Cayman Islands

  Gibraltar

  Hong Kong

  Mexico

  Spain

  Switzerland

  United States of America

  (iv) Countries which we are able to assist by virtue of the Vienna convention:

  Bangladesh

  Bhutan

  Bolivia

  Chile

  China

  Costa Rica

  Cyprus

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  France

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guinea

  India

  Jordan

  Madagascar

  Nicaragua

  Oman

  Paraguay

  Qatar

  Senegal

  Togo

  Tunisia

  Uganda

  USSR

  UAE

  Yugoslavia

  Asylum
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the country of origin of those who applied for asylum in each quarter of 1990 and 1991, as listed in his answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 338.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The information requested is given in the table. The figures

  441
  are for principal applicants excluding dependants. The 1990 figures for some nationalities understate because of delays in recording, particularly for the fourth quarter.

  Applications1 2 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 1990–91.

  19903

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  20

  15

  40

  55

  Colombia

  20

  50

  30

  80

  Romania

  5

  20

  80

  190

  Turkey

  100

  160

  235

  565

  USSR

  15

  15

  25

  40

  Others

  25

  30

  25

  65

  TOTAL

  190

  290

  440

  1,000

  Africa

  Angola

  95

  195

  460

  365

  Congo

  5

  10

  30

  20

  Ethiopia

  165

  300

  935

  505

  Ghana

  225

  175

  290

  200

  Somalia

  380

  325

  665

  485

  Sudan

  50

  45

  70

  85

  Togo/Ivory Coast

  5

  10

  25

  45

  Uganda

  355

  405

  565

  565

  Zaire

  240

  245

  640

  485

  Others

  80

  100

  240

  185

  TOTAL

  1,600

  1,810

  3,920

  2,945

  Middle East

  Iran

  75

  60

  95

  100

  Iraq

  95

  115

  335

  350

  Lebanon

  80

  50

  275

  590

  Others

  15

  10

  10

  25

  TOTAL

  260

  230

  715

  1,065

  Asia

  China

  35

  60

  60

  75

  India

  300

  305

  350

  450

  Pakistan

  170

  165

  360

  600

  Sri Lanka

  700

  630

  785

  1,095

  Others

  50

  70

  80

  175

  TOTAL

  1,255

  1,225

  1,640

  2,400

  Other and unknown nationality

  55

  55

  90

  135

  GRAND TOTAL

  3,360

  3,615

  6,800

  7,545

  Applications1 2 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 1990–91.

  1991

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  100

  140

  80

  —

  Colombia

  50

  25

  30

  —

  Romania

  170

  110

  170

  —

  Turkey

  750

  510

  510

  —

  USSR

  55

  60

  60

  —

  Others

  25

  45

  90

  —

  TOTAL

  1,150

  895

  920

  —

  Africa

  Angola

  1,390

  1,910

  1,240

  —

  Congo

  70

  60

  110

  —

  Ethiopia

  525

  510

  420

  —

  Ghana

  665

  930

  520

  —

  Somalia

  595

  630

  450

  —

  Sudan

  145

  115

  450

  —

  Togo/Ivory Coast

  200

  425

  560

  —

  Uganda

  805

  305

  120

  —

  Zaire

  1,430

  2,220

  1,600

  —

  Others

  200

  810

  1,200

  —

  442 443

  1991

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  TOTAL

  6,015

  7,915

  6,680

  —

  Middle East

  Iran

  155

  135

  120

  —

  Iraq

  310

  155

  180

  —

  Lebanon

  505

  85

  70

  —

  Others

  25

  95

  110

  —

  TOTAL

  995

  465

  480

  —

  Asia

  China

  115

  155

  130

  —

  India

  575

  510

  480

  —

  Pakistan

  915

  915

  720

  —

  Sri Lanka

  1,420

  990

  750

  —

  Others

  85

  230

  430

  —

  TOTAL

  3,105

  2,800

  2,500

  —

  Other and unknown nationality

  4435

  —

  —

  —

  GRAND TOTAL

  11,700

  12,075

  10,590

  —

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest 5.

  3 1990 figures are estimates which understate for some nationalities, particularly for the fourth quarter. In total applications in 1990, excluding dependants, are estimated at over 22,000 (over 30,000 including dependants).

  4 Includes applications in January and February 1991 from nationalities not specifically identified above. From March 1991 these are included in the "others" category for the relevant geographical area.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many grants of(a) asylum and (b) exceptional leave to remain were made in each month of 1988 to 1991 or the nearest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The information requested is given in the table. Comprehensive monthly figures from January 1991 are not yet available.

  Grants1 2 of asylum or exceptional leave to applicants for asylum in the United Kingdom, 1988–90

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of exceptional leave

  1988

  January

  20

  55

  February

  35

  90

  March

  25

  70

  April

  35

  55

  May

  30

  190

  June

  35

  115

  July

  20

  145

  August

  20

  130

  September

  35

  120

  October

  80

  220

  November

  235

  245

  December

  55

  155

  1989

  January

  105

  225

  February

  85

  260

  March

  90

  365

  April

  170

  415

  May

  270

  440

  June

  385

  450

  July

  90

  275

  August

  115

  380

  September

  265

  335

  October

  290

  255

  November

  245

  290

  December

  110

  205

  444

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of exceptional leave

  19903

  January

  160

  320

  February

  115

  240

  March

  95

  210

  April

  65

  235

  May

  55

  210

  June

  60

  130

  July

  75

  165

  August

  55

  135

  September

  75

  265

  October

  110

  200

  November

  75

  230

  December

  55

  90

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  3 1990 figures are provisional.

ENERGY

  Miners' Coal Entitlement
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on British Coal's plans with regard to the buy-out of mineworkers', former mineworkers' and their widows' coal entitlement at the end of the 1991–92 financial year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will ensure that provision is made in any future measures to privatise the coal mining industry to protect the concessionary fuel entitlement of mineworkers, former mineworkers and their widows.
  445
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government will ensure that existing concessionary fuel entitlements from British Coal will be safeguarded following privatisation of the industry.

  Nuclear Electric plc
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the objectives he has set for Nuclear Electric plc.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Yes. The Government wish to preserve the nuclear option in order to maintain adequate diversity and security of electricity supply and obtain the benefits of this environmentally clean source of energy.

  To secure the future of the nuclear option the company must demonstrate to the public that nuclear power is safe, clean and economic and that it should continue to have a major role in electricity supply in the longer term. I have therefore set the following objectives for Nuclear Electric plc:

  (i) to increase profit and reduce total and unit costs;

  (ii) to achieve a continued increase in electricity generation, provided that this is economically justified;

  (iii) to achieve a progressive reduction in the company's dependence on the levy;

  (iv) to complete Sizewell B to time and cost;

  (v) to achieve a reduction in the costs of re-processing, de-commissioning and waste disposal and greater certainty about these costs;

  All these objectives should be achieved whilst maintaining the company's excellent safety record.

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to the Exchequer of his visits abroad in 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of my visits abroad as Prime Minister in 1990 was £93,830.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many days he has spent abroad since assuming office.

  The Prime Minister
  I have spent 41 days abroad on official duties.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 12 November.

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

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from Gibraltar concerning the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received many representations concerning BCCI.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the Indonesian Government; and what was the purpose of that meeting.
  446
  The Prime Minister
  I met Dr. Habibie, the Indonesian Minister for Research and Technology on 19 June. We discussed a number of issues including commercial co-operation, particularly in the aerospace sector.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had regarding the Indonesian occupation of East Timor; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We receive frequent representations on the subject of East Timor. We support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General to promote a settlement acceptable to all parties.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what recent assessment he has made of the current standards of horticulture in the gardens of 10 Downing street;

  (2) what consideration he has given to the security implications of the proposed contracting out of the management of the Downing street gardens.

  The Prime Minister
  The security implications of a contractor maintaining gardens in Downing street are considered in the same way as they are when other contractors' staff undertake work in Downing street or its gardens. The standards of gardening in 10 Downing street are high. Those standards will be maintained or improved when the work is bought in from the private sector.

WALES

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the number of patients waiting for non-urgent in-patient treatment waiting(a) more than one year, (b) more than 18 months and (c) 24 months or more, in Wales as a whole and by health authority in 1979. 1987 and the present.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information concerning patients waiting for non-urgent in-patient treatment in Wales is collected centrally only on the basis of those waiting more than one year and became available for the first time in 1981. The available information is given in the following table:

  Non-urgent cases waiting more than one year for admission as an in-patient as at 31 March

  District health authority

  1981

  1987

  1991

  Clwyd

  701

  533

  1,091

  East Dyfed

  49

  363

  939

  Gwent

  1,665

  1,825

  2,567

  Gwynedd

  422

  175

  719

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,386

  2,761

  2,306

  Pembrokeshire

  653

  1,328

  634

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  2,501

  1,696

  1,884

  West Glamorgan

  749

  458

  1,882

  Wales

  10,126

  9,139

  12,022

  In March 1974 there was a total of 72,904 patients on hospital waiting lists in Wales; by March 1979 the figure had risen to 97,359 an increase of 24,455.
  447
  The number of patients treated in 1974, 1979 and 1990 was:

  1974

  1979

  1990–91

  In-patient

  328,793

  349,695

  482,445

  New out-patient

  444,032

  428,739

  551,464

  The overall percentage increase/decrease in number of patients treated is as follows:

  1974–79 Per cent.

  1979–90 to 1991 Per cent.

  In-patients

  Up 6

  Up 38

  New Out-patients

  Down 3

  Up 29

  The latest information for 1990 also shows that 92 per cent. of patients admitted from a waiting list in that year had waited less than 12 months.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet(a) health authorities, (b) county health councils and (c) leaders of the health service unions to discuss waiting lists.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend is to meet the chairmen of Welsh health authorities on 20 November when waiting lists and the length of time patients have to wait for treatment will be discussed. He has no plans at present to meet community health councils or leaders of health service unions. I am always happy to receive constructive comments in writing at any time.

  Renal Patients
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his initiatives to assist renal patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Dialysis facilities for patients suffering from end-stage renal failure have been provided at the following locations:

  Dialysis stations

  North Wales

  Main Renal Unit—Rhyl

  7

  Subsidiary Renal Unit—Bangor

  6

  Subsidiary Renal Unit—Wrexham

  6

  South West Wales

  Main Renal Unit—Swansea

  15

  Subsidiary Renal Unit—Carmarthen

  9

  South East Wales

  Main Renal Unit—Cardiff

  11

  Subsidiary Renal Unit—Cardiff

  6

  Subsidiary Renal Unit—Merthyr Tydfil

  6

  Proposals for a unit at Newport have been invited from Gwent health authority. We have also established a kidney transplant unit at the Cardiff royal infirmary. The treatment of most renal patients, however, is in the hands of district health authorities.

  Lithotripters
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to install lithotripters in(a) north Wales and (b) south Wales.
  448
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The final report of the all-Wales project group on lithotripsy, which is considering the need for and specification of lithotripter facilities for Wales and appraising location options, is expected to be submitted early in the new year.

  Roads and Public Transport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support he has given to each of the counties of Wales in the last three years for capital and revenue expenditure on(a) roads and (b) public transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  By agreement with the local authority associations, the bulk of revenue and capital funding to individual local authorities is provided through revenue support grant and basic credit approvals. These are not hypothecated to particular services. As an exception to this rule, transport schemes costing over £5 million attract transport grant; total support in the last three financial years is as follows:

  County

  1989–90 (£000s)

  1990–91 (£000s)

  1991–92 (£000s)

  Clwyd

  558

  1,207

  938

  Dyfed

  3,982

  1,463

  2,704

  Gwent

  8,349

  6,966

  14,708

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  281

  Mid Glamorgan

  8,031

  9,737

  14,536

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  6,760

  8,757

  22,973

  West Glamorgan

  11,738

  22,780

  10,780

  Total

  39,418

  50,910

  66,920

  RNIB Needs Survey
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the report "Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain—The RNIB Needs Survey"; what action he will be taking in relation to its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Department has secured a copy of this report within the last week and we are studying it with interest. It is the result of a survey carried out in 1986–87, complementary to the wider disability surveys carried out by OPCS, whose reports were published in 1989–90.

  We already have a programme of action in hand to improve services for people with visual impairments. In 1990 the Welsh Office issued a working group report "Co-ordinating Services for Visually Handicapped People" and in May of that year published a major guidance circular on best practice in the provision of support and care to people with physical or sensory disabilities.

  That advice has been followed up by full guidance on the implementation in Wales of our comprehensive programme to improve community care for all groups which is set out in chapter 11 of the "Caring for People" White Paper [Cm 849]. In addition, the Welsh Office will publish shortly the report of the social services inspectorate inspection of services for people with visual impairment in Gwynedd. This was carried out with RNIB assistance and will be used with the RNIB national survey findings as the basis of a seminar on further guidance early next year.

  GP Budget Holders
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many GPs in Wales are budget holders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Seven GP practices in Wales, comprising a total of 46 GPs, have been recognised as fund-holders from 1 April 1991.

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State, for Wales (1) what is his estimate of the cost of distributing details of the charter for parents to each of the headteachers of Wales;

  (2) how many copies of charter for parents he has distributed; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he proposes to make moneys available to local education authorities to enable their headteachers to inform parents of the contents of the charter for parents.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The charter for parents in Wales sets out in a single document the rights of parents with respect to the education of their children, the choices they can exercise, the information they can obtain about schools' performance and the influence they can have on the way schools are run. As such it is an invaluable reference document to which all parents should have access. I therefore sought the co-operation of the chairmen of governors and headteachers of all schools in Wales to have the document delivered to parents through pupils at their schools. The cost of distributing supplies to schools for that purpose is £11,911.20 and is being met by my Department. I am also making arrangements for copies of the charter to be made available to parents whose children are not yet at school through playgroup and nursery schools associations. Copies of the charter have also been made available to others on request. So far a total of 486,761 copies of the charter have been distributed.

  Marginal Hill Farms
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit a marginal hill farm in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have visited many hill farms throughout Wales and will continue to do so in the future.

  School Transport
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the practice of local education authorities in interpreting the statutory walking distance for school transport in the rural areas of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no reason to believe that LEAs are not properly observing the statutory provisions in the Education Act 1944 relating to walking distances in determining eligibility for transport from home to the nearest appropriate school for attendance. It is for the LEAs themselves to determine what constitutes an appropriate school.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will consult local authorities and other appropriate bodies regarding his proposals for housing revenue account subsidy in Wales in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Welsh Office is today consulting local authorities, the Council of Welsh Districts and other interested bodies on proposals for determining each authority's entitlement to subsidy in 1992–93. Comments on the proposals are invited by 9 December. I am placing copies of the consultation proposals in the Library of the House together with estimates of the rent guidelines and management and maintenance allowances for each authority.

  For rent guidelines we propose an average increase of £2·14 per week with increases for individual authorities ranging from £1·13 to £3·40 per week over the guideline rent which applies in the current year. This will continue the process of encouraging sensible levels of rent which better reflect the value of the properties concerned.

  For management and maintenance allowances, we propose to increase the average allowance per dwelling from £712 to £766. The increase in the allowances for individual authorities will be based on the targeting system introduced in the current year which takes into account the condition of each local authority's stock.

  The rent guidelines and the management and maintenance allowances are the assumptions the Government make in calculating each authority's entitlement to subsidy. It is for each council to set its own rent levels and to decide how much to spend on managing and maintaining its stock within its obligations under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  CAP Products
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring up to date the information on surplus common agricultural policy products in his answer dated 12 May 1986,Official Report, column 367; and if he will add corresponding information for other common agricultural policy products.

  Mr. Curry
  The information, which covers all products on which there was relevant expenditure, is as follows:

  Mecu

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Export refunds

  Cereals

  1,652

  3,071

  2,925

  2,597

  2,444

  Rice

  60

  95

  61

  45

  29

  Sugar

  1,238

  1,516

  1,566

  1,451

  926

  Olive Oil

  29

  23

  64

  93

  135

  Oilseeds

  2

  64

  25

  6

  1

  Fruit and Vegetables

  77

  67

  64

  79

  81

  Wine

  11

  20

  44

  45

  55

  Tobacco

  32

  43

  43

  62

  62

  Milk and Milk Products

  1,982

  2,258

  3,014

  2,869

  1,931

  Beef

  1,214

  878

  769

  1,343

  1,110

  Pigmeat

  75

  112

  172

  199

  174

  Eggs and Poultry

  98

  152

  194

  234

  179

  Non-Annex II Products

  503

  590

  602

  552

  512

  MCA's

  170

  227

  143

  57

  76

  451

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Food Aid

  264

  259

  243

  133

  86

  Total

  7,407

  9,375

  9,929

  9,765

  7,801

  Public storage

  Cereals

  559

  346

  2,022

  804

  1,440

  Rice

  0

  0

  0

  0

  36

  Sugar

  1

  2

  -1

  -1

  0

  Olive Oil

  50

  53

  86

  47

  42

  Oilseeds

  0

  0

  2

  7

  4

  Wine

  5

  6

  592

  369

  202

  Tobacco

  11

  18

  28

  122

  116

  Milk and Milk Products

  447

  409

  931

  460

  959

  Beef

  282

  213

  1,372

  790

  982

  Pigmeat

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  1,359

  1,046

  5,032

  2,598

  3,780

  Notes:

  (i) The figures for public storage costs since 1988 are not compatible with earlier costs as stock is now depreciated on entry into intervention. Furthermore the cost of depreciation of 1988 stock is being reimbursed over the 5 years 1988–92.

  (ii) 1987 expenditure was for 10 months only and 1988 expenditure was for 11½ months only.

  Sources: EAGGF Guarantee Financial Reports.

  Finance Statistics
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total value of national aids to agriculture paid by each European Community country over the latest available 12 month period and the corresponding value of common agricultural policy payments.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government do not keep comprehensive details of the national subsidies and other state aids available to farmers in other member states, since to do so would not be a cost effective use of resources. All state aids are, however, subject to the provisions of articles 92 to 94 of the treaty of Rome, and member states are required to obtain the Commission's approval in advance for new state aids and modifications to existing aids and to send an inventory of all state aids to the Commission annually. The Government monitor, through their embassies in member states, the introduction of new state aids and modifications to existing aids, and draws any that seem to be of doubtful legality to the attention of the Commission.

  Departmental Staffing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the departments within his Ministry where he intends to increase staffing levels, indicating the numbers involved in each case, and when he expects the increases to take effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I intend to increase staffing levels in the financial year 1992–93 as a result of the outcome of the recent public expenditure survey round. Additional staff will be placed primarily within divisions dealing with environmental issues and with work arising from the movement towards a single market. The funds allocated will pay for about 275 posts, but the precise total, and the breakdown between divisions will depend on decisions on the grade and mix of staff chosen.

  Humming Birds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with European Commission officials regarding the transportation of wild-caught humming birds and other nectar-feeding birds in the context of the proposed EC directive on transport of live animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on 7 November at col.246.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to authorise payments of the suckler cow premium; and if he will pay this at the maximum rate allowed.

  Mr. Curry
  As I announced on 4 November, Agriculture Ministers have fixed the rates of suckler cow premium for the 1991–92 scheme year at the same rates which applied last year, viz £51·69 per head in the less favoured areas and £47·43 per head elsewhere. A statutory instrument putting these rates into effect is expected to be laid before Parliament later this week and payments to those who have already submitted their applications for premium will be made as soon as possible thereafter.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which sectors he expects to increase his Ministry's spending in 1991–92 for the intervention board and other aspects of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Based on latest forecasts of production, market and trade conditions, it is likely there will be increased CAP market support expenditure (class III, vote 1) in the beef, sheepmeat and sugar sectors, offset by reductions in the cereals, milk products and oilseed sectors. Expenditure on this non-cash limited vote, which is largely reimbursed by the Community, is sensitive to a variety of unpredictable changes. If necessary increased provision will be sought at the time of the Spring Supplementary Estimates. My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 6 November at column 163 gives expected changes on Intervention Board Administration expenditure (class III, vote 2).

  Agricultural Produce Marketing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 5 November,Official Report, column 78, if he will give the amount he intends to fund the organisations that promote the marketing of agricultural produce in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have made provision for the following amounts:
  453

  1991–92 (£000s)

  1992–93 (£000s)

  Food From Britain

  4,500,000

  4,800,000

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  249,000

  264,000

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  120,000

  120,000

  Potato Marketing Board

  300,000

  300,000

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place with European Governments and the Government of the United States of America to ensure that fishing vessles which use the Irish sea will be protected from submarine activity.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Discussions took place at the recent 17th assembly of the International Maritime Organisation which resulted in an assembly resolution concerning the avoidance by submerged submarines of fishing vessels and their gear.

EMPLOYMENT

  Claimants
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed claimants aged between 18 and 25 years have been unemployed for six months or more.

  Mr. Jackson
  Unemployment figures by age and duration are calculated on a quarterly basis. In July 1991, the latest available date, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom aged 18 to 24 years who had been unemployed for six months or more was 263,274.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how many the unemployment claimant count has risen since October 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  Between October 1990 and September 1991, (the latest date for which figures are available), United Kingdom seasonally adjusted unemployment rose by 755,800.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to computerise the matching of claimant details with job vacancy detail.

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

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage increase in the number of unemployed claimants over the last 12 months; and what has been the percentage increase in claimant advisers during the same period.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the 12 months to September 1991, the total number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom, on the unadjusted basis, has increased by 46 per cent. Over the same period the number of claimant advisers, whose main function is to help longer term unemployed people, has increased by almost 24 per cent.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the new integrated offices are located in what were previously unemployment benefit office premises; and what percentage this is of the newly converted offices.

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

  Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the annual performance target for employment training places for 1991–92; and what has been the attainment in the first six months of the current year.

  Mr. Jackson
  Plans are to provide an average of 149,000 trainees in training on employment training (ET) in Great Britain in 1991–92. By 12 September an estimated 130,000 trainees were in training.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to provide for the training of those with special needs.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is the Government's policy to provide training for people with special needs through its arrangements with training and enterprise councils and through specialist residential training colleges. Many people with special needs will of course be covered by the Government's guarantees and aim.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the annual performance target for employment training places for 1990–91; and what was the outturn.

  Mr. Jackson
  An average of 215,000 trainees in training on employment training (ET) was planned in Great Britain in 1990–91. An average number in training of 196,000 was achieved.

  Workers' Hours
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many British workers work more than (i) 40 hours a week, (ii) 50 hours a week and (iii) 60 hours a week, including overtime.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following table gives the estimates requested.

  Usual hours1 of work of employee and self-employed—Great Britain Spring 1990

  Hours per week

  Thousands

  More than 40

  11,015

  More than 50

  3,687

  More than 60

  1,314

  Source: Labour Force Survey, Spring 1990

  1Usual hours of work including overtime

  Claimant Adviser Interviews
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average duration of claimant adviser interviews 12 months ago; and what it is now.
  455
  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service Executive Agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Skills Analysis
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to analyse the skills of those registering as unemployed and available for work.

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

  Rehabilitation Courses
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are undergoing a course of rehabilitation (i) at employment rehabilitation centres and (ii) with outside agencies funded by the Employment Service; and what is the average weekly cost of these courses.

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

  Unemployed, Newham
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details of the occupational breakdown of the unemployed register in the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not available.

  Vacancy Statistics
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies were notified to employment offices and jobcentres in each of the past 10 years; and if he will publish a table showing (i) the actual number, (ii) the percentage of the total and (iii) the split between part-time and full-time.

  Mr. Jackson
  Following is the available information.

  (i) The table shows the total number of vacancies in the United Kingdom, on the seasonally adjusted basis, notified to jobcentres for each year from 1981 to 1990.

  (ii) Vacancies notified to jobcentres do not represent the total number of vacancies in the economy. The latest research indicates that nationally only about a third of all vacancies are notified to jobcentres.

  (iii) Information on the number of vacancies notified to jobcentres split between part-time and full-time is only available for Great Britain, and on the unadjusted basis, from July 1986 onwards. The table shows the number of vacancies notified to jobcentres in Great Britain for each year from 1987 to 1990 and the split between full-time and part-time jobs.

  456

  (i) Vacancies notified to jobcentres in the United Kingdom (seasonally adjusted annual total)

  Year

  Vacancies

  1981

  1,799,300

  1982

  1,989,500

  1983

  2,180,300

  1984

  2,327,000

  1985

  2,419,400

  1986

  2,546,300

  1987

  2,716,700

  1988

  2,773,900

  1989

  2,712,500

  1990

  2,413,300

  (iii) Vacancies notified to jobcentres in Great Britain (unadjusted annual total)

  Year

  Vacancies

  Of which full-time vacancies

  Of which part-time vacancies

  1987

  2,668,597

  2,033,699

  634,898

  1988

  2,725,832

  2,035,023

  690,809

  1989

  2,702,549

  1,949,953

  752,596

  1990

  2,372,129

  1,667,182

  704,947

  Office Staff Statistics
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff were employed in (i) jobcentres and (ii) unemployment benefit offices in each of the past 10 years.

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

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the outcome of the meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council held in Brussels on 6 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The Council addressed only one item—the proposed directive on pregnant workers. Agreement was reached on the two most important remaining provisions of the proposal, concerned with dismissal and in particular with the level of maternity pay and benefits.

  On maternity benefits, the Council rejected the approach proposed by the European Commission of a quantified link with previous earnings. Instead, the Council agreed the principle that member states must at a minimum set the level of maternity benefit at the level of benefits that are paid when people have to be absent from work for reasons of health.

  The Council also agreed a number of important protections for the health and safety at work of women who are pregnant or who have recently given birth.

  The United Kingdom and all but one of the other member states supported this agreement.

  The United Kingdom in addition recorded its concern at the proposed legal basis for this directive under the Treaty of Rome. The United Kingdom does not agree that such matters as leave, pay and other employment rights fall under article 118A of the Treaty, which is explicitly concerned with health and safety at work. The United Kingdom therefore registered its abstention in the voting on this directive. The Social Affairs Council is likely to adopt its formal common position at its next meeting.
  457
  The United Kingdom was represented by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth).

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of running training schemes through each of the previous methods; what is the cost of running training schemes through training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Prior to the introduction of TECs and local enterprise companies in 1990–91 training schemes were run from the Department's area offices. Area office running costs were not separately identified from those of regional and head office.

  During 1990–91 expenditure on TEC management fee in England and Wales was £36·195 million.

  For 1991–92 the published estimate shows expenditure of £124·342 million on TEC management fee and residual area office running costs for England and Wales.

  Running costs for programmes in Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  RNIB Needs Survey
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to the report "Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain—The RNIB Needs Survey"; what action he will be taking in relation to its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department already provides considerable help for visually impaired people, but we take seriously any indication that more needs to be done. We are therefore considering the recent RNIB report very carefully.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be meeting the RNIB in the near future to discuss this Department's services for people with disabilities in the light of the survey evidence.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gulf States (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the recent visit of the Minister of Trade to the Gulf states.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I visited Kuwait and Bahrain between 29 October and 3 November.

  In Kuwait I met the Amir, Crown Prince, six Ministers, the Governor of the Central Bank and senior Kuwaiti officials. In Bahrain I met the Crown Prince, the Prime Minister and two senior Ministers. In Kuwait I was accompanied by seven senior British business men. In Bahrain I visited the "Rebuild Kuwait 91" exhibition at which 150 British companies were represented, the largest national group.

  My visit strengthened the already excellent bilateral commercial relations with Bahrain and Kuwait and enabled me and the business team accompanying me to pursue various export opportunities.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many bankruptcy petitions have been presented in Wales(a) in 1990 and (b) in the current year.

  Mr. Redwood
  During 1990 there were 855 bankruptcy petitions presented to the county courts in Wales. From January to September 1991 there have been 1,081.

  Dressed Leather, Japan
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he intends to make to Japan to abolish the quota system that they place on imports of dressed leather; and what other action he proposes to take in this area.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Following a complaint to the GATT by the EC Commission and the USA, the Japanese Government replaced their quotas on imports of dressed leather and leather footwear with a 60 per cent. rate of import duty with effect from 1 April 1986. Lower rates, between 20 per cent. and 27 per cent. are applied to limited quantities of these products.

  The British Government and the European Commission have taken every opportunity to press the Japanese Government to reduce these unacceptably high levels of import duty and substantially increase the quantities admitted at the lower rates. They will continue to do so, both bilaterally and in the GATT Uruguay round negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will certainly raise this problem with the newly-appointed MITI Minister, as he did with his predecessor.

  Exploited Labour
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations he has made and plans to make to countries which export goods to Britain manufactured using children or adults who are not paid a living wage;

  (2) what plans he has to deal with the threat faced by the British textile and footwear industry from unfair competition from imports produced with cheap and exploited labour;

  (3) what plans he has to determine which imports into Britain have been produced using forced child labour and to take steps to ban such imports.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: The Government urge all states who have ratified international instruments covering slavery, servitude, forced labour and similar institutions and practices to meet their obligations under those instruments, and also urges those states who have not done so to ratify at the earliest opportunity. This is carried out by the Government at all levels.

  I am not aware of any specific cases which would justify making representations of the sort that the hon. Member mentions. Moreover, there would be severe practical difficulties in trying to identify goods which had been produced with allegedly forced or sweated labour, given the varied and complex channels of production and distribution in the textile and footwear industries. Customers can, of course, determine for themselves the acceptability of buying any particular product which may otherwise be lawfully supplied.
  459
  More generally, it is highly doubtful whether social conditions can be improved by restricting trade; indeed, opening up trade is more likely to contribute to economic growth in the developing world, which is a prime objective of the current GATT Uruguay round negotiations, and thus help to improve social conditions in those countries. Labour costs do not of themselves create unfair competition. Where competition is genuinely unfair, appropriate trade policy measures will remain available. The export interests of UK industry, including the textile and footwear sector, which has a meritorious record in this respect, also have to be borne in mind in striking the final balance.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current position of the multi-fibre arrangement and bilateral agreements resulting from it.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Our latest information is that 27 signatories of the multi-fibre arrangement (MFA) including the Community have accepted or provisionally accepted the protocol extending the MFA until the end of 1992. With the guidance of member states the Commission is now negotiating the necessary extensions to the bilateral agreements with individual exporting countries.

  Israel
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of imports and exports between Israel and the United Kingdom each year since 1970(a) as a percentage of all United Kingdom exports and imports and (b) at 1990 prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: The available information is published in table 1B of the annual editions of "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom" (HMSO), available in the Library of the House. Statistics on United Kingdom trade with individual countries, in 1990 prices, are not available.

  Negative Certificates
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce legislation which prohibits the use of negative certificates for companies who trade with Arab companies and who wish to trade with Israel.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: None.

  Textile and Clothing Markets
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure that increased access to the United Kingdom textile and clothing markets is linked to reciprocal access and adoption by the relevant countries of market principles.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) on 6 November at column 126.

  Care Home Proprietors
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why his investigations division is currently examining the affairs of the British Federation of Care Home Proprietors; when he expects these investigations to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: I cannot comment on the affairs of individual companies. I am prepared to consider any information the hon. Member may provide which might warrant an inquiry. Investigations under the Companies Act are confined to limited companies.

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Valuation
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has any plans to amend the Domestic Property (Valuation) Regulations 1991 to enable a garage or carport to be disregarded if it is required for meeting the needs of the disabled occupant;

  (2) if he has any plans to amend the Domestic Property (Valuation) Regulations 1991 to enable an additional room to be disregarded if it is predominantly used by or required for meeting the needs of the disabled occupant.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are discussing with organisations representing disabled people their representations that other rooms and features should be disregarded within the valuation arrangements.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has any plans to amend the Domestic Property (Valuation) Regulations 1991 to enable the extra space within a property which is required by a wheelchair user to be disregarded.

  Mr. Portillo
  Under the regulations extra space required by a wheelchair user may be disregarded if it is a feature of a specially adapted additional bathroom, kitchen or lavatory. We are discussing with organisations representing disabled people their representations that other rooms and features should be disregarded within the valuation arrangements.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received from organisations of and for disabled people with regard to the Domestic Property (Valuation) Regulations 1991.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received representations about these regulations from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR), the Association of Disabled Professionals, and the Disablement Income Group.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it remains his policy to restore the benefits of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978.

  Mr. Portillo
  Our policy was stated in the consultation paper, "A New Tax for Local Government". It is that necessary adaptions to the homes of disabled people should be disregarded in assessing the band into which the property should fall for the purposes of the council tax.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against those local authorities, up to and including Bristol, which are least effective at collecting the community charge to prevent their continuing to create greater community charge in 1992 than they did in the current year.

  Mr. Key
  We have provided local authorities with stronger powers to collect the community charge than were available for domestic rates. These include attachment of earnings and deductions from income support. If authorities use the powers vigorously this should achieve a high collection rate. We have made it clear that there will be no amnesty for non-payers.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify all the sites of special scientific interest suffering partial loss or long-term damage from April 1990 to March 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly with the details requested.

  Voluntary Sector Forum
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings of the voluntary sector environment forum have been held.

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been one meeting of the full forum. The working group set up at that meeting to consider DOE funding for Environmental work by the voluntary sector has met four times. The next meeting of the forum will be on 14 November.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the voluntary sector environment forum has produced any reports to Ministers on its work to date.

  Mr. Baldry
  The forum has a joint departmental and voluntary sector membership. A number of position papers have been produced by the members, and the forum's working group on DOE funding for environmental work by the voluntary sector has produced an interim report, which will be considered by the forum at its meeting on 14 November.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made by the voluntary sector environment forum; and if he will set out the terms of reference of both the voluntary sector environment forum and the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The forum has made useful progress in its discussions, particularly through the work of its working group on DOE funding for environmental work by the voluntary sector, which has helped to inform decisions on the second year of the operation of the environmental grant fund.

  The terms of reference of the Forum as agreed at the first meeting are:
  To provide a national forum for discussion between Government and environmental voluntary organisations on
  462
  generic questions relating to the role of the voluntary sector in environmental protection, enhancement and related issues, and problems facing them in pursuing environmental goals, including:

  —increasing the contribution of voluntary organisations (particularly non-environmental bodies) to environmental work;

  —how the Government and voluntary sector can work together;

  —Government support for the voluntary sector;

  —helping the voluntary sector develop partnerships with other agencies; and

  —how voluntary organisations could use their experience in environmental work to contribute to the Government's environmental policies.

  The terms of reference of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment are:

  —to provide for a strategic level dialogue between Government and business on environmental issues, both of an immediate and topical interest and of a longer term nature.

  —in liaison with other appropriate organisations, to help mobilise the business community in demonstrating good environmental practice and management, building on existing initiatives and activities.

  —to provide a link with, and focus attention on, international business initiatives on the environment.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions Ministers or officials of his Department have met the voluntary sector environment forum.

  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside chairs the main Forum, which has met once. The working group on DOE funding for environmental work by the voluntary sector has a joint membership of voluntary sector and departmental officials and has met four times.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to protect the United Kingdom marine environment from hazards associated with the introduction of non-native shellfish.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department received a recommendation from the former Nature Conservancy Council that a number of non-native species should be added to schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, including the following species of non-native shellfish: American hard shell clam; noble crayfish; signal crayfish; Turkish crayfish and Pacific oyster. The effect of such changes would be to make it illegal to release specimens of these species into the wild in Great Britain. We have consulted widely on the recommendations and expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Her Majesty's Government intend to ban smoking from all public places.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans at present to legislate against smoking in public places. We intend instead to publish guidance later this year in the form of a code of practice, encouraging the voluntary implementation of smoking policies by owners and managers of all places visited by the public. Our policy is that non-smoking should be the norm in all public places, with separate facilities for smoking where appropriate.
  463
  The Government are committed to achieving the goal of a smoke-free environment and will monitor the effects of this initiative closely.

  Zoos
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of dispensations granted under section 14(2) of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 came into force in April 1984. The number of dispensations issued under section 14(2) of the Act in each calendar year is as follows:

  Number

  1984

  29

  1985

  43

  1986

  8

  1987

  15

  1988

  7

  1989

  15

  1990

  12

  11991

  11

  1 To date.

  Wild-caught Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list those species of wild-caught birds which are traded and where doubt exists as to the sustainability of such trade, as recommended by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  Mr. Baldry
  In section 5 of its report on the wildlife trade, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee listed 47 species about which it was concerned. Copies of the report—which indicated that the European Community has already taken action to restrict or prohibit trade in most of the species listed—were placed in the Library of the House last month.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what response he has made to the proposal of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the "other services" standard spending assessment should include an indicator of economic deprivation taking into account the extent of unemployment;

  (2) what response he has made to the London Boroughs Association's proposal to alter the standard spending assessment by removing the need for the London Regional Transport adjustment.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend is considering all the representations which he has received from local authority representatives on standard spending assessments and will announce his proposals for 1992–93 shortly.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the "social services (children)" standard spending assessments for the London boroughs of Greenwich, Woolwich and Lewisham with the child population of each of those boroughs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  There is no London borough of Woolwich. The information for Greenwich and Lewisham, as requested, is shown in the following table.
  464

  SSA for children's social services 1991–92 £ million

  Children aged 0 to 17 years

  Greenwich

  14·070

  51,746

  Lewisham

  22·890

  52,352

  The children's social services SSA is not simply based on the number of children in an area but takes account of a number of other factors which reflect the cost of providing a standard level of service.

  Infant Mortality (Greenwich)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the London borough of Greenwich about the impact of the borough's infant mortality rates on its social services spending; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Key
  The London borough of Greenwich has made several representations that the children's social services standard spending assessment should include an indicator based on infant mortality rates. They have not tried to quantify the possible impact of the borough's infant mortality rates on its social services spending. My right hon. Friend is considering all representations received from local authorities on standard spending assessments and will announce his proposals for 1992–93 shortly.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish an estimate of the actual total yield from the national non-domestic rate for the financial year 1990–91 and of the expected total yield for 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  We estimate the total rate yield in England for 1990–91 to be £10,737 million and for 1991–92, £12,066 million.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total local authority funds at risk following the closure of the BCCI.

  Mr. Key
  My Department wrote on 27 September to local authorities in the United Kingdom asking them about deposits with BCCI. Returns were due to be submitted by 7 November. The information we have received to date is listed below.

  Authorities with deposits with BCCI

  Local Authority

  Deposit £000s

  Western Isles

  23,062

  Bury

  6,500

  Harlow

  4,000

  Rochester on Medway

  4,000

  Westminster

  3,575

  Lisburn

  3,000

  Southwark

  3,000

  Mansfield

  2,400

  Wigan

  2,150

  Three Rivers

  2,000

  Banff and Buchan

  2,000

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,800

  Greater Manchester

  465

  Local Authority

  Deposit £000s

  Fire and Civil Defence

  1,783

  South Bedfordshire

  1,350

  York

  1,300

  Barrow in Furness

  1,200

  Stockport

  1,150

  Allerdale

  1,050

  Alnwick

  1,050

  Selby

  1,000

  Mid Bedfordshire

  1,000

  Rother

  850

  Dover

  750

  Clackmannan

  700

  Bristol

  600

  Guildford

  600

  Fareham

  500

  Durham, City

  300

  Landfill Sites, Leicestershire
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many landfill sites he has discovered in Leicestershire; and how much has been given in supplemental credit allowance to pay for surveys.

  Mr. Baldry
  The discovery of landfill sites is a matter for local authorities, not the Secretary of State. Since the initiation in 1990–91 of the supplementary credit approval (SCA) programme for landfill gas works at closed landfill sites, the Department has approved SCAs for 13 sites in the Leicestershire county area. The number of the sites and the amounts for which SCAs have been approved for each authority (which may include both surveys and remedial works) are listed in the following table:

  Sites

  £

  Leicestershire county council

  6

  598,237

  Blaby district council

  1

  230,000

  Hinckley and Bosworth borough council

  2

  40,000

  Leicester city council

  3

  155,000

  North West Leicestershire district council

  1

  108,759

  Total

  1,131,996

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list for each local authority showing the proposed basic credits approvals for 1992–93 broken down by service block as appropriate.

  Mr. Portillo
  Basic credit approvals for 1992–93 for individual local authorities will be announced in due course. I will arrange for a copy of this information to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons when it is available.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the results of the survey of bathing water quality in 1991; and if he will make a statement.
  466
  Mr. Trippier
  Results from the survey carried out during the 1991 bathing season showed that 76 per cent. of the 453 identified bathing waters in the United Kingdom met the mandatory coliform bacteria standards of the EC Bathing Water Directive. This compares with 77 per cent. in 1990 and 76 per cent. in 1989.

  These results are encouraging because overall compliance has remained steady in spite of the worse summer weather this year.

  Completion of improvement schemes for some 20 bathing waters in the £2 billion clean up programme has helped to offset the effects of the poor weather and it is clear that the programme, which was expanded and accelerated last year, is beginning to deliver tangible environmental improvements. Many more schemes are due to be completed in the next few years so that by 1995 virtually all our bathing waters will be up to the required standard.

  The 1991 results for the United Kingdom are set out in summary form. I shall arrange for a more detailed summary of results to be placed in the Library and we shall also be sending the detailed results to the Commission of the European Communities.

  Bathing Waters survey—1991 Results for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. (Compliance with Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC): Coliform Standards).

  Pass

  Fail

  Total

  England And Wales

  NRA Regions

  Northumbrian

  21(21)

  12(11)

  33(32)

  Yorkshire

  19(17)

  3(5)

  22(22)

  Anglian

  29(27)

  4(2)

  33(29)

  Thames

  2(3)

  1(0)

  3(3)

  Southern

  45(48)

  22(18)

  67(66)

  Wessex

  36(39)

  3(0)

  39(39)

  South West

  105(118)

  28(15)

  133(133)

  North West

  10(10)

  23(23)

  33(33)

  Welsh

  45(35)

  6(15)

  51(50)

  Total

  312(318)

  102(89)

  414(407)

  Scotland

  15(12)

  8(11)

  23(23)

  Northern Ireland

  16(15)

  0(1)

  16(16)

  Grand Total

  343(345)

  110(101)

  453(446)

  (Results for 1990 are in brackets).

  Urban Programmes
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources he is providing for his Department's urban group of programmes following the autumn statement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government are making available an extra £100 million over the next two financial years to regenerate our inner cities and reclaim derelict land. The details for each programme are set out in the tables. These extra resources will ensure we capitalise on the progress we are already making in tackling run-down parts of our urban areas.

  The urban development corporations (UDCs) are currently responsible for regenerating nearly 16,000 hectares of underused inner city land. We are proposing additional resources totalling £47 million, bringing the total Government input to over £650 million over the next two years. These will enable the UDCs to make further and faster headway revitalising these areas.
  467
  The further resources of £30 million for derelict land grant will bring the total available to over £220 million over the next two years, including over £20 million of forecast receipts ploughed back into the programme. These further resources will accelerate progress in reclaiming land for economic and environmental purposes, with a particular emphasis on badly contaminated land, reflecting the Government's continuing commitment to environmental policies.

  The city grant programme, which encourages developers to bring derelict land and buildings back into

  Department of Environment Urban Block

  £ million (rounded to nearest £ million)

  1991–92 Provision

  1992–93 Previous plan

  1992–93 New plan

  1993–94 Previous plan

  1993–94 New plan

  1994–95 New plan

  City Grant1

  51

  76

  84

  79

  89

  91

  UDCs

  2502

  305

  2332

  303

  323

  305

  Derelict Land Grant1

  Gross

  88

  94

  109

  98

  113

  115

  Receipts

  -12

  -11

  -11

  -11

  -11

  -11

  Net

  76

  83

  98

  87

  102

  104

  Urban Programme1

  242

  244

  249

  246

  246

  252

  City Action Teams1

  8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  9

  Research

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total Urban Block

  880

  717

  772

  724

  769

  762

  1 The city challenge pacemakers will receive £82·5 million resources each year, from 1992–93 for up to five years, drawn from these and Housing programmes.

  2 Figures reflect completion of LDDC transport infrastructure projects e.g. Limehouse Link.

  Individual UDC allocations

  (£ million rounded)

  1991–92 current provision

  1992–93 previous plan

  1992–93 new plan

  1993–94 previous plan

  1993–94 new plan

  1994–95 new plan

  LDDC

  248·7

  96·0

  101·0

  98·4

  101·4

  99·9

  MDC

  28·8

  30·0

  32·0

  28·0

  29·0

  28·5

  BCDC

  36·4

  35·0

  36·5

  36·0

  36·0

  36·3

  TDC

  53·1

  36·0

  38·5

  35·0

  36·0

  35·0

  TPDC

  28·1

  30·1

  31·6

  30·1

  30·6

  30·0

  TWDC

  37·5

  37·0

  40·5

  36·0

  37·5

  36·0

  BDC

  27·1

  9·3

  9·3

  8·3

  9·3

  8·0

  CMDC

  16·0

  17·0

  17·0

  17·0

  17·0

  7·5

  LDC

  12·6

  3·0

  5·0

  1·0

  4·0

  3·2

  SDC

  13·3

  12·0

  13·0

  13·0

  13·0

  12·0

  Uncommitted

  —

  —

  8·0

  —

  9·0

  9·0

  Total

  501·5

  305·4

  332·4

  302·8

  322·8

  305·4

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Traffic, Donaghadee
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the change in traffic volume on the Newtownards road, Donaghadee near Cottown school over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Needham
  Figures for the past 10 years are not available. Between 1981 and 1988 traffic volume increased by approximately 21 per cent. from 2,518 vehicles per day to 3,050.

  Work Forces
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what percentage of the economically active population of Northern Ireland are Protestant; and what percentages of the work forces of the Bank of Ireland were Protestant in the most recent figures available;
  468
  productive use, will be boosted by an additional £18 million over previously planned levels, bringing the total grant available to £173 million over the next two years.

  We have already announced that the eleven city challenge pacemakers will receive a total of £82·5 million each year for up to five years, from urban and housing programmes, to take forward their winning plans. These resources, together with the input by the local authorities and their private, voluntary and community partners, will be directed at achieving the comprehensive and lasting regeneration of those key localities.

  (2) what percentage of the economically active population of Northern Ireland are Protestant; and what percentage of the work force of Allied Irish Banks Plc were Protestant in the last available survey;

  (3) what percentage of the economically active population is Protestant; and what percentage of the work force in the public sector is Protestant.

  Mr. Needham
  It is estimated from the 1990 labour force survey1 that 60 per cent of the economically active population in Northern Ireland are Protestant.

  The Fair Employment Commission's report "A Profile of the Workforce in Northern Ireland: A Summary of the 1990 Monitoring Returns" published in April this year, indicates that 65 per cent of the public sector work force are Protestant.

  A report by the Fair Employment Agency published in March 1986 indicated that 42 per cent of the workforce of the Bank of Ireland and 28 per cent of that of Allied Irish

  469
  Banks were Protestant. More recent information derived from statutory monitoring returns has not yet been published by the FEC.
  1 The labour force survey is based on a random sample of approximately 1 per cent of domestic properties and estimates produced from it are subject to sampling error.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the economically active population within the area of the Eastern health and social services board are Protestant; and what percentage of the board's work force are Protestant.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is estimated from the 1990 labour force survey1 that 68 per cent. of the economically active population within the area of the Eastern health and social services board is Protestant.

  The board has indicated that at 1 January 1991 54 per cent. of its work force was Protestant.
  1 The labour force survey is based on a random sample of approximately 1 per cent. of domestic properties and estimates produced from it are subject to sampling error.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the monopoly powers of the Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  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.

  CRISP Programme
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money has been committed to the CRISP—community regeneration initiative special project—programme and to urban development grants; and how much money from other sources is committed to those programmes.

  Mr. Hanley
  Public expenditure under the urban development grant scheme is shown in the following table:

  Urban development grant

  £ million

  1982–83

  Nil

  1983–84

  1·055

  1984–85

  1·0595

  1985–86

  3·789

  1986–87

  8·009

  1987–88

  13·443

  1988–89

  9·424

  1989–90

  5·845

  1990–91

  6·499

  1991–92

  18·300

  1 Estimate.

  No funds from any other source have been committed to this scheme. The Government have allocated £8 million to the CRISP programme which, in addition, receives funding from the International Fund for Ireland. The international fund also provides finance for the urban development programme in towns outside Belfast and Londonderry.
  470
  I have asked the chairman of the fund to write to the hon. Gentleman and will place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what authority public money has been committed to urban development grant and CRISP—community regeneration initiative special project—programme.

  Mr. Needham
  The Social Need (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many consultants have been appointed by the Fair Employment Commission to advise small firms on the implementation of fair employment practices; and if he will publish their names and addresses.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Fair Employment Commission. I understand from the chairman that 76 consultants have been appointed and I have asked him to write to the right hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Low Fat Milk
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether it is intended to retain low fat milk within the milk marketing scheme operated by the Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board.

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

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been killed in road accidents in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; how many road accident deaths in Northern Ireland have been associated with excess alcohol consumption; how many due solely to exceeding the speed limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Total killed in road accidents

  236

  214

  178

  181

  185

  Alcohol-associated road deaths1

  48

  48

  27

  41

  53

  Road deaths due to excessive speed2

  52

  63

  51

  53

  35

  1 These figures include both drivers and pedestrians killed with alcohol in their blood.

  2 It is not possible to say how many road deaths in Northern Ireland were due solely to exceeding the speed limit, the figures given refer to deaths caused by excessive speed for the road traffic or weather conditions.

  Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools in Northern Ireland have applied for local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.
  471
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Schools in Northern Ireland do not apply for local management of schools. From 1 April 1991, all controlled and maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools but excluding special schools have been funded on the basis of a formula. All secondary schools and colleges of further education have fully delegated budgets.

  Inter-party Talks
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the Conservative party in Northern Ireland has been excluded from the inter-party talks on the future government of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Conservative party in Northern Ireland is no different from the Conservative party nationally. The Conservative party nationally has been represented by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself.

  RNIB Needs Survey
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the report "Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain—The RNIB Needs Survey"; what action he will be taking in relation to its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although the report was based on a survey confined to Great Britain, its findings will be given careful consideration by Northern Ireland Departments and appropriate lessons drawn.

  Security Forces (Live Rounds)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many live rounds have been fired by the security forces since 1970.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 7 November 1991]: I understand that army records show that approximately 150,800 rounds have been fired by the police and army since 1970.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have died as a result of the use of plastic bullets since 1970.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 7 November 1991]: Since 1970, 14 people have died as a result of being struck by plastic baton rounds, a further two people have also died as a result of being struck by rubber rounds, the use of which was phased out in 1975.

  Supplementary benefit/Income support

  Unemployed claimants

  Lone parent claimants

  Year

  Number with mortgage

  As a percentage of all unemployed claimants

  Number with mortgage

  As a percentage of all lone parent claimants

  As a percentage of total lone parents

  1979

  23,000

  4

  17,000

  6

  2

  1980

  50,000

  6

  19,000

  6

  2

  1981

  98,000

  8

  27,000

  7

  3

  1982

  135,000

  8

  28,000

  7

  3

  1983

  131,000

  8

  35,000

  8

  4

  1984

  151,000

  8

  38,000

  8

  4

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his policy to publish details of the membership of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Perisher Exercise
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to proceed with the Perisher exercise in the Firth of Clyde later this month.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives of the Indonesian Government; and what was the purpose of that meeting.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the Indonesian Government when he visited that country in September. A wide range of issues of mutual interest was discussed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals came off income support because last year's social security uprating took the standard retirement pension above the income support level.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 1 May 1991 at column 249. The latest available information gives us no reason to change the estimate then given.

  Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of unemployed claimants and lone parents on supplementary benefit or income support receiving financial help with mortgage interest each year since 1979; and what each of these numbers was as a percentage of total unemployed claimants and of total lone parents.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates are given in the table.
  473

  Unemployed claimants

  Lone parent claimants

  Year

  Number with mortgage

  As a percentage of all unemployed claimants

  Number with mortgage

  As a percentage of all lone parent claimants

  As a percentage of total lone parents

  1986

  200,000

  10

  50,000

  9

  5

  1987

  160,000

  9

  58,000

  9

  6

  1988

  114,000

  8

  62,000

  9

  6

  1989

  88,000

  8

  67,000

  9

  16

  1990

  88,000

  9

  77,000

  10

  —

  1 Based on a provisional estimate of total lone parents.

  Notes:

  (1) No Enquiry was undertaken in 1985.

  (2) Figures for numbers of claimants are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  (3) Figures from 1983 onwards are not comparable with earlier figures because Enquiry data was collected on a different basis.

  (4) Supplementary benefit was replaced by income support in 1988.

  (5) No estimate of the number of lone parents is available for 1990.

  Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries.

  Population Trends 65.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what administrative costs are expected as a result of the introduction of a higher amount of child benefit for the oldest child.

  Mr. Jack
  The administration of child benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Pensioners' Savings
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what pensioners' average real income from savings was(a) in 1979 and (b) in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will estimate the figure for 1992;

  (2) what proportion of newly-retired pensioners had income from savings, other than their second or more pension, at retirement in (a) 1979 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will estimate the figure for 1992;

  (3) what proportion of newly-retired pensioners had two or more pensions at retirement in (a) 1979 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will estimate the figure for 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The average real income of single pensioners and pensioner couples from savings is estimated at £9·50 per week in 1979 and £19·90 in 1988 (both figures are at 1988 prices).

  In 1979, 68 per cent. of newly-retired single pensioners and pensioner couples received income from savings, the corresponding figure for 1988 was 78 per cent.

  In 1979, 50 per cent. of newly-retired pensioners and pensioner couples received income from both state benefits and an occupational pension; the corresponding figure for 1988 was 62 per cent.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Note: Newly-retired pensioners are defined as single women aged 60–64, single men aged 65–69 and couples in which the man is aged 65–69. Single pensioners are defined as being aged 60 or over for women and 65 or over for men; pensioner couples are those where the man is aged 65 or over. No estimates of these figures are available for 1992.

  Policies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what policies he is bringing forward in the current parliamentary session to develop and enhance the social security system.

  Mr. Jack
  We intend to continue this Government's programme of developing the social security system in line with our priorities and of ensuring that it is effectively delivered.

  In addition to the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 21 October, we expect to publish a discussion paper on the options for the equalisation of state pension age; to establish a new child support unit and to introduce, after the consultation now under way, detailed regulations under the Child Support Act passed in the last Session; to bring into operation the two new benefits for disabled people; to implement the changes to income-related benefits already announced which will help families with children, and particularly lone parents, to work if they wish to do so; to implement the citizens charter and, in particular, to introduce a charter for the customers of the Benefits Agency; and to improve further the quality and effectiveness of the delivery of services to customers through the development of the Department's executive agencies.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make a statement about the entitlement to mobility allowance payments of claimants where cases fall within the scope of the European Court of Justice judgment in respect of Mr. R. Newton.

  Mr. Scott
  The effect of this judgment is that mobility allowance beneficiaries falling within its scope will continue to receive payment even though they have taken up residence in another European Community member state. The independent adjudicating authorities are already dealing with such cases in this way.

  Income Support
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 93, on what date he will (a) issue a circular to local authorities about notifying those newly eligible for

  475
  income support as a result of the uprating statement and (b) announce the results of his consideration of further steps.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The circular was issued to local authorities on 8 November. Any announcement about other steps, which will be taken in good time for the uprating, will be made as and when appropriate.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many benefit claim offices in Nottingham have been closed to the public at any time during the past year during official opening hours because they were becoming overcrowded or because staff were over-pressed; which offices closed; and for how many days.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No Nottingham offices have closed during the last year because they were becoming overcrowded or because staff were over-pressed.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, for each of his Department's offices in the country, the number of hours in each month of the last year that they were closed during normal daily opening hours of 9 am to 5.30 pm.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Disability
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the moneys available from the European Community for helping people with disabilities in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other member states.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, according to information received from the European Commission the total figures are as follows:

  Specific measures for disabled people

  HELIOS (1988–1991) 33 million ecu over 4 years

  TIDE (1992–1994) 100 million ecu over 3 years

  HORIZON (1991–1993) 180 million ecu over 3 years

  Other Community programmes, actions and initiatives focusing on disabled people

  European Social Fund (ESF)

  European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

  (These form part of the Structural Funds for which a total of 2,607 million ecu were allocated for 1989–1993–350 million ecu in respect of the United Kingdom).

  ERASMUS (1990–1992) 100 million ecu over 3 years

  LINGUA (1989–1993) 200 million ecu over 5 years

  ARION (1990–1991) 420 thousand ecu over 2 years

  Youth for Europe (1988–1991) 18·5 million ecu over 4 years.

  In most cases it is not possible to say how much of the sums involved were paid to recipients in the United Kingdom or in any other member state, payments being dependent on applications received or projects undertaken.

  Departmental Circulars
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the circulars issued by his Department since 1 January 1991(a) to local authorities and (b) to other organisations or individuals.
  476
  Miss Widdecombe
  Housing benefit and community charge benefit circulars issued by the Department to local authorities are available in the Library. The other information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  RNIB Needs Survey
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to the report "Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain—The RNIB Needs Survey"; what action he will be taking in relation to its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I shall be meeting RNIB soon to discuss the implications of the survey.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will be meeting the organisations of and for blind people to respond to the findings of the report "Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain—The RNIB Needs Survey".

  Mr. Scott
  I have written to the Director General of the RNIB, accepting his invitation to meet to discuss the report. A date has yet to be arranged.

  Occupational Deafness
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans there are to include deafness suffered as a result of working in turbine halls of nuclear power stations as an occupational deafness qualifying for industrial injuries disablement benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council advises the Secretary of State on the prescription of occupations under the industrial injuries scheme. The council issued a report "Occupational Deafness" (Cm. 1245) in October 1990 which recommended certain changes to ease the administrative problems in processing claims for occupational deafness. Some new procedures were introduced in April this year and subject to these being satisfactory further improvements are planned. The results will be monitored and when we are satisfied that the new procedures are working well we can then consider what scope there is for extending the present list of prescribed occupations.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the cost of administering the policy of withdrawing pension entitlement from pensioners resident in hospital for six weeks or more;

  (2) what is the saving to the national insurance fund of not paying the state pension to persons resident in hospital for more than six weeks;

  (3) if he has any plans to change the practice of withdrawing pension entitlement from those resident in hospital for more than six weeks in a year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As with most social security benefits, the amount of retirement pension payable is reduced after the beneficiary has been in hospital for more than six weeks. A further reduction is made after 52 weeks.

  These arrangements are based on the view that state funds should not make double provision for the same needs. As the national health service provides free

  477
  maintenance as well as free treatment, it has always been the policy that maintenance benefits, also paid out of state funds, should not continue to be paid in full indefinitely. We have no plans to change this policy.

  Information on the total saving to the national insurance fund and the administration costs involved is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if social fund inspectors' review decisions are binding on local offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  A determination made by a social fund inspector, under section 34(4)(b) of the Social Security Act 1986, must be implemented by a social fund officer.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish his estimates of(a) the amount included in his departmental budget to cover the 20 per cent. poll tax concessions required from those on income support and (b) the amount to be actually paid in poll tax by all those on income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Income-related benefit levels were adjusted in April 1989 to include help towards the 20 per cent. contribution that beneficiaries have to pay. That help is now an integral part of benefit levels which were uprated in April 1990 and April 1991. The estimated cost of the adjustment for 1991–92 is £580 million for all income-related benefits. These benefit levels will be uprated further from April 1992. The total cost of community charge due to be paid by people on income support in the current year is estimated to be £200 million.

  Source: Modelling using data drawn from the 1986/7/8 Family Expenditure Surveys at 1991–92 prices and benefit.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give an estimate of the total amount of poll tax collected in 1990–91 from direct deductions from benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by his Department during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each(a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: One television campaign has been carried out by the Department in 1991–92 for family credit. A television campaign explaining the new disability benefits being introduced next April is still at the planning stage. Budget provision exists for a further campaign on family credit but no detailed plans have been made.

  The following campaigns will cost more than £100,000:
  478

  Topic

  Commencement date

  Duration

  Family credit

  2 September 1991

  Five weeks

  Disability

  to be confirmed

  to be confirmed

  The Department's agency, appointed through COI, is BMP DDB Needham.

  The Benefits Agency has carried out no television campaigns, and has no plans to run any publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000 in the period in question.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department has sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The Department has not sent out unsolicited direct mail to individuals as part of the distribution of publicity material.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: For information from 1979–80 to 1980–91, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 25 April 1991 at columns 540–41.

  For 1991–92 and 1992–93 the information is as follows:

  The total estimated outturn for publicity in 1991–92 is £12·27 million. Of this £4·4 million has been allocated to advertising.

  Department of Social Security (other than Benefits Agency) 1991–92

  £ million

  Television, radio and press (final allocation between media has not yet been made).

  4·4

  Other materials

  7·87

  The estimated provision for the 1992–93 social security publicity budget is £11·51 million. Decisions on media have not yet been made.

  Benefits Agency 1991–92

  £ million

  Television, radio and newspaper advertising

  None planned

  Information material (such as leaflets and posters)

  4·8

  1992–93: bids are currently being formulated and no figures are yet available.

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

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Functions commonly associated with press and public relations are carried out by the Department's information division and the Benefits Agency information services branch.

  For information for the years 1979–91, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 22 May 1991 at column 535.
  479
  Discussions on the proposed 1992–93 budgets are not yet complete. The estimated expenditure for 1991–92 is in the tables:

  £ million

  Headquarters and agencies other than Benefits Agency

  Publicity

  12·270

  Staff

  0·653

  Running costs

  0·451

  Benefits Agency

  Publicity

  7·829

  Staff

  1·070

  Running costs

  0·226

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what food and health aid is being given to East Timor by Her Majesty's Government in response to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's standing committee resolution passed in Helsinki on 28 June 1991.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Her Majesty's Government are currently considering how humanitarian aid might be provided to the people of East Timor.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Priestly Functions
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, in the last recorded period of 12 months, what total sum was received in respect of each of the following(a) the reading of banns of marriage, (b) wedding services, (c) burial services and (d) any other fees for performance of priestly functions in Church of England churches.

  Mr. Alison
  It is estimated that fees paid to incumbents and parochial church councils for the year to 31 March 1991 totalled £13 million. Of this total it is estimated that £8·1 million related to statutory church and churchyard parochial fees including those for marriages and funerals, £4·6 million to cemetery and crematorium fees and £0·3 million to surrogate fees. I regret that more detailed information is not held centrally.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Property Purchases
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to ensure full legal protection for United Kingdom citizens purchasing property elsewhere in the European Community.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Housing policy is a matter for member states, not the Community. A United Kingdom national purchasing property elsewhere in the Community is therefore subject to local legal requirements, in which Her Majesty's Government have no locus to intervene.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has 480
  received about United Kingdom residents who have purchased apartments in Los Alisios in Los Caniallos, Tenerife; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Representations on behalf of British nationals who have purchased private property overseas are not recorded by property name.

  I have however received a letter dated 17 October 1991 from my hon. Friend, on behalf of a constituent who purchased property at the Los Alisios complex in Los Cristianos, Tenerife. I replied to him on 11 November 1991.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with what countries, other than Vietnam, his Department has discussed the removal of Vietnamese boat people from Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The steering committee set up under the comprehensive plan of action adopted by the 1989 Geneva international conference on Indochinese refugees last met on 30 April 1991. Since then, the British and Hong Kong Governments have discussed the return of screened-out migrants from Hong Kong bilaterally with a number of Governments, and international organisations apart from Vietnam, notably the ASEAN member countries, Japan, Australia, United States, Canada, UNHCR and IOM.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Hong Kong officials have been dismissed for corruption during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The statistics are as follows:

  Year

  Dismissal

  Compulsory retirement

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  11

  1

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  4

  1

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  10

  0

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if independent observers will be allowed to witness the removal of Vietnamese boat people from Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Independent observers and the media were invited to witness the repatriation of the so-called double-backers from Hong Kong to Vietnam on 8–9 November.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what have been the results to date of discussions by Her Majesty's Government over negotiations with the Argentine Government about their wish to carry out exploration of the seabed around the Falklands Islands to search for oil and minerals; how much revenue this is expected to bring in; and if he will make a statement.
  481
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Argentine Government have recently announced a plan to permit exploration for oil covering a large part of the Argentine mainland and off-shore waters; but they have not proposed to us that they should carry out exploration of the seabed around the Falklands Islands.

  Wilton Park
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the level of funding provided by his Department to Wilton Park in each of the past three years; and which other countries provide financial support to the institution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The net cash funding provided by the FCO was as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  282,709

  1989–90

  206,945

  1990–91

  293,674

  No other country provides regular direct financial support for Wilton Park conferences. Governments and institutions in other countries help recruit conference participants and often meet their travel costs and conference fees.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British hon. Members have participated in Wilton Park conferences in the last two years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The hon. and right hon. Members who have participated in these conferences are:

  1990

  Bruce George

  Hon. Tim Sainsbury

  Rt. Hon. William Waldegrave

  Virginia Bottomley

  Rt. Hon. David Howell

  1991

  Joan Lestor

  Ted Rowlands

  Bruce George

  Kashmir
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's position concerning the situation in Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government's position on Kashmir remains as set out in my reply to the Adjournment debate on 25 July at cols. 1359–60.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to implement an arms embargo in respect of Indonesia in response to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's standing committee resolution passed in Helsinki on 28 June 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. An embargo would be neither appropriate nor effective.
  482
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Indonesian Government; and what was the purpose of that meeting.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 31 May 1991, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr. Ali Alatas, in the margins of the EC/ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Luxembourg. The purpose of the meeting was to exchange views on matters of regional and international interest.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long the meeting with Jose Ramos-Horta of the National Council of Maubere Resistance on 7 November lasted; and what items were discussed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Ramos-Horta called on officials for about an hour on 7 November when he outlined the current situation in East Timor.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had regarding the Indonesian occupation of East Timor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We receive frequent representations on the subject of East Timor. We support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to promote a settlement acceptable to all parties.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Indonesian Government regarding attacks by the Indonesian military on East Timorese churches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We regularly draw the attention of the Indonesian authorities to our concern about reports of human rights abuses in East Timor. We will continue to do

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts have been made by Her Majesty's Government to secure the implementation of United Nations General Assemby resolution 35/27/1980.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom abstained on resolution 35/27/1980 in the belief that this would best assist the proccess of reconciliation and the search for a diplomatic solution to the East Timor question. The United Kingdom fully supports the United Nations Secretary General's efforts to promote a solution acceptable to both sides and has encouraged Indonesia and Portugal to co-operate to this end.

SCOTLAND

  Roads (Spending)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the forecasts of road traffic growth which he has used to determine the grant received in respect of roads spending by Scottish local authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No account is taken of forecasts of road traffic growth in the grant aided
  483
  expenditure assessment of road maintenance which is used in the distribution of aggregate external finance to authorities. The assessment (which is agreed with COSLA in the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance) is based primarily on the lane length of non-trunk roads in each authority with a secondary indicator adjustment for estimated traffic volume in prior years.

  Rents-to-mortgages Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his rents-to-mortgages scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The pilot rent-to-mortgage scheme, open to tenants of Scottish Homes and the new town development corporations in Scotland from October 1989, was extended to tenants of Scottish local authorities from 1 April 1991. Information on sales and applications in process, based on returns to 31 October 1991, is shown in the table. Experience of the pilot scheme to date is encouraging. More than 1,000 tenants have already bought their homes under the scheme or are in the process of doing so. The scheme will continue to be closely monitored.

  Sales

  Applications in process

  Scottish Homes

  198

  104

  New town development corporations

  51

  17

  Local authorities

  —

  637

  TOTAL

  249

  758

  Strathclyde Regional Council
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial support his Department has given to Strathclyde regional council in the last five years in respect of(a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure on (i) roads and (ii) public transport, and if he will outline projected support for each of the next three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Capital allocations for roads and transport are issued as one amount. The total allocations issued to Strathclyde regional council for the last five years and the provisional allocations for the next two years are as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  63·5

  1988–89

  57·1

  1989–90

  76·7

  1990–91

  75·0

  1991–92

  75·6

  11992–93

  74·3

  11993–94

  74·6

  1 Provisional.

  No decisions have yet been taken on allocations for 1994–95.

  These allocations took account of the overall amounts available nationally and of the detailed expenditure proposals in Strathclyde's transport policies and programmes documents and financial plans.

  In addition, capital grant towards expenditure on rail rolling stock contained within those allocations has been paid to Strathclyde as follows:
  484

  £ million

  1987–88

  0·7

  1988–89

  1·6

  1989–90

  17·2

  1990–91

  8·0

  1991–92

  2·5

  A further £0·6 million is available for 1991–92.

  Funding for all aspects of revenue expenditure on both roads and public transport is a matter for the regional council. Central Government support to local authorities through revenue support grant and non-domestic rate income is given on an unhypothecated basis and support for individual services cannot be separately identified.

  Raspberry Producers
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of measures introduced by the Government within the last three years to assist Scotland's raspberry producers to offset the effect of Eastern European dumping in EC markets.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Action to prevent low-priced imports of soft fruit from disrupting the Community market is the responsibility of the EC Commission. The United Kingdom Government have taken the lead in the Council of Ministers in calling upon the Commission to exercise its responsibilities in this respect.

  As for other sectors of agriculture, soft fruit producers are eligible for aid under general support schemes, not related to the production of a specific commodity. Schemes introduced or revised since 1988 are the farm and conservation grant scheme 1991 (superseding the farm diversification grant scheme 1988 and the EC element of the farm and conservation grant scheme 1989); and a scheme to support investments in marketing and processing which offer lasting economic benefit to producers under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 866/90. In addition, a special scheme was introduced in 1988 to assist raspberry growers to replace plantations of Glen Clova canes with more viable varieties.

  The EC Commission is understood to be considering possible structural measures specifically to help the Community soft fruit industry adjust to competition from third countries.

  Ferry Services
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of profits made by Caledonian MacBrayne for the Kyle to Kyleakin ferry service in each of the last 15 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of operating deficits and surpluses analysed by area of operation are given in Caledonian MacBrayne's annual report and accounts which are presented annually to Parliament and are available in the Library. For reasons of commercial confidentiality the company does not disclose information about operating deficits and surpluses achieved on specific routes.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what subsidy is paid for the year 1991–92 to Caledonian MacBrayne to operate the Islay ferry service; what specific aspects of this service are in receipt of subsidy; and if he will make a statement.
  485
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Under the terms of the undertaking between my right hon. Friend and Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd., deficit subsidy is paid to the company in support of services considered to be necessary to maintain or improve economic or social conditions in the Highlands and Islands. Deficit subsidy is therefore intended to eliminate the overall deficit incurred by the company in operating a network of approved services, and is not related to deficits incurred on specific routes. The company's annual report and accounts, which are presented to Parliament, identify the operating deficit incurred by Caledonian MacBrayne in providing ferry services in different areas, including Islay/Gigha. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, however, the company does not disclose detailed information about profits or losses incurred on individual routes.

  RNIB Needs Survey
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the report "Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain—The RNIB Needs Survey"; what action he will be taking in relation to its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has not yet received a copy of the report. Once that is to hand, he will consider the implications for blind people in Scotland.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the number of private beds in NHS hospitals and (b) the number of beds in private hospitals in Scotland for each year since 1 January 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As at 31 December each year, the number of private beds in NHS hospitals in Scotland was as follows:

  Allocations for hospital and community health services

  Resources for preparation of trust proposals

  Board

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  Argyll and Clyde

  148·525

  163·304

  —

  0·072

  Ayrshire and Arran

  114·917

  127·044

  —

  —

  Borders

  34·374

  38·172

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  55·920

  62·586

  —

  —

  Fife

  105·540

  118·283

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  99·296

  110·820

  0·065

  —

  Grampian

  188·383

  208·194

  0·100

  0·070

  Greater Glasgow

  519·285

  539·365

  —

  0·042

  Highland

  81·664

  88·576

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  168·511

  185·057

  —

  —

  Lothian

  327·277

  352·533

  —

  0·050

  Orkney

  6·298

  7·293

  —

  —

  Shetland

  7·533

  8·341

  —

  —

  Tayside

  189·667

  204·414

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  10·812

  12·727

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  2,058·002

  2,226·709

  0·165

  0·234

  Goose Damage, Islay
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all claims for compensation submitted to the Nature Conservancy Council from the Island of Islay for goose damage to land outwith sites of
  486

  Number

  1978

  149

  1979

  114

  1980

  94

  1981

  94

  1982

  105

  1983

  108

  1984

  109

  1985

  110

  1986

  111

  1987

  112

  1988

  113

  1989

  113

  1990

  113

  Following is the estimated number of beds in private hospitals, excluding nursing homes, as at 31 March each year since 1987:

  Number

  1987

  334

  1988

  355

  1989

  353

  1990

  376

  1991

  376

  This information, which is based on returns from health boards, was not collected centrally before 1987.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central of 6 November, if he will list those moneys apportioned to the allocation provided to health boards for patient care and which was for the purpose of assisting in the preparation and proposals to establish each proposed national health service trust in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  special scientific interest; the sum of each claim; when he expects a decision to be reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No claims for compensation have been made. An application for grant was made to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland
  487
  (NCCS) on 11 October 1991 towards the cost of supporting the Greenland populations of barnacle and white fronted geese outwith sites of special scientific interest this winter. The application was made by the secretary of the Islay, Jura, Colonsay and Gigha branch of the National Farmers Union of Scotland on behalf of 60 farmers under section 134 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In total it amounts to £762,450, including an administrative charge of £99,450. Section 134 empowers NCCS to give financial assistance in respect of expenditure incurred in doing anything which in the opinion of the NCCS is conducive to nature conservation.

  The application is being considered by NCCS in the light of their review of the problems for agricultural land outwith the sites of special scientific interest posed by the feeding habits of migratory Greenland geese and of how those problems might best be handled in the shorter and longer term.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many birds of prey were found poisoned(a) in Tayside region and (b) broken down by estate boundary within Tayside region, for 1990–91 and so far in the current year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 November 1991]: The wildlife incident investigation scheme of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department received reports of two birds of prey which were found poisoned in Tayside in 1990–91. The site of one of these incidents was identified as part of Dunanean estate. No reports of poisonings have been received in the current year.

  Scottish Natural Heritage
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated budget for Scottish Natural Heritage in 1991–93.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 November 1991]: My right hon. Friend will shortly announce the resources to be allocated to Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Nature Conservancy Council (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many claims are currently pending against the Nature Conservancy Council Scotland under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for compensation of profit forgone; if he will list the location and landowner concerned in each of these cases; how many involve proposals to afforest sites of special scientific interest; how

  NHS hospitals in Lothian health board—(a) day case waiting lists and time spent on day case waiting list: by specialty; (b) average wait

  (a) Day case waiting list at 30 June 1991

  (b) Average (median) wait in year ending 31 December 1990 (days)

  Number

  Percentage waiting 6 months and over

  Percentage waiting 12 months and over

  Percentage waiting 24 months and over

  All Specialties1

  3,619

  18·6

  7·3

  2·6

  25·4

  Acute Specialties

  2,878

  14·5

  4·2

  0·6

  23·0

  General surgery

  986

  17·7

  7·6

  1·0

  28·9

  488
  many cases will be going before the Lands Tribunal; and how much has been budgeted for by Nature Conservancy Council Scotland in 1991–92 to meet such compensation claims.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 November 1991]: The information is not held by the Scottish Office Environment Department. I shall ask the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cost to the Nature Conservancy Council, of the recent Lands Tribunal award made to Mr. John Cameron in compensation of profit forgone when interest and legal charges are taken into account.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 November 1991]: The total payment to be made to Mr. John Cameron has not yet been determined. I understand from the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland that Mr. Cameron has yet to submit his claim for legal fees.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates to be the costs to the further education colleges under the provisions of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill of providing for themselves support such as architectural, legal and financial services previously provided by local authorities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Expenditure by education authorities on administration and support services for further education colleges will be included in the funds transferred to the Secretary of State's budget for funding the colleges. An element for these services will be included in the grant to colleges who will be free to purchase them from the most cost-effective source.

  Day-patient Waiting Lists, Lothian
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each specialty, the current day-patient waiting list figures in the Lothian health board area, and the average day-patient waiting times; and indicate for each specialty(a) the number and (b) the percentage awaiting day-patient treatment for (i) over six months, (ii) over 12 months, (iii) over 18 months, (iv) over 24 months and (v) over 36 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: The information available is contained in the tables. Information on patients waiting over 18 months and over 36 months is not at present collected centrally.
  489

  (a) Day case waiting list at 30 June 1991

  (b) Average (median) wait in year ending 31 December 1990 (days)

  Number

  Percentage waiting 6 months and over

  Percentage waiting 12 months and over

  Percentage waiting 24 months and over

  Orthopaedic surgery

  135

  1·5

  0·7

  —

  27·5

  ENT surgery

  285

  9·1

  5·6

  1·4

  59·5

  Ophthalmology

  223

  13·0

  0·4

  —

  88·5

  Urology

  439

  17·5

  0·2

  0·2

  34·5

  Oral surgery and oral medicine

  6

  16·7

  —

  —

  3·9

  General medicine

  172

  11·6

  —

  —

  13·5

  Paediatric surgery

  307

  11·7

  2·3

  0·3

  35·8

  Paediatric medicine

  6

  —

  —

  —

  14·8

  Gynaecology

  318

  16·4

  6·3

  0·6

  12·7

  Other acute

  1

  —

  —

  —

  27·7

  Supra-Area Specialties

  741

  34·4

  19·4

  10·3

  77·2

  Neurosurgery

  2

  —

  —

  —

  10·5

  Plastic surgery

  739

  34·5

  1975

  10·3

  79·6

  1The following specialties have no waiting list at 30 June: Orthodontics and paediatric dentistry; restorative dentistry; dermatology; rehabilitation medicine; respiratory medicine; general practice; acute mixed; cardiothoracic surgery; neurology; radiotherapy; spinal paralysis; obstetric specialties; long stay specialties; psychiatric specialties; mental handicap; special categories.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those water sources which have yet to be chemically dosed to reduce absorption of lead into drinking water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]:There are over 600 water treatment works in Scotland, of which about two-thirds do not have chemical dosing which could affect levels of lead in tap water. Not all supplies require such dosing and those currently without it are mainly small supplies or are from
  490
  borehole sources. Around 90 per cent. of the population are served by supplies which do not receive this form of treatment.

  Only one scheme designed to meet the requirements of the EC Drinking Water Directive as regards lead remains to be completed next year; this is part of a major treatment works reconstruction. The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 set a stricter standard for lead than the directive and all water authorities are now assessing their water supply zones to identify any where this standard may be exceeded. These assessments will determine zones in which further treatment will be considered.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals to phase out the assisted places scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  There are no plans to phase out the assisted places scheme. The scheme remains a key part of this Government's policy to provide wider choice in education for parents and we are committed to it.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what increase or decrease in student numbers he forecasts for non-vocational adult education in the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department does not make forecasts on the basis requested. However, we anticipate a steady increase over the next five years in the number of full-time equivalent students studying at further education colleges.

  Sport
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on funding for sport.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local authority gross revenue spending in England and Wales on sport and recreation has risen from £720 million in 1985–86 to £1,028 million in 1989–90, the latest available figure.

  Subject to the approval of Parliament, the Sports Council's grant in aid next year will be £48·7 million, over £2 million up on this year.

  The newly established Foundation for Sport and the Arts will draw about £20 million a year from the further cut of 2·5 per cent. in pool betting duty included in this year's Finance Act, and about £40 million a year from the pools themselves. Some two-thirds will be used for athletic sports or athletic games. The Football Trust has also benefited from a cut in the pool betting duty by an additional £20 million since 1990.

  Private sector sponsors provide some £200 million per annum for sport.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the relocation of the Sports Council to Nottingham.

  Mr. Atkins
  Relocation is a matter for the Sports Council. I understand that at present it has no plans to relocate its headquarters out of London.

  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish his Ministry's review of sport.

  Mr. Atkins
  When it is completed.

  Further and Higher Education
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any new proposals to increase the number of thos0e participating in further and higher education courses.
  492
  Mr. Eggar
  Participation in further and higher education is at record levels. Our education reforms of the past few years and the new measures announced in the recent White Papers will promote continuing expansion through the 1990s and beyond. This House can play a major part in that expansion by supporting the Further and Higher Education Bill, which was introduced in another place on 4 November.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how his Department is ensuring that sixth-form colleges, schools and higher education colleges are receiving sufficient funds to cope with the number of students aged over 16 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  In fixing education's share of each year's local authority grant settlement, the Government take account of a range of new developments and the scope for savings. One of those developments is the projected national trend, based on the latest data available at the time, in the number of students aged over 16 in schools and colleges.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the operation of the city technology college programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  The CTC programme is forging ahead. We now have thirteen CTCs open and running with a further two due to open in the next two years. Our expenditure plans provide for a start to be made on extending the benefits of the programme more widely through the education service.

  Education Funding (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by how much funding towards education in Nottinghamshire provided by the Government has increased since 1979.

  Mr. Fallon
  Net recurrent spending on education in Nottinghamshire increased from some £138 million in 1979–80 to some £338 million in 1989–90, the latest year for which information on actual spending is available. That represents a real terms increase of some 22 per cent. These figures exclude spending on Nottingham Polytechnic, which transferred to the PCFC sector in 1989.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's policies for parental choice in central London.

  Mr. Fallon
  Parents in central London—like parents everywhere else in the country—have had the right since 1980 to choose which school their child should attend—provided places are available. More recently they have benefited from both the introduction of more open enrolment and the option of pursuing grant-maintained status for their children's school. And they will benefit in the same way as other parents from the proposals in our parents charter.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average number of applications for places at grant-maintained schools in the current and in the last year.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what changes he is planning to make in the funding of grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are currently consulting about proposed changes for 1992–93, including the calculation of the amount of grant which grant-maintained schools receive in recompense for the money which LEAs spend centrally on items such as administration.

  School Buildings
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent on school buildings in 1981 and at the present time; and what the change is in real terms.

  Mr. Fallon
  Gross capital expenditure on local authority, voluntary, and grant-maintained schools in 1989–90 is some £755 million which compares with expenditure of £391 million in 1980–81—an increase in real terms of some 14 per cent. Over the same period capital expenditure per pupil has risen from £49 to £112—a 34 per cent. rise in real terms. Between 1980–81 and 1989–90 recurrent spending on repairs and maintenance rose by some 25 per cent. per pupil in real terms.

  SERC Chairman
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will dismiss the chairman of SERC.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No.

  Education Spending and Exam Results
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the relationship between spending by local education authorities and examination results.

  Mr. Fallon
  The available data show no direct relationship between spending by local education authorities and the examination results their pupils achieve. Appropriate spending levels are bound to be affected to some extent by each authority's circumstances; some authorities obtain good results at much lower cost than others.

  NUT (Advertising Campaign)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the advertising campaign by the National Union of Teachers.

  Mr. Fallon
  None.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria are used to allocate funds for children with disadvantages and special needs in primary schools in Liverpool.
  494
  Mr. Fallon
  It is for Liverpool local education authority to decide what criteria to use in its local management of schools formula to allocate funds to schools.

  Liverpool uses a social disadvantage factor based on the number of pupils entitled to free school meals, and a special needs factor based on a system of monitoring reading standards at ages seven and 11. The tests currently used to assess reading standards are the primary reading test for seven-year-olds, and Young's Cloze procedure for 11-year-olds.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report in descending order the proportion of each English shire county's education budget which is allocated to schools under the local management of schools scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 14 October at columns 67–73.

  Capital Funding
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in tabular form the amount of the capital bids for(a) county and voluntary controlled schools, (b) voluntary aided schools and (c) further education, for each local education authority that has submitted its application for 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Capital Expenditure bids 1992–93

  Bids for annual capital guidelines (ACGs) for county and controlled schools and further and higher education colleges and bids for capital allocations for voluntary aided and special agreement schools

  (£000s)

  County and Controlled Schools

  Further and Higher Education Colleges

  VA and SA Schools

  LEA

  Barking

  6,032

  0

  467

  Barnet

  8,022

  2,422

  1,201

  Bexley

  11,413

  305

  1,918

  Brent

  15,884

  1,209

  71

  Bromley

  6,702

  350

  71

  Croydon

  15,120

  2,003

  1,000

  Ealing

  27,633

  2,245

  798

  Enfield

  13,460

  1,753

  1,927

  Haringey

  5,256

  575

  214

  Harrow

  16,865

  983

  95

  Havering

  6,434

  426

  50

  Hillingdon

  8,937

  39

  100

  Hounslow

  16,540

  55

  847

  Kingston

  1,946

  678

  99

  Merton

  8,804

  150

  174

  Newham

  13,017

  1,651

  390

  Redbridge

  6,271

  141

  66

  Richmond

  3,968

  815

  *388

  Sutton

  8,205

  110

  1,821

  Waltham Forest

  19,505

  1,180

  0

  City of London

  0

  43

  0

  Camden

  3,292

  262

  1,160

  Westminster

  18,767

  0

  3,146

  Greenwich

  5,334

  400

  340

  Hackney

  8,041

  600

  193

  Hammersmith

  5,329

  144

  1,712

  Islington

  9,718

  1,796

  2,256

  Kensington

  5,976

  70

  1,677

  Lambeth

  6,773

  2,502

  1,141

  495

  (£000s)

  County and Controlled Schools

  Further and Higher Education Colleges

  VA and SA Schools

  Lewisham

  13,287

  1,107

  815

  Southwark

  3,244

  304

  826

  Tower Hamlets

  14,484

  6,443

  1,520

  Wandsworth

  31,477

  2,385

  120

  Birmingham

  29,760

  5,018

  4,550

  Coventry

  8,816

  163

  2,849

  Dudley

  7,058

  200

  1,377

  Sandwell

  6,056

  533

  409

  Solihull

  1,766

  411

  910

  Walsall

  3,769

  1,350

  20

  Wolverhampton

  14,281

  1,306

  760

  Knowsley

  5,718

  1,000

  235

  Liverpool

  14,995

  3,515

  4,972

  St. Helens

  4,406

  1,680

  1,040

  Sefton

  4,665

  464

  1,879

  Wirral

  6,854

  200

  230

  Bolton

  3,349

  720

  6,307

  Bury

  2,807

  795

  330

  Manchester

  29,020

  8,645

  1,538

  Oldham

  8,235

  482

  1,138

  Rochdale

  12,757

  1,439

  474

  Salford

  9,228

  961

  707

  Stockport

  2,643

  345

  34

  Tameside

  3,697

  450

  336

  Trafford

  3,223

  550

  1,656

  Wigan

  8,266

  1,269

  1,567

  Barnsley

  7,233

  1,027

  100

  Doncaster

  1,071

  395

  10

  Rotherham

  5,770

  1,344

  64

  Sheffield

  19,386

  537

  1,124

  Bradford

  27,433

  4,315

  1,219

  Calderdale

  3,220

  557

  46

  Kirklees

  5,795

  2,280

  798

  Leeds

  39,449

  3,698

  5,570

  Wakefield

  10,295

  730

  206

  Gateshead

  8,599

  2,545

  757

  Newcastle

  24,804

  3,855

  1,171

  North Tyneside

  7,954

  150

  454

  South Tyneside

  6,738

  953

  84

  Sunderland

  8,637

  903

  1,384

  Avon

  8,904

  3,880

  568

  Bedfordshire

  7,860

  187

  865

  Berkshire

  21,703

  957

  350

  Buckinghamshire

  12,412

  2,846

  957

  Cambridgeshire

  27,817

  7,793

  1,809

  Cheshire

  26,912

  1,487

  3,012

  Cleveland

  6,357

  471

  392

  Cornwall

  18,476

  3,467

  344

  Cumbria

  19,402

  2,014

  1,989

  Derbyshire

  41,748

  2,315

  657

  Devon

  19,165

  2,885

  2,578

  Dorset

  20,581

  1,002

  2,900

  Durham

  27,604

  4,771

  1,562

  East Sussex

  51,921

  2,170

  586

  Essex

  58,584

  3,462

  163

  Gloucester

  16,294

  2,199

  2,277

  Hampshire

  21,795

  5,620

  534

  Hereford & Worcester

  11,168

  1,880

  1,156

  Hertfordshire

  23,519

  1,000

  509

  Humberside

  22,411

  1,791

  947

  Isle of Wight

  6,425

  278

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  96

  0

  0

  Kent

  39,215

  5,568

  3,403

  Lancashire

  31,020

  12,708

  5,279

  Leicestershire

  25,923

  1,449

  890

  Lincolnshire

  26,435

  5,267

  794

  Norfolk

  9,347

  1,363

  628

  496

  (£000s)

  County and Controlled Schools

  Further and Higher Education Colleges

  VA and SA Schools

  North Yorkshire

  10,160

  240

  733

  Northampton

  8,087

  729

  489

  Northumberland

  7,343

  250

  857

  Nottingham

  20,549

  3,974

  1,353

  Oxfordshire

  20,179

  833

  2,315

  Shropshire

  10,403

  920

  12

  Somerset

  9,071

  987

  2,866

  Staffordshire

  18,048

  1,958

  2,364

  Suffolk

  18,343

  2,897

  569

  Surrey

  19,319

  2,045

  *3,077

  Warwickshire

  10,802

  47

  1,058

  West Sussex

  11,093

  471

  759

  Wiltshire

  12,175

  2,045

  708

  Total

  1,492,401

  184,158

  125,247

  Notes:

  1. The figures should be treated with caution. They represent the initial bids made by local education authorities and take no account of subsequent amendments to those bids.

  2. All figures are in thousands.

  3. The above information includes bids for FE major building projects which, for procedural reasons, it is not possible to consider. Time constraints preclude their deletion at the time of writing.

  4. The information does not include bids for FE major building projects which LEAs have started without Departmental approval.

  5. The bids for capital allocations at voluntary aided (VA) and special agreement (SA) schools do not include bids for Minor Improvement Projects. Grants for minor works will be allocated to LEAs by formula.

  6. VA and SA schools bids marked "*" include an estimate for committed projects (i.e., based on 1991–92 submissions) since LEA bids for such expenditure have not yet been received.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list for each local authority comparing the capital allocations for the education service in 1989–90 with the latest available outturn information.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows capital allocations to each local education authority in 1989–90, together with final outturn expenditure on education capital in that year.

  Capital spending and allocations on education by LEAs, 1989–90

  (£ million cash)

  LEA

  Gross expenditure Final outturn

  Allocation

  Barking

  1·765

  ·245

  Barnet

  2·343

  ·996

  Bexley

  3·870

  ·864

  Brent

  10·644

  ·463

  Bromley

  6·280

  ·663

  Croydon

  15·947

  1·008

  Ealing

  5·947

  ·540

  Enfield

  7·740

  1·153

  Haringey

  5·020

  2·275

  Harrow

  5·408

  ·650

  Havering

  5·398

  1·341

  Hillingdon

  15·324

  ·991

  Hounslow

  10·260

  ·529

  Kingston

  2·973

  ·316

  Merton

  9·273

  5·243

  Newham

  10·188

  3·590

  Redbridge

  5·900

  2·028

  Richmond

  2·476

  ·540

  Sutton

  5·443

  ·649

  Waltham Forest

  11·853

  8·013

  ILEA

  50·780

  11·957

  Birmingham

  10·663

  5·327

  Coventry

  19·705

  2·670

  Dudley

  5·549

  2·531

  Sandwell

  5·703

  2·080

  Solihull

  4·191

  ·744

  497

  LEA

  Gross expenditure Final outturn

  Allocation

  Walsall

  5·712

  ·921

  Wolverhampton

  3·551

  ·985

  Knowsley

  2·869

  2·366

  Liverpool

  4·163

  ·907

  St. Helens

  2·244

  1·851

  Sefton

  3·362

  2·471

  Wirral

  3·629

  2·469

  Bolton

  4·645

  1·286

  Bury

  1·832

  ·605

  Manchester

  14·385

  5·271

  Oldham

  3·932

  2·272

  Rochdale

  4·003

  2·475

  Salford

  6·579

  3·806

  Stockport

  5·464

  1·519

  Tameside

  2·591

  ·746

  Trafford

  6·795

  5·171

  Wigan

  2·369

  1·364

  Barnsley

  2·733

  ·276

  Doncaster

  1·651

  ·684

  Rotherham

  3·020

  ·840

  Sheffield

  13·393

  5·211

  Bradford

  14·388

  8·584

  Calderdale

  4·845

  2·607

  Kirklees

  4·752

  ·808

  Leeds

  16·468

  3·464

  Wakefield

  6·237

  3·212

  Gateshead

  5·753

  1·052

  Newcastle

  6·086

  1·566

  North Tyne

  1·783

  1·577

  South Tyne

  5·912

  3·372

  Sunderland

  6·512

  3·859

  Isles of Scilly

  ·143

  ·149

  Avon

  11·049

  3·877

  Bedfordshire

  7·556

  2·022

  Berkshire

  20·203

  5·876

  Bucks

  12·274

  7·780

  Cambridgeshire

  22·488

  6·594

  Cheshire

  24·159

  3·487

  Cleveland

  6·812

  5·324

  Cornwall

  9·021

  6·279

  Cumbria

  9·005

  6·753

  Derbyshire

  20·754

  11·909

  Devon

  20·154

  14·177

  Dorset

  6·547

  3·667

  Durham

  6·233

  2·133

  East Sussex

  16·542

  9·171

  Essex

  26·260

  17·305

  Gloucs

  10·030

  6·089

  Hampshire

  30·552

  8·453

  Hereford and Worcester

  9·450

  2·534

  Hertfordshire

  14·989

  4·832

  Humberside

  11·427

  7·601

  Isle of Wight

  2·021

  1·628

  Kent

  19·446

  8·610

  Lancashire

  19·272

  15·057

  Leicestershire

  12·998

  7·533

  Lincolnshire

  7·375

  3·010

  Norfolk

  7·982

  3·788

  North Yorks

  8·193

  2·209

  Northants

  9·484

  4·034

  Northumberland

  3·102

  ·901

  Nottinghamshire

  8·563

  3·215

  Oxfordshire

  11·085

  3·758

  Shropshire

  5·565

  5·045

  Somerset

  8·70

  3·088

  Staffordshire

  .11·104

  4·927

  Suffolk

  10·511

  6·086

  Surrey

  26·536

  5·735

  Warwickshire

  5·339

  1·729

  West Sussex

  11·882

  1·966

  Wiltshire

  7·607

  2·866

  Note: Expenditure is given in cash terms; it includes provision form within the Department of the Enviroment's urban programme, and covers schools, further education, youth and other educational services.

  Nuclear Structure Facility
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the increase in science spending announced in the autumn statement will allow the continuation of the nuclear structure facility beyond its intended closure date.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The research councils will be considering any changes to their forward programmes when the increases to the science budget announced in the autumn statement have been allocated. Mr right hon. and learned Friend has invited the views of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on this allocation and he will be making a statement in due course.

  I understand that the Science and Engineering Research Council has yet to decide the precise date during 1992–93 when the nuclear structure facility would close.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received the Association of London Authorities' survey on teacher vacancies in London.

  Mr. Fallon
  Yes, we were particularly pleased to note the improvements reported in teacher vacancies. The association found that London boroughs had succeeded in filling all but a handful of vacancies for the new school year. Our own survey came to much the same conclusion.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the total numbers of (a) men and (b) women commencing teacher training courses in each year from 1988 to the present year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Enrolments of first-year home students on initial teacher training courses in England and Wales: by gender

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  England

  Male

  5,426

  5,337

  6,209

  Female

  13,016

  14,359

  16,928

  Total

  18,442

  19,696

  23.137

  Wales

  Male

  486

  540

  516

  Female

  1,060

  1,190

  1,172

  Total

  1,546

  1,730

  1,688

  England and Wales

  Male

  5,912

  5,877

  6,725

  Female

  14,076

  15,549

  18,100

  Total

  19,988

  21,426

  24,825

  1Provisional figures

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the proportion of imported (i) semi-manufactures, (ii) finished intermediate and (iii) finished capital good consumed/used by United Kingdom manufacturers in 1970, 1979, 1984 and 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  No estimates are available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing the Japanese and United Kingdom figures for the increase in consumer prices and export unit values for manufactures between 1979 and 1990 together with those of France, Germany, Italy and the USA.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested can be obtained from data published in "OECD, Main Economic Indicators" for consumer prices, and in "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", its annual supplement and "International Financial Statistics" for export unit values, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the current visible and invisible import content of United Kingdom manufactures, excluding oil, relative to 1979 and 1970.

  Mr. Mellor
  No current estimates exist, the latest available analysis is for 1985. The CSO's published input-output tables for that year and the two earlier years' show the imported and domestic content of manufactures. These Publications are available in the Library.1"Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1985" table four, "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1979" table K, "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1970" table K.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of United Kingdom imports of manufactures are re-exported (i) in the same form and (ii) after further processing in the United Kingdom: and what the corresponding figures were in 1970, 1979 and 1984.

  Mr. Mellor
  No estimates are available.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the figures for the volume of gross domestic product and of United Kingdom exports of goods and services as shown in tables 25 and 29 of part 6 of the OECD National Accounts 1960–1989, less oil and gas.

  Mr. Mellor
  The estimates given in tables 25 and 29 of the OECD: publication cannot be readily adapted to remove oil and gas. Series can, however, be derived from data available here in the UK.

  Gross domestic product at constant factor cost excluding the contribution of the oil and gas extraction industry given in the usual index number formal (1985 = 100):

  Year

  1960

  60·9

  1961

  62·2

  1962

  63·2

  500

  Year

  1963

  65·4

  1964

  69·6

  1965

  71·6

  1966

  73·0

  1967

  74·4

  1968

  77·7

  1969

  79·4

  1970

  80·9

  1971

  82·4

  1972

  85·4

  1973

  90·7

  1974

  89·9

  1975

  88·6

  1976

  90·0

  1977

  91·6

  1978

  94·3

  1979

  96·0

  1980

  93·1

  1981

  91·0

  1982

  91·9

  1983

  94·3

  1984

  96·6

  1985

  100·0

  1986

  103·5

  1987

  108·7

  1988

  114·2

  1989

  118·1

  1990

  119·2

  The volume of exports of oil and oil products at 1985 prices is available from 1983 on the Central Statistical Office's database as series BOWX and exports of goods and services at 1985 prices is available as series DJCV. From these series it is possible to calculate an index of goods and services less oil on UK definitions.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing for EC countries, the United States of America and Japan for 1970 to 1973, 1973 to 1979, 1979 to 1989 and 1985 to 1989, the percentage increase in (i) gross domestic product less oil and gas, (ii) manufacturing output, (iii) real incomes as well as the increase in the number of, (iv) employed and (v) unemployed persons, together with the balance of trade in manufactures as a percentage of gross domestic product together with a table showing the increase in gross domestic product and manufacturing output in per capita terms.

  Mr. Mellor
  Such information as is readily available on comparable bases can be obtained from the following international publications:

  (i) gross domestic product less oil and gas

  Table R1 in "National Accounts ESA Aggregates 1970–1989 Theme 2 Series C" published by Eurostat gives annual growth rates for gross domestic product at market prices. Data on a comparable basis are not available for gross domestic product excluding oil and gas;

  (ii) manufacturing output

  Page 16 of the US Department of Labour publication "International comparisons of manufacturing productivity and unit labour cost trends 1990".

  (iii) real incomes

  Information on compensation of employees which includes all payments in cash and in kind made by employers in remuneration for the work done by their employees is given in Table J in "National Accounts ESA Aggregates 1970–1989 Theme 2 Series C" published by Eurostat;

  (iv) employment
  501
  Information on occupied population is given in Table O in "National Accounts ESA Aggregates 1970–1989 Theme 2 Series C" published by Eurostat;

  (v) unemployed persons

  Separate tables are given for each country in "Main Economic Indicators Historical Statistics 1969–1988" published by OECD. Later data are available in the monthly "Main Economic Indicators" also published by OECD;

  (vi) balance of trade in manufactures as a percentage of gross domestic product

  The balance of trade in manufactures can be calculated from data in "Foreign Trade by Commodities: Series C" published by OECD and gross domestic product can be obtained from Table 1 for each country in "National Accounts ESA Aggregates 1970–1989 Theme 2 Series C" published by Eurostat;

  (vii) gross domestic product per capita

  Information on gross domestic product at market prices per head of total population can be found in Table B2 in "National Accounts ESA Aggregates 1979–1989 Theme 2 Series C" published by Eurostat;

  (viii) manufacturing output per head

  Page 15 of the US Department of Labour publication "International comparisons of manufacturing productivity and unit labour cost trends 1990".

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

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changes made since October 1989 in the way trade figures have been collected, analysed or presented.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 7 November 1991]: Following are the main changes:

  (a)Adjustments to statistics of oil exports. Since October 1989 better methods have been used to measure direct exports of crude oil from offshore fields, including adjustments for any such trade reported late to Customs and Excise.

  (b)Improved seasonal adjustments. Since January 1990 seasonal factors for the current month and the preceding month have been estimated afresh each month using all the latest available information. This replaced the previous method of calculating factors at the beginning of each year for all of the following twelve months.

  (c)Progressive development of detailed methodology. Various small refinements have been made to the statistics, such as more elaborate adjustments for differences in the length of a month and improved deflators for some high-value commodities.

  Farms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing the increase in incomes of farmers in terms of constant prices in 1979 and in the latest available year compared with the average of 1967 to 1971 together with the increase in the direct and indirect cost of agricultural support to the consumer/taxpayer.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table shows United Kingdom aggregate farm income, and public expenditure in support of agriculture in the United Kingdom. Agricultural market support through the CAP means that EC consumers pay more for their food than they would do in a free market. The estimated cost to United Kingdom consumer, based on work by the OECD, is given in the table. All figures are in constant 1985 prices.
  502

  Year

  Farm income (£mittion)

  Public expenditure (£million)

  Estimated consumer cost (£million)

  11967–71

  2,555

  1,481

  nil

  1979

  1,956

  1,130

  3,000

  1989

  1,242

  1,033

  4,600

  21990

  972

  1,469

  5,400

  Notes:

  1Average.

  2 Forecast.

  Figures for public expenditure relate to the financial year beginning in the year shown.

  Consumer cost is based on OECD estimates of the cost to EC consumers scaled down to relect the United Kingdom share of consumption.

  Aggregate farm income is defined in chapter 6 of Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1990, HMSO, 1991.

  Public expenditure in support of agriculture is defined in chapter 9 of Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1990. It includes the cost of market support reimbursed by the EC; and excludes indirect support for agriculture such as free or subsidised advisory services and research and development.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing for the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, the United States of America and Japan for each year since 1970 the percentage, to one place of decimals, of gross domestic product invested in manufacturing industry, together with the amount invested in terms of dollars per person employed in manufacturing at current prices and exchange rates.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest readily available information in respect of gross fixed capital formation by the manufacturing industry, of gross domestic product at current prices in national currencies and of the numbers employed in the manufacturing industries can be obtained from tables 3,1 and 15 respectively for most of these countries in "National Accounts Detailed Tables Volume II 1976–1988" published by the OECD. Exchange rates to convert the national currencies into dollars are given in table 3 in the Appendix to "National Accounts Main Aggregates Volume I 1960–1988" also published by OECD.

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

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table for each quarter since 1967 of indices of(a) the wholesale price of materials and fuels purchased by manufacturing industry other than food, drink and tobacco, (b) the wholesale price of home sales of manufacturing industry other than food, drink and tobacco and (c) the unit value of imports of basic materials, as defined in the overseas trade statistics, with 1975 as 100.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have placed tables showing the first two series in the Library of the House. Unit value indices for recent years are not available on a 1975 base but the indices for imports of basic materials on a 1985 base can be found in table C15 of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and its annual supplement, available from the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library. No information is available for years prior to 1970.
  503

  Producer Price Index Materials and fuel purchased by manufacturing industry other than the food, drink and tobacco manufacturing industries 1975 = 100

  Quarterly averages

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  1967

  30·9

  30·4

  31·0

  33·1

  1968

  35·4

  34·7

  34·7

  34·7

  1969

  34·4

  36·0

  36·6

  37·3

  1970

  37·9

  38·0

  37·7

  37·7

  1971

  38·8

  39·6

  39·6

  39·0

  1972

  39·3

  39·7

  41·0

  43·0

  1973

  46·3

  49·4

  55·5

  62·4

  1974

  83·1

  85·8

  87·2

  91·0

  1975

  92·6

  96·3

  101·7

  109·4

  1976

  113·3

  126·2

  129·9

  137·6

  1977

  140·7

  143·5

  143·6

  139·1

  1978

  134·2

  137·8

  138·5

  145·4

  1979

  153·8

  158·3

  163·4

  174·9

  1980

  185·1

  180·0

  178·4

  180·7

  1981

  186·9

  192·0

  200·7

  209·0

  1982

  212·3

  295·7

  207·5

  217·0

  1983

  228·4

  222·8

  226·9

  231·1

  1984

  240·5

  240·9

  246·7

  260·4

  1985

  275·8

  257·2

  249·6

  247·0

  1986

  243·0

  225·3

  217·0

  233·3

  1987

  238·9

  235·6

  244·9

  246·8

  1988

  250·5

  253·3

  255·7

  260·6

  1989

  268·1

  269·1

  265·0

  272·2

  1990

  271·7

  262·1

  263·4

  268·3

  1991

  261·3

  260·3

  259·0

  Note: This table reflects the changes over three base years (i.e., 1975/80/85) and the effects of reclassification from 1968 SIC to 1980 SIC from 1983.

  Producer Price Index Products and manufacturing industries other than food, drink and tobacco manufacturing industries—home sales 1975 = 100

  Quarterly averages

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  1967

  45·0

  45·0

  45·3

  45·6

  1968

  46·5

  46·9

  47·1

  47·3

  1969

  47·8

  48·1

  48·6

  49·2

  1970

  50·4

  51·8

  52·8

  54·2

  1971

  56·1

  57·5

  58·4

  58·8

  1972

  59·5

  60·5

  61·6

  63·0

  1973

  63·5

  64·7

  66·6

  69·1

  1974

  75·0

  80·8

  84·5

  88·6

  1975

  94·5

  98·6

  101·8

  105·1

  1976

  110·1

  114·3

  119·1

  124·3

  1977

  130·9

  137·0

  140·6

  143·3

  1978

  146·6

  149·7

  152·9

  155·8

  1979

  160·5

  166·1

  172·4

  178·5

  1980

  187·3

  193·7

  198·8

  201·9

  1981

  204·8

  208·8

  211·5

  215·0

  1982

  220·5

  223·8

  226·0

  228·1

  1983

  231·6

  235·7

  238·3

  241·0

  1984

  244·9

  248·8

  251·4

  254·7

  1985

  260·6

  264·9

  267·6

  269·7

  1986

  273·7

  276·2

  278·3

  280·5

  1987

  285·0

  288·5

  291·2

  294·0

  1988

  298·7

  302·4

  305·6

  308·8

  1989

  314·7

  318·7

  322·2

  325·9

  1990

  332·6

  338·2

  341·9

  346·5

  1991

  353·7

  356·9

  358·7

  Note: This table reflects the changes over three base years (i.e., 1975/80/85) and the effects of reclassification from 1968 SIC to 1980 SIC from 1983.

  Economic Policies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the long-term objective of the Government's economic policies.
  504
  Mr. Maples
  The Government's central objective is to create the basis for improved living standards and public services by promoting sustainable, non-inflationary economic growth.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date the information given in his written answer of 20 February 1990,Official Report, column 696, concerning the amount of mortgage interest payable each year as a percentage of (a) disposable income and (b) consumers' expenditure; and if he will (c) add figures (i) for the percentage of gross domestic product and (ii) the years 1970–78.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest estimates are as follows:

  Mortgage interest payable as a percentage of

  Personal disposable income

  Consumers' expenditure

  Gross domestic product

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1970

  2·6

  2·8

  2·1

  1971

  2·7

  2·9

  2·1

  1972

  2·7

  2·9

  2·1

  1973

  3·2

  3·6

  2·5

  1974

  3·7

  4·1

  2·9

  1975

  3·4

  3·8

  2·6

  1976

  3·4

  3·8

  2·6

  1977

  3·5

  3·8

  2·6

  1978

  3·0

  3·3

  2·3

  1979

  3·5

  4·0

  2·8

  1980

  4·4

  5·1

  3·5

  1981

  4·5

  5·1

  3·6

  1982

  4·8

  5·4

  3·8

  1983

  4·5

  5·0

  3·6

  1984

  5·3

  5·9

  4·2

  1985

  6·6

  7·3

  5·2

  1986

  6·4

  7·0

  5·2

  1987

  6·8

  7·3

  5·4

  1988

  7·2

  7·6

  5·7

  1989

  9·4

  10·2

  7·6

  11990

  10·6

  11·7

  8·6

  1 Figures affected by introduction of the community charge in England and Wales.

  In the first half of 1991 mortgage interest accounted for 10·0 per cent. of disposable income and for 11·5 per cent. of consumers' expenditure. It is not possible to give the corresponding percentage of GDP because the interest figures are not available in seasonally adjusted form whereas money GDP exists as a seasonally adjusted series only.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions Her Majesty's Treasury has had with the Sports Council about funding the relocation of the Sports Council and associated jobs to Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not discussed this question with the Sports Council.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons why United Kingdom contributions to the EC budget are expected to increase from £0·9 billion in 1991–92 to £2·2 billion in 1992–93.

  Mr. Maude
  The autumn statement provided a forecast of the UK's net payments to EC institutions of £0·9 billion
  505
  in 1991–92 and £2·5 billion in 1992–93. The uneven profile results from the timing of adjustments to UK contributions, mainly because contributions are paid on the basis of agreed estimates and adjusted in the light of outturn, and from subsequent correction to the UK's abatement. The net contribution in 1991–92 is unusually low as the result of a refund in 1991 of contributions overpaid in 1990 and higher than usual abatement in 1991, reflecting adjustments paid in 1990 to make good underpayments in the previous year.

  VAT
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average penalty imposed in Yorkshire on those who submit value added tax returns late by(a) one week, (b) two weeks, (c) three weeks and (d) four weeks.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs do not maintain statistics for individual counties or regions. The penalties imposed for late submission or payment of VAT returns do not vary with the length of the period between due date and receipt by Customs. Nationwide, the average penalty imposed on defaulting traders (including those who may have received more than one penalty) over the current and preceding financial year is:

  Average penalty £

  Financial year ending 31 March 1989

  266.24

  Financial year ending 31 March 1990

  375.42

  Financial year ending 31 March 1991

  429.39

  1 April 1991 to 30 September 1991

  441.41

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals against penalties imposed for incorrect and late payment of value added tax have been upheld in the current year, to date, by value added tax tribunals in Yorkshire.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs do not maintain statistics for individual counties or regions. Nationwide in the current calendar year to 31 October a total of 50 appeals were upheld or partly upheld against penalties for incorrect declaration of value added tax. For the same period, the total number of appeals upheld or partly upheld against penalties for late payment of value added tax is 94.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received calling for the time required to elapse form date of supply for bad debt to obtain value added tax relief to be reduced from 24 months to 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Between March 1990 and March 1991 about 150 representations were received seeking a reduction in the two-year waiting period for bad debt relief,which was part of the comprehensive scheme for bad debt relief enacted in the Finance Act 1990. In response, my right hon. Friend announced in his Budget statement that the waiting period would be halved to one year.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will empower value added tax tribunals to take mitigating circumstances into account when determining penalties on incorrect and late value added tax returns.
  506
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Consideration of this matter is currently forming part of the thorough review of value added tax penalties announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement. As my right hon. Friend said, the aim is to bring forward proposals for any changes required to the penalty regime in the 1992 Finance Bill.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value added tax threshold in the United Kingdom and in each of the other EC countries.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The VAT registration threshold in the United Kingdom is £35,000 annual turnover.

  Belgium, Spain and Italy have no minimum VAT registration threshold.

  For other member states of the EC the thresholds are as follows:

  Threshold based on annual turnover

  Denmark

  DKr 10,000 (£888·49)

  France

  FF 70,000 (£7061·79)

  Germany

  DM 20,000 (£6872·85)

  Greece

  DR 1,000,000 (£3113·32) (Supply of goods)

  DR 250,000 (778·33) (Supply of services)

  Ireland

  IR £32,000 (£29384·75) (Supply of goods)

  IR £15,000 (£13774·10) (Supply of services)

  Luxembourg

  LFrs 200,000 (£3330·55)

  Portugal

  Esc 800,000 (£3205·12) (Industry)

  Esc 500,000 (£2003·20) (Professions)

  Threshold based on annual VAT payable after input tax deduction

  Netherlands

  DF1 2174 (£3717·19)

  Sources: VAT Monitor

  Tax News Service

  Rates of exchange: as at 31 October 1991.

  EC (National Incomes)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the national income, 3 per cent. of that figure and the budget deficit of each member state in the EC indicating the differences in accounting treatment where relevant.

  Mr. Maples
  Following is the information, for the latest year1 available:

  GDP

  3 per cent. of GDP

  2GGFD

  UK (£ billion)

  550·6

  16·5

  3·6

  Belgium (BF billion)

  6,027·9

  180·8

  402·1

  Denmark (Kr billion)

  776·0

  23·3

  3·7

  France (FF billion)

  6,113·1

  183·4

  86·3

  Germany (DM billion)

  2,235·6

  67·1

  -5·5

  Greece (Dr billion)

  8,798·4

  294·0

  n.a.

  Ireland (IrP billion)

  20·0

  0·6

  1·8

  Italy (Lit trillion)

  1,188·0

  35·6

  121·1

  Luxembourg (BF billion)

  223·3

  6·7

  -6·9

  Netherlands (Fl billion)

  474·4

  14·2

  24·5

  Portugal (Esc billion)

  4,420·4

  132·6

  281·5

  Spain (Pta trillion)

  40·2

  1·2

  1·3

  Source: OECD National Accounts volume II, 1977–89, except for UK figures from Financial Statistics.

  1 Latest year is 1989 except for UK (1990); Spain (1988); Ireland (1987); Luxembourg and Portugal (1986).
  507
  2 General government financial deficit, positive number indicates government borrowing.

  The Dutch presidency text defines the budget deficit as "the net balance to be financed on a cash basis". However, data for this concept are available. Data for general Government financial deficits are not available for most countries, and are therefore generally used to make international comparisons of budget deficits. Most countries, however, focus on other aggregates in their national budgets. The main differences between the net balance to be financed on a cash basis and the GGFD are that the former is measured on a cash basis, the latter on an accruals basis; and the GGFD excludes privatisation proceeds.

  Figures for the United Kingdom are based on the national accounts. Figures for other countries are standardised to conform to the United Nations system of national accounts. No figures are available for the general Government financial deficit of Greece. More recent data and forecasts of Government deficits of member states are published by the European Commission in "European Economy", Supplement A, May 1991.

  Employees' Benefits (Taxation)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any proposals to modify the restrictive rules in section 80 of the Finance Act 1988 concerning the tax charge on special benefits for employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Where employees or directors acquire shares as a result of their employment, and because of their ownership of those shares they subsequently receive a "special benefit", that "special benefit" is currently taxable in some circumstances. For example, such "special benefit" might flow from an entitlement to subscribe to a "rights" issue, or from a right to shareholder priority in a public offer. The Government do not think it is right to charge tax on a benefit that is available to all or substantially all shareholders, where a majority of the shares in relation to which the benefit is actually received are held otherwise than by people who acquired them as employees. We therefore propose that exemption from the charge should apply to any benefit received in these circumstances on or after today. Legislation to this effect, which will include some minor consequential changes, will be introduced in the Finance Bill 1992.

  Employees' Expenses and Benefits
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much overtime has been agreed in the Inland Revenue to clear the outstanding PHD forms; and when he expects this work to be up to date.

  Mr. Maude
  The bulk of P11D forms are received in the first part of the tax year and dealt with in a targeted programme finishing in December. That programme is proceeding to target. No overtime has been centrally allocated to this specific task. However, the Inland Revenue's regional controllers can use part of their budgets for overtime, and some work on P11D forms may have been done during locally arranged overtime.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many P11D forms on hand on 13 June 1991 had been outstanding for more than three months.
  508
  Mr. Maude
  None was reported as having been outstanding for more than three months.

  Deep Gain Securities
  Mr Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to change the tax treatment of deep gain securities.

  Mr. Maude
  The deep gain legislation provides a tax regime for bonds which are issued at a discount to par but which cannot be taxed according to the deep discount rules. The deep gain rules charge all of an investor's return to income tax. However, it has recently been brought to our attention that many ordinary bonds, carrying a full coupon, and issued at a small discount to par, but not containing the characteristics of true deep gain securities are, in strictness, so classified if they contain standard event of default or event risk clauses.

  We have therefore decided to restore the position to what everyone previously believed it to be: bonds already in issue which are deep gain securities solely by virtue of the inclusion of standard event of default or event risk clauses will be treated as not being deep gain securities. We intend to introduce legislation in the next Finance Bill to take these bonds out of the deep gains legislation.

  In the meantime, and with my agreement, the Inland Revenue will not treat securities issued on or before 12 November 1991 as deep gain securities where they fall to be so treated only by reason of a redemption which may be made before maturity, and that redemption is
  —outside the scope of paragraph 1(3A), Schedule 11, Finance Act 1989, or of paragraph 2(13) of that Schedule, as the case may be; and
  —occasioned by the happening of an event (other than the exercise of a put option) prescribed in the terms of issue of the security as an event on the happening of which the security will or may be redeemed.

  This concession may not be applied if the terms of the security as respects the events occasioning such redemptions before maturity are materially amended after 12 November 1991.

  For tranche issues, securities issued after 12 November 1991 will be treated as not being deep gain securities if they fall to be so treated only by reason of a redemption which may be made before maturity if they are issued under the same prospectus as a security described above or on terms such as to make them fungible, either immediately or after the first payment of interest in respect of the security, with a security described above.

  The Government also intend to set in place a new tax regime for bonds issued after today. The precise terms of the legislation covering these bonds will depend on the outcome of consultations which the Inland Revenue will be undertaking with interested parties. But the Government's intention is that securities issued after today will not fall to be treated as deep gain securities only by reason of a redemption which may be made before maturity in pursuance of a term of issue of the security and
  —the term provides that the security will or may be redeemed on the happening, before maturity, of an event which is not at the time of issue certain or likely to occur;
  —if the security provides for early redemption on the happening of more than one such event, it is not at the time of issue certain or likely that any one or more of them will occur;
  —the term is such as to protect the holders of the security against the consequences of the event prescribed; and

  509
  —a reduction in tax liability is not a main benefit to be expected from the inclusion of the term and in particular, is not an arrangement, or part of an arrangement to facilitate early redemption of the security.

  The Government propose that this amendment should not operate to remove any transfer or redemption of a security from the charge on deep gains when
  —the security would be a deep gain security but for the proposals described above;
  —the security is redeemed before maturity on the happening of an event described above; and
  —the security is held on redemption by a person connected with the issuer, or as the case may be the transfer is by such a person within 12 months before the redemption.

  In the meantime, in anticipation of such legislation, and with my agreement, the Inland Revenue will, by concession, not enforce liabilities in respect of transactions in securities which are strictly deep gain securities under current law, but would not be were legislation on these lines in effect.

  Public Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the figures in table 2.2 in Cm 1520, including the latest estimated outturn for 1990–91, as a percentage of gross domestic product;

  (2) if he will publish in (a) cash, (b) 1990–91 prices and (c) as a proportion of gross domestic product, the figures as used in table 2·3 in Cm 1520, including the latest estimated outturn for 1990–91 and with the series extended back as far as is possible;

  Planning total by department in real terms1

  £ billion

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 estimated outturn

  1992–93 new plans

  1993–94 new plans

  1994–95 new plans

  Defence

  24,468

  24,225

  23,703

  23,347

  22,040

  22,522

  21,800

  21,360

  21,630

  21,130

  20,760

  Foreign Office

  843

  820

  847

  851

  854

  943

  936

  990

  1,000

  1,020

  1,000

  Overseas Development

  1,732

  1,678

  1,691

  1,598

  1,780

  1,811

  1,743

  1,880

  1,920

  1,950

  1,950

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  2,633

  3,087

  2,095

  2,237

  1,823

  1,587

  2,107

  2,140

  1,960

  1,910

  1,910

  Trade and Industry

  2,228

  1,971

  2,570

  826

  1,553

  1,400

  1,118

  900

  840

  780

  780

  ECGD

  757

  468

  381

  190

  134

  388

  372

  230

  100

  60

  30

  Energy

  3,632

  882

  -278

  244

  -494

  503

  1,189

  880

  540

  440

  380

  Employment

  4,391

  4,441

  5,014

  4,833

  4,451

  4,101

  3,778

  3,400

  3,460

  3,340

  3,280

  Transport

  3,982

  3,769

  3,532

  3,275

  3,154

  3,849

  4,721

  5,270

  6,220

  5,680

  5,110

  DOE—Housing

  4,873

  4,158

  3,913

  3,689

  3,359

  3,371

  6,899

  7,130

  6,950

  6,860

  6,870

  DOE—Environment

  1,835

  1,644

  1,288

  1,181

  774

  1,208

  1,263

  1,280

  1,150

  1,100

  1,050

  DOE—PSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  114

  90

  60

  30

  10

  DOE—Local Government

  21,771

  21,156

  22,260

  22,582

  21,744

  21,188

  20,392

  26,420

  27,740

  28,020

  28,450

  Home Office

  3,957

  3,726

  3,969

  4,224

  4,261

  4,585

  5,045

  5,370

  5,370

  5,520

  5,590

  Legal departments

  727

  767

  850

  957

  1,042

  1,221

  1,308

  1,560

  1,580

  1,590

  1,600

  Education and Science

  4,690

  4,596

  4,656

  4,901

  4,971

  6,258

  6,643

  6,840

  7,110

  7,220

  7,330

  Arts and Libraries

  384

  388

  448

  456

  478

  484

  496

  520

  550

  520

  520

  Health

  19,248

  19,267

  19,984

  20,782

  21,338

  21,685

  22,509

  24,020

  25,180

  25,870

  26,520

  Social Security

  56,536

  58,328

  60,850

  60,387

  57,089

  56,609

  56,075

  60,800

  63,100

  65,600

  66,800

  Scotland

  10,032

  9,734

  9,875

  9,730

  9,833

  9,733

  9,690

  10,950

  11,210

  11,270

  11,390

  Wales

  3,772

  3,733

  3,952

  4,046

  4,130

  4,119

  4,436

  4,920

  5,190

  5,220

  5,270

  Northern Ireland

  5,750

  5,764

  5,873

  5,977

  6,279

  6,210

  5,871

  6,050

  6,280

  6,390

  6,470

  Chancellor's departments

  3,713

  3,846

  4,189

  4,256

  4,277

  4,548

  4,597

  4,490

  4,500

  4,500

  4,550

  Cabinet office, etc.

  288

  296

  298

  310

  316

  325

  349

  370

  410

  410

  410

  European Communities

  1,390

  1,104

  1,403

  2,057

  1,162

  2,512

  2,013

  850

  2,200

  2,210

  2,440

  Reserve

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,580

  6,900

  10,040

  Privatisation proceeds

  -2,916

  -3,649

  -5,820

  -6,364

  -8,166

  -4,577

  -5,345

  -7,480

  -7,150

  -4,740

  -4,600

  Adjustment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  300

  —

  —

  —

  Planning total

  180,717

  176,199

  177,543

  176,573

  168,181

  176,581

  180,119

  191,500

  202,700

  210,800

  215,900

  1 Cash figures adjusted to 1990–91 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation. The deflator series used is that for GDP at market prices adjusted to remove the distortion caused by the abolition of domestic rates.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish an update of table 2.5 in Cm 1520, including the latest estimated outturn for 1990–91, with a back series to 1978–79;
  510
  (3) if he will publish in 1990–91 prices, an update of table 2·3 in Cm 1520, including the latest estimated outturn for 1990–91;

  (4) if he will publish an update of table 2·2 in Cm 1520, including the latest estimated outturn for 1990–91.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Information on general Government expenditure by function in the period 1978–79 to 1990–91 in cash, real terms (1990–91 prices) and as a percentage of GDP has been placed in the Library of the House. The figures given are consistent with those published in the autumn statement press notice. Corresponding data for earlier years are not available on a consistent basis.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an extended version of table 3·5 of the "Autumn Statement Statistical Supplement", including departmental planning totals for each year back to 1978–79, on as consistent a basis as possible and in 1990–91 prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Information on the planning total by department in real terms (1990–91 prices), in the period 1984–85 to 1994–95 is given in the following table. The figures given are consistent with those published in the autumn statement. Corresponding data for earlier years are not available on a consistent basis.

  (2) if he will publish the figures in table 2.5 in Cm 1520, including the latest estimated outturn for 1990–91, with a back series to 1978–79 (a) in cash prices, (b) in 1990–91 prices and (c) as a percentage of gross domestic product.
  511
  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: I am arranging for copies of tables setting out information on general Government expenditure by detailed function in the period 1986–87 to 1990–91 in cash, real terms (1990–91 prices) and as a percentage of GDP to be placed in the Library of the House. The figures are consistent with those published in the autumn statement press notice. Corresponding data for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Investment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of public investment as a proportion of gross national product for(a) all EC countries, (b) Japan and (c) the United States of America in the period 1970 to 1991.

  Mr Maples
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Data for gross domestic product and public investment for the period 1977 to 1989 are published by the OECD in "National Accounts 1977–89".

  Civilian Employees
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when an announcement will be made on the issue of additional payment for civilians in Ministry of Defence employment in Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: The matter is under discussion with the Ministry of Defence.

HEALTH

  Ealing Health District
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in(a) Ealing health district and (b) Ealing hospital since the inception of each; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested for Ealing health authority is given in the table. The information for Ealing hospital is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to write to Lady Eccles of Moulton, the chairman of Ealing health authority, for details.

  NHS hospital activity—Ealing district health authority

  Year

  In-patient1 cases treated

  Day case attendances

  Total outpatient attendances

  1982

  17,597

  3,332

  106,481

  1983

  18,449

  3,357

  111,113

  1984

  19,733

  3,733

  104,799

  1985

  20,092

  3,703

  108,128

  1986

  19,644

  3,530

  104,678

  1987–88

  19,341

  2,512

  98,013

  1988–89

  24,741

  3,821

  91,417

  1988–89

  25,196

  3,821

  91,417

  1989–90

  23,024

  3,734

  95,098

  21990–91

  23,354

  4,040

  105,593

  1 Hospital discharges and deaths 1982 to 1988–89; Finished consultant episodes 1988–89 to 1990–91.

  2 Provisional.

  NHS Statistics
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of(a) heart transplant, (b) kidney replacement, (c) hip replacement and (d) eye cataract operations carried out in the national health service in (i) 1979 and (ii) the most recent year for which the figures are available; and if he will estimate the figures for 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table gives the number of operations for 1979 and for the latest year available. The rate of heart and kidney transplant operations is dependent on the availability of suitable organ donors. Future numbers cannot therefore be reliably estimated. Information on the projected number of hip replacement and cataract operations is not held centrally.

  Latest year

  Operation

  1979

  1990

  1990–91

  Heart transplant1

  3

  329

  Kidney transplant1

  842

  1,870

  Hip replacement

  228,800

  344,477

  Eye cataract

  239,700

  394,739

  1 Figures supplied by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority—collected by calendar year.

  2 Estimate from Hospital In-Patient Enquiry.

  3 Figures from 1990–91 Regional Outturn Reports—collected by financial year.

  Hospitals
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total investment in hospitals in each of the past three years; how many entirely new hospitals are now under construction; and how many hospitals were closed down in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authority capital expenditure in the last three years has been as follows:

  £million

  1988–89

  1,082

  1989–90

  1,306

  1990–91

  1,514

  There are 106 building schemes each costing over £1 million under construction. These include extensions and adaptations to existing hospitals as well as new schemes. There is no central record of the number of building schemes which are entirely new hospitals.

  Figures for hospital closures are no longer routinely collected centrally as changes in the use of buildings are not a good measure of services to patients provided by the NHS.

  Dental Checks
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the extent to which children at school are currently having a regular dental check through the school dental service; and if he will publish in tabular form the percentage of children who had a check-up in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available in respect of each local authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Dorrell
  District health authorities have responsibility for the screening of the teeth of children in state
  513
  funded schools at least three times in each child's school life. The percentage of school children inspected in each district health authority in England and Wales during the year ended 31 March 1990 is shown in the table.

  District health authority

  Percentage of school children inspected1

  Northern RHA

  62·8

  Hartlepool2

  71·3

  North Tees

  85·8

  South Tees

  50·1

  East Cumbria

  72·0

  South Cumbria

  66·2

  West Cumbria

  88·7

  Darlington

  58·5

  Durham

  21·8

  North West Durham

  49·8

  South West Durham

  73·8

  Northumberland

  77·5

  Gateshead

  66·9

  Newcastle

  61·7

  North Tyneside

  78·1

  South Tyneside

  58·3

  Sunderland

  48·7

  Yorkshire RHA

  60·9

  Hull

  39·1

  East Yorkshire

  60·3

  Grimsby

  64·1

  Scunthorpe

  61·9

  Northallerton

  64·9

  York

  46·4

  Scarborough

  55·9

  Harrogate

  57·1

  Bradford

  70·8

  Airedale2

  92·6

  Calderdale

  49·6

  Huddersfield

  65·6

  Dewsbury

  70·2

  Leeds Western

  57·2

  Leeds Eastern

  57·4

  Wakefield

  69·7

  Pontefract

  72·2

  Trent RHA

  60·7

  North Derbyshire

  63·3

  South Derbyshire

  73·7

  Leicestershire

  59·3

  North Lincolnshire

  70·0

  South Lincolnshire

  74·1

  Bassetlaw

  25·8

  Central Nottinghamshire

  44·4

  Nottingham

  41·2

  Barnsley

  53·5

  Doncaster

  62·8

  Rotherham

  50·8

  Sheffield

  83·7

  East Anglia RHA

  54·7

  Cambridge

  26·8

  Peterborough

  63·5

  West Suffolk

  69·0

  East Suffolk

  67·5

  Norwich

  60·2

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  35·9

  West Norfolk and Wisbech _.

  47·6

  Huntingdon

  56·9

  North West Thames RHA

  55·8

  North Bedfordshire

  48·6

  South Bedfordshire

  51·0

  North Hertfordshire

  50·0

  East Hertfordshire

  49·3

  North West Hertfordshire

  45·3

  South West Hertfordshire

  40·2

  Barnet

  78·5

  Harrow

  55·5

  Hillingdon

  58·3

  514

  District health authority

  Percentage of school children inspected1

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  82·3

  Ealing

  60·0

  Parkside

  53·2

  Riverside

  46·3

  North East Thames RHA

  52·3

  Basildon and Thurrock

  76·8

  Mid Essex

  36·0

  North East Essex

  49·0

  West Essex

  47·1

  Southend

  33·4

  Barking/Havering/Brentwood

  60·9

  Hampstead

  40·7

  Bloomsbury

  46·8

  Islington

  35·1

  City and Hackney

  53·2

  Newham

  89·3

  Tower Hamlets

  50·1

  Enfield

  52·9

  Haringey

  82·1

  Redbridge

  38·0

  Waltham Forest

  32·2

  South East Thames RHA

  61·8

  Brighton

  76·2

  Eastbourne

  68·2

  Hastings

  59·6

  South East Kent

  50·4

  Canterbury and Thanet

  51·2

  Dartford and Gravesham

  72·7

  Maidstone

  70·8

  Medway

  62·4

  Tunbridge Wells

  60·3

  Bexley

  43·6

  Greenwich

  19·0

  Bromley

  56·2

  West Lambeth (2)

  76·2

  Camberwell

  62·0

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  95·4

  South West Thames RHA

  48·7

  North West Surrey

  29·7

  West Surrey and NE Hants

  40·8

  South West Surrey

  47·7

  Mid-Surrey

  58·3

  East Surrey

  91·7

  Chichester

  47·5

  Mid Downs

  46·1

  Worthing

  50·7

  Croydon

  63·3

  Kingston and Esher

  11·4

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  18·9

  Wandsworth

  73·3

  Merton and Sutton

  51·3

  Wessex RHA

  58·1

  East Dorset (2)

  61·1

  West Dorset

  67·1

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  79·1

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  50·5

  Winchester

  53·5

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  39·6

  Salisbury

  84·7

  Swindon

  22·2

  Bath

  60·9

  Isle of Wight

  51·7

  Oxford RHA

  49·6

  East Berkshire

  66·9

  West Berkshire

  66·9

  Aylesbury Vale

  47·5

  Wycombe

  56·0

  Milton Keynes

  16·4

  Kettering

  25·1

  Northampton

  44·9

  Oxfordshire

  48·4

  515

  District health authority

  Percentage of school children inspected1

  South Western RHA

  60·0

  Bristol and Weston

  55·6

  Frenchay

  61·3

  Southmead

  35·5

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  63·1

  Exeter

  51·2

  North Devon

  75·2

  Plymouth

  91·0

  Torbay

  55·7

  Cheltenham

  41·5

  Gloucester

  66·7

  Somerset

  55·6

  West Midlands RHA

  64·0

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  43·1

  Herefordshire

  70·4

  Kidderminster and District

  67·8

  Worcester and District

  36·6

  Shropshire (Salop)

  50·2

  Mid-Staffordshire

  62·7

  North Staffordshire

  66·9

  South East Staffordshire

  57·5

  Rugby

  66·8

  North Warwickshire

  87·5

  South Warwickshire

  88·0

  Central Birmingham

  58·0

  East Birmingham

  42·8

  North Birmingham

  36·6

  South Birmingham

  74·1

  West Birmingham

  53·0

  Coventry

  90·9

  Dudley

  53·1

  Sandwell

  86·5

  Solihull

  72·6

  Walsall

  77·1

  Wolverhampton

  61·0

  Mersey RHA

  64·0

  Chester

  77·4

  Crewe

  54·0

  Halton

  75·2

  Macclesfield

  54·1

  Warrington

  58·5

  Liverpool

  57·1

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  72·5

  Southport and Formby

  36·3

  South Sefton

  81·2

  Wirral

  67·8

  North Western RHA

  61·3

  Lancaster

  25·0

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  33·8

  Preston

  34·0

  Blackburn, Hynburn and Ribble Valley

  58·6

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  49·4

  West Lancashire

  27·4

  Chorley and South Ribble

  26·1

  Bolton

  75·7

  Bury

  84·4

  North Manchester

  83·0

  Central Manchester (2)

  99·7

  South Manchester

  54·9

  Oldham

  84·5

  Rochdale

  73·3

  Salford

  35·8

  Stockport

  73·4

  Tameside and Glossop

  72·9

  Trafford

  69·0

  Wigan

  79·5

  Total England

  58·7

  Wales

  57·3

  Clwyd

  43·2

  East Dyfed

  40·4

  Gwent

  44·6

  516

  District health authority

  Percentage of school children inspected1

  Gwynedd

  45·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  59·8

  Powys

  67·8

  South Glamorgan

  63·4

  West Glamorgan

  84·8

  Pembrokeshire

  87·9

  Total England and Wales

  58·6

  (l) The 1989–90 data on inspections are available for all school children only. The percentage of children who had a dental check up have been calculated using the June 1989 population estimates for children aged 5 to 16.

  (2) 1988–89 data.

  Amputees
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that at all artificial limb fitting centres there is adequate provision for professional counselling of amputees.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We know that some centres do employ professional staff specifically for counselling of limbless disabled people. It is not, however, a subject on which we have given central guidance and is a matter for individual health authorities.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what assessment he has made of the evidence from New Zealand on the effects of tobacco consumption of the ban on tobacco advertising imposed in December 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Changes in New Zealand's attitude to smoking led to a decline in tobacco consumption before the imposition of the ban and this decline has continued. At the same time, economic factors such as a fall in incomes have had an impact on consumption. The available data refer to a short time period, during which the "transitory shock" of the publicity surrounding the ban would have been operating. We have asked officials to keep us up to date on the evidence as it becomes available.

  South London Hospital for Woman
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has for the future use of the closed South London hospital for women.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The management of the national health service estate is normally delegated to the appropriate regional health authority which can best assess requirements so far as individual properties are concerned.

  Northern Devon Hospital Trust
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints he has received about the Northern Devon hospital trust since it was established.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. Such operational matters are the responsibility of the NHS trust board. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Knight, the chairman of the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust, for details.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals take part in providing organ removal facilities for the transplant programme; and if he will list the number of organs provided by hospitals in the various regions, either on a hospital-by-hospital basis or regionally during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on human organ removal facilities is not collected centrally. The table gives the numbers of centres providing organs and the numbers of organs retrieved by English regions in 1990, the latest year for which information is available.

  Region

  Number of centres providing organs

  Number of organs provided1

  Northern

  20

  179

  Yorks and Humberside

  12

  126

  Trent

  13

  149

  East Anglia

  12

  97

  North West Thames

  13

  147

  North East Thames

  21

  196

  South East and South West Thames

  33

  279

  Wessex

  13

  140

  Oxford

  11

  125

  South Western

  12

  128

  West Midlands

  27

  270

  Mersey

  14

  106

  North Western

  22

  222

  Total

  221

  2,164

  1 Based on information provided by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority for 1990.

  Cardiologists
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cardiologists per million population there are in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America and (c) Germany.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are 1.17 cardiologists per million population in the United Kingdom. Similar information in respect of the United States and Germany is not collected centrally.

  Qa Business Services
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the West Midlands regional health authority will re-establish a computer bureau and re-employ ex-Qa Business Services staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the West Midlands regional health authority. However, I understand that AT and T ISTEL has acquired some of the assets of Qa Business Services and will ensure the continuity of information technology services to the group of West Midlands health authorities.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between the West Midlands regional health authority, the inter-regional collaboration co-ordinators, Praxis, and the computer firm ICL regarding the transfer of support contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Dorrell
  The West Midlands regional health authority has been working closely with the administrative 518
  receivers of Qa Business Services to ensure the continuity of computer services contracts with NHS authorities; the responsibility for a successful transfer of contracts and hence a successful sale of Qa Business Services is a matter for the administrative receiver. I understand that AT and T ISTEL has acquired some of the business assets which will ensure the continuity of information technology services.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what lessons his Department has drawn for the NHS staff and services, of the recent collapse of Qa Business Services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Management buy-outs are one of the range of options for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of local services which have been successfully implemented in many parts of the NHS. In the case of the administrative receivership of Qa Business Services, the Department is keeping in close touch with West Midlands regional health authority and will ensure that any wider lessons are shared throughout the NHS.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority as to the effects on the regional national health service of the collapse of Qa Business Services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health services in the west midlands have not been adversely affected by Qa Business Services going into administrative receivership.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the financial terms involved in the management buy-out of the management services division of the West Midlands regional health authority; what was the surplus generated by the management services division for the national health service in the last financial year it was within the regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The financial and other contractual terms of the management buy-out of the management services division of the West Midlands regional health authority are matters of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guarantees were given to the former employees of the management services division of the West Midlands regional health authority as to their continuity of employment for redundancy and other purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  One of the conditions of the management buy-out of the management services division of the West Midlands regional health authority was that regional health authority employees transferring to the new consultancy would transfer with continuous service and on terms and conditions no less favourable than those in their contracts of employment with the regional health authority.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the transfer of undertaking regulations which governed the 1989 privatisation of the former management services division of the West Midlands regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.
  519
  Mr. Dorrell
  The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (SI No. 1794) is available in the Library. The management buy-out of the management services division of the West Midlands regional health authority was regarded as a transfer within the terms of those regulations.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers and the size of budgets of the GP fundholders in London.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long elapsed before the Liverpool patients diagnosed as having legionnaire's disease were notified of the nature of their illness; and what guidelines and advice his Department issues to hospitals about patients' rights in these matters.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The timing and nature of the information that patients receive about their medical condition involves the exercise of professional judgment by the individual clinician responsible for those patients' care. The Department does not issue guidance in these matters.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department was informed about the New Zealand research and the factors associated with cot deaths; what steps he then took to assess that research; and what other action was taken.

  Mr. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The Department was first informed about the findings of New Zealand research through letters published in The Lancet in July this year. This correspondence indicated that a change in certain of the factors associated with cot death had been accompanied by a reduction in the incidence of cot death. Over the next few months, further information was sought. Four reports, including one from this country not yet published, showed that a reduction in the prone sleeping position of infants had been accompanied by a fall in the incidence of cot death.

  I announced on 21 October at column 423 the setting up of an expert group to report to the chief medical officer its findings and recommendations about this latest available evidence. The group's advice was published on 31 October.

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

The Lord Bishop of Norwich
Peter John, Lord Bishop of Norwich—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford and the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
Simon, Lord Bishop of Coventry—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Ripon and the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Training and Enterprise Councils
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals to change the structure and functions of the Training and Enterprise Councils.
Earl Howe: My Lords, TECs are private companies engaged in training, education and enterprise with a performance based contract with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There are no proposals to change these arrangements.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that is an even more complacent Answer than we are used to on this side of the House. Are the Government giving urgent consideration to the most serious criticisms of TECs which have been made by the Auditor General and by the Commons Select Committee on Employment? Is the noble Earl aware that one of the criticisms made by the Auditor General is that a sum of £24.5 million has been paid to trainees who have not regularly or even at all attended courses organised by the TECs? There are equally devastating comments made in the report. What is the Government's response to the replies to the Select Committee from 60 of the 82 TECs which are now in existence, which say that the training guarantees—the core of the TECs—to youth employment and long-term employment are simply not being met because of the shortage of funds?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord on both those points. The National Audit Office report is being taken very seriously by my department. The report says that in some cases a lack of comprehensive attendance records means that some payments might have been made to training providers without supporting evidence of trainees' attendance. We arc anxious that the Government should get full value for money, and that all payments are supported
472
by proper evidence. Having said that, the report contains figures and comments which are some months old. The auditors have seen and noted a marked improvement in all areas of procedure and record keeping since TECs became operational last year.
Turning to the noble Lord's second point about the Select Committee report, again I stress—and I hope reassure the noble Lord—that the YT guarantee is being met. Furthermore, the Government are fully committed to that guarantee. It is the top priority for each individual TEC to ensure that its local arrangements are effective to meet the guarantee, but no TEC will be prevented by lack of resources from meeting the guarantee. Many TECs are saying that school staying-on rates seem to have turned out higher than expected. That is a welcome development and is taken into account when setting budgets.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Earl will know that the Government have taken some action which has held up the progress of, for example, the Construction Industry Training Board. The CITB has a wonderful reputation, so much so that the Government themselves have paid tribute to it. Yet by their action they have delayed matters. Do I understand from the noble Earl's reply that no further action is to be taken against the TECs and that they are to be allowed virtually carte blanche to do what they will?
Earl Howe: My Lords, TECs have considerable autonomy to manage their own affairs and their own budgets within certain strictly defined limits. For example, there is a 5 per cent. latitude on switching funds between budgets. Therefore, it is a matter for each individual TEC to decide how those funds are allocated within the limits that I have mentioned.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, has my noble friend been able to reach a decision on the proper relationship of the TECs with vocational training for disabled people? If not, can he say when he may be able to do so?
Earl Howe: My Lords, TECs are contractually bound to make appropriate provision for trainees with special training needs. The guarantee group in YT and the guarantee and aim group in employment training include substantial numbers of people with special needs who thereby receive priority help. It is for TECs to decide with whom to contract in order to meet the training and enterprise needs of their locality. They will make that decision on the basis of quality, the appropriateness of training for individuals and value for money. What matters is that those needs are being met effectively.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many organisations, particularly those involved in the provision of training for those with special needs, are having great difficulty due to the late payment of money by TECs? Is he further aware that the Government have made available capital funds to deal with such cash flow problems but the TECs are refusing to use them for that purpose, thereby causing

473
great disruption and serious hardship to the organisations concerned? Since that capital fund is public money, are not the Government responsible for seeing that it is used in the way intended? Does the noble Earl not agree that the answer to the question, which has been raised before, that it is for the TECs to do what they like with the money, is inadequate in view of the purpose for which the money was given to the TECs?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention to those points. I was not aware of them. I shall make sure that they are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right to say that the TECs are private enterprises. However, they were invented by the Government and are the Government's training flagship. Can the noble Earl say what is the nature of the contractual arrangement? Some TECs are doing quite well but many are doing very badly indeed. Can the Minister tell the House what is the mechanism for making those TECs which fail to meet their contractual obligations rectify matters? For example, can a TEC be made bankrupt? Can the board be fired? What is the mechanism for making the system work?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it has always been the Government's view that the relationship between the department and TECs would need to evolve and develop over time as the full network comes into place. The review which is now being undertaken is giving effect to that view. To speculate on TECs coming to an end or going bankrupt is premature. I do not believe that that will ever occur. However, in the event of schemes closing, other TECs would endeavour to take up the slack; and there would also be referrals to regional offices.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Earl give a more specific answer to the question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness? Can he give any assurance to the four colleges which are engaged in training the disabled, one of which is in Durham? Those colleges are very apprehensive at present. If the noble Earl is not prepared for the question, would he write to me and the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, about the matter?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lords on that subject.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as President of the Federation of Economic Development Authorities. Is the noble Earl aware that district authorities, which in many cases are the largest employers in an area, have no right of representation on these employer-led boards, and that the Government have consistently denied the local authorities the right to be so represented? Will the Minister undertake to look at the matter again in the light of the review? Furthermore, will there be a formal consultation process with the FEDA on the performance of the TECs?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am very surprised by the noble Lord's comments. As he may know, guidelines are laid down as to the composition of the boards of TECs. Typically, one third of those boards is comprised of representatives of local authorities, local schools, voluntary organisations, and so forth. The suggestion of a policy of deliberate exclusion is new to me. However, I shall look into the matter and I thank the noble Lord for drawing it to my attention.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, am I right in assuming that in his reply to my supplementary question the Minister was saying that the Government accept the serious criticisms made by the Auditor General? If that is so, can the noble Earl say on behalf of the Government when those matters are likely to be corrected? After all, it is the second year running that the Auditor General has refused to confirm the accounts. Regarding the replies to the Select Committee to which I referred, I understand that in another place the Secretary of State said that those replies were out of date. How can those replies be out of date when most of them were made in September and October?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government take seriously the report of the National Audit Office. In defence of TECs it is fair to say that 1990–91 was a year of unprecedented upheaval when responsibility for delivering services shifted from my department to the TECs. However, the auditors noted a considerable improvement in the standards of record keeping and in general procedures.
As regards the noble Lord's second question, it is important to emphasise that the replies to which he referred, and to which his honourable friend Mr. Blair has also referred, are several weeks out of date. Events have moved on. The department has been in discussion with TECs about the YT guarantee with a view to agreeing any necessary actions. It has reached agreement with 18 of the 19 TECs referred to by the noble Lord. Discussions with the remaining TEC are in hand. The majority of TECs feel comfortable about being able to meet the demands placed on them. The essential point to note is that the Government are fully committed to the YT guarantee and will ensure that it continues to be met.

BT Profits and Prices
3.1 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will establish a public inquiry to examine the relationship between British Telecom's profits and the prices charged to the consumer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the Government have established a strong independent regulator, the Director General of Telecommunications, who regulates these matters. Under the present price control formula changes in BT's main prices are limited to 6.25 per cent. less than the increase in the retail prices index. It means that at

475
today's inflation rate they are falling in nominal as well as real terms. This price control ensures that cost increases cannot be passed on to customers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is it not the fact that British Telecom has made outrageous profits from excessive prices? Does the Minister agree that whoever was responsible for checking an upheaval which means that many poor people cannot afford a telephone should be replaced as quickly as possible? Will the Minister make a big effort to answer the question of whether a public inquiry will be set up?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as regards a public inquiry, Sir Bryan Carsberg has announced his intention to issue a consultative document in January next year inviting views from all interested parties before deciding on any new price controls. He took similar action in 1988 when the price gap was previously reviewed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's comments about price movements, is it not d ear that the improvement in the profit performance of British Telecom derives from greater efficiency?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The profits of British Telecom must be seen in perspective. It is one of the United Kingdom's largest companies with an annual turnover of £13 billion and an investment programme of more than £2.5 billion per year.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the results of improved efficiency should not be passed on to the customer as well as to the shareh older?
Lord Reay: My Lords, they are being passed on to the customer. The effect of the price controls has been that since privatisation in 1984 BT's main prices have fallen in real terms by about 27 per cent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that arguments put forward by Members on these Benches when British Telecom was privatised have proved to be right and that this private monopoly is nothing more than a rip off of the general public'' Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case not merely for a public inquiry but for the intervention of the Government to ensure that this public rip off by a private monopoly does not continue?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. In our view effective competition is the best way to defend consumers' interests. The Government have progressively introduced competition throughout the British telecommunications market. However, such competition takes time to develop and while it does the consumer needs the additional protection of a strong independent regulator. That is a protection that the consumer has with the results that I have quoted.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister invite his noble friend the Leader of the House to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, not to bellow in our ears quite so much but perhaps to use the telephone?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will do what he can to take advantage of that advice.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Government agree that occasionally it is necessary to use a loud voice in order that the politically dumb on the Liberal Benches may hear?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not believe that any Members of this House have ever had difficulty in hearing the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I shall endeavour to speak softly—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Speak up!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the increased prices announced by British Telecom on 1st August 1991, averaging 4.5 per cent., hide back-door increases in rental and installation charges of 7.8 per cent., which is above the rate of inflation? Will the Minister further reflect that the decision by British Telecom to charge telephone users 44½p plus VAT to use directory inquiries has incensed many consumers, myself included?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Reay: My Lords, charging for the service of directory inquiries has meant that rather than BT recovering the cost from everyone indiscriminately only those who make use of the service now pay for it. The most intensive users are businesses. Therefore, introducing charges has removed a cross subsidy from domestic consumers to business. Domestic call charges were reduced by between 4.5 and 7.3 per cent. as a result of introducing those charges.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Members on all sides of the House recognise the point behind the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. However, can he explain the reason for the criticism of profits by people who object to profits being made but who were silent when the nationalised steel industry was making great losses?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend was asking a rhetorical question of the noble Lord opposite. As I have indicated, BT's profits must be seen in perspective taking into account factors such as the need for massive investment.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, will the Minister find a way of pressurising British Telecom to utilise some of its enormous profits to produce a pay-phone box which provides change? What happens at present amounts to nothing less than daylight robbery.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I must consider that question. The quality levels throughout BT's services

477
have never been higher. Ninety-six per cent. of all call boxes are now functioning whereas in 1987 the number was less than 75 per cent. Before that date the number was undoubtedly lower although no statistics were kept.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is it right that British Telecom controls more than 95 per cent. of the telephone services market? Can my noble friend say whether the sale of 49 per cent. of the shares of BT presently held by the Government will further encourage competition within that market?
Lord Reay: My Lords, our policy is to ensure that business and residential customers have the widest possible choice of high quality services at the most competitive price. In our view open and vigorous competition is the best way to achieve that aim. We have sought to introduce effective competition and customers now have many new choices. That pattern will be extended.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that such massive profits can have been made only as a result of excessive price increases? I hope that he will consider and send to British Telecom a poignant argument; that the poorer section of our community, which relies on the telephone to keep in touch with doctors, local authorities and so forth, are discovering that they cannot afford a BT telephone. Will the Minister take that into consideration when an examination is made?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that competitive prices and quality matter to the consumer. The system which we have established will ensure that those are delivered.

NHS: Local Health Strategy
3.10 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What help they will give to local health authorities to enable them to carry out a "safeguarding health role".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, our reforms have provided the NHS with new opportunities to tackle broader aspects of the nation's health. Directors of public health are central to this task. The health strategy will seek not simply to safeguard but actively to improve health and bring real and substantial benefits to the health of the nation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which I am pleased to hear. However, that policy must be carried out all over the country and that is not being done. At least one authority, the London Borough of Ealing, has dismissed its chief health education officer and his two assistants. The Government's worthwhile and remarkable endeavour has been frustrated by the London Borough of Ealing's ruling council.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the news that the noble Lord conveys. The purport of the Question was not immediately discernible from the Question on the Order Paper. However, I shall look into the local aspects of the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Desai: My Lords, will the noble Baroness comment on reports in today's newspapers that at least two London health authorities are extremely dissatisfied because they do not believe that even minimum standards are being met in London?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the London question is being considered not only by the Tomlinson inquiry but also by the King's Fund inquiry. Members of your Lordships' House are represented on that inquiry. They will look into the special factors which affect the delivery of health care in London.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the noble Baroness see the article in yesterday's Evening Standard by Dr. Le Fanu, who alleges that old people are being discriminated against within the National Health Service? If she has not read that article, will she do so and comment upon it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that issue. Of course, I have seen that article. The Government have done a great deal to help older people with their health needs because we are aware of the increasing numbers and needs of that category of patient. The GP contract ensures that older people are offered a regular health check on a voluntary basis. Only today the Department of Health launched a guide to health and healthy living for older people with representation from certain Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister referred to the central role of regional directors of public health. Is she aware that the role of safeguarding health would be easier to fulfil if the Government were to accept the policy of the European Commission and the Labour Party, which is supported by all 14 regional directors of public health in England, that there should be a ban on the advertising of tobacco?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government's Green Paper The Health of the Nation is looking into that area, among many others, in targeting health needs. We believe that the district and regional authorities have new important strategic tasks to carry out as a result of our reforms. Because of the encouraging settlement announced in last week's Autumn Statement, the funds will be available to put behind the words.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer my question? Why in Brussels yesterday did the Government block the EC directive on the banning of tobacco advertising?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord should be rather more sure of his facts. There was no question of blocking anything yesterday at the meeting of the

479
Council of Health Ministers because no decision could be taken constitutionally until the opinion of the European Parliament had been taken.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, there is another side to the London story which should be put. Is the noble Baroness aware—she cannot be expected to be aware —that two very elderly people were both taken into Lewisham hospital where they had hip replacement operations? They were kept in for about 14 days and both were discharged together. I believe that a brilliant job was done.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, all too rarely do we hear the good news stories. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, 24 minutes have elapsed and there is still another Question on the Order Paper. I believe that the convention is that we move on to the last Question at about this time.

Safer Cities Scheme
3.15 p. m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there have yet been any direct results from the safer cities scheme.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have established 19 local projects which have undertaken and planned over 1,600 local crime prevention measures. Examples of their impact and success are shown in the latest safer cities progress report issued on 30th October, a copy of which I am placing in the House of Lords Library.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. As the scheme seems to be producing worthwhile results, will it be extended to other areas with government support, in particular to areas in which there is ram raiding of shops 53, carefully organised criminal gangs in cars and vans?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the existing projects are reviewed after three years of operation. The indications are that this form of crime prevention is highly effective. We shall consider what should be the proposals for the future in due course. I agree with my noble friend that ram raiding is quite intolerable but decisions on priority for action in the safer cities areas are decided by local steering committees. So far ram raiding has not been selected as a crime problem to target.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the press statement issued by his Ministry on 4th October four local authorities were singled out as being particularly worthy of praise in respect of this initiative: Birmingham, Lewisham, Nottingham and Wolverhampton? Is he aware also that those are all Labour authorities.
480
What is the current level of funding for the programme and, in view of the increase in crime figures announced recently, are there any proposals to increase that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the fact that the four authorities to which the noble Lord referred are all Labour authorities, I can only say thank goodness there is some sense somewhere.
With regard to the rest of the noble Lord's question, the funding was for 20 projects. Nineteen have been established and one more will be established. We must see what future course is taken when my right honourable friend has considered all the points at issue.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the noble Earl say what is the current level of funding?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I knew that the noble Lord had thrown me by his first absurd supplementary question! As regards the level of funding, £2.9 million has been spent since April 1989. At present, about £7 million per year is spent because funding has increased. Of that £5 million is spent on grant and £2 million on salaries and running costs.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the NATO summit.

Business of the House Debate, 13th November
3.18 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Turner of Camden set down for Wednesday the 13th of November shall be limited to 5 hours.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House Debates, 20th November
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Allen of Abbeydale and the Baroness Warnock set down for Wednesday the 20th of November shall each be limited to 2½ hours.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities Committee Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the committee, raise important questions of policy or principle and on other questions to which the committee considers that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the committee —

Aldington, L.

Brain, L.

Bridges, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

David, B.

Elles, B.

Ezra, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Nathan, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Selborne, E.

Serota, B. (Chairman)

Shepherd, L.

Somerset, D.

Stedman, B.

Thurlow, L.

Varley, L.

Young, B.

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees but that subcommittees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of sub-committees;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the committee from time to time be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time be printed and delivered out if the committee thinks fit. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology 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 be appointed to consider science and technology; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee—

Adrian, L.

Caldecote, V.

Dainton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Desai, L.

Flowers, L.(Chairman)

Gregson, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Nicol, B.

Platt of Writtle, B

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Renwick, L.

Tombs, L.

Whaddon, L.

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairmen;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on the committee or any sub-committee;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time be printed and delivered out if the committee thinks fit;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move, that the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill, which was introduced in this House on 5th November, be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to change the constitution of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC) and the four national boards for nursing, midwifery and health visiting.
I remind your Lordships that the UKCC is the statutory body for the nursing professions in the United Kingdom responsible for establishing and improving standards of training, maintaining a register of qualified practitioners, and determining whether a practitioner should be removed from the register.

483
The national boards currently have responsibility for approving courses for nurses, midwives and health visitors, enabling them to qualify for registration; approving post registration courses for those already on the register; ensuring that such courses meet the requirements of the central council; and carrying out initial investigations in cases of alleged misconduct. The Bill will change the constitution of the central council from a body the majority of whose members are appointed by the Secretary of State to a body the majority of whose members—some two—thirds-are elected by the professions to whom they are responsible. At the same time it will change the constitution of the four national boards for nursing, midwifery and health visiting from elected to appointed bodies.
In line with the principles of the NHS reforms, the role of the national boards in managing and financing the provision of nursing, midwifery and health visiting education and training will be devolved to health authorities, except in Northern Ireland where existing arrangements will continue to apply. It will also centralise all professional conduct investigations at the council, avoiding duplication of effort and rationalising this important function.
The proposed changes are the result of recommendations arising from a review of the central council and the national boards commissioned by the four United Kingdom Health Departments and carried out between December 1987 and March 1988 by Peat Marwick McLintock, as part of the regular Treasury programme of reviews on non-departmental public bodies
In the event, the review team produced a radical set of recommendations, the general tenor of which I have already outlined. It is that change in the administrative and organisational arrangements of the statutory bodies for nursing, midwifery and health visiting which the Bill seeks to implement. The fundamental principle of professional self-regulation is not being called into question. Indeed, the proposed changes will, we believe, strengthen it. For that reason the amending legislation which is laid before your Lordships is generally agreed to be non-controversial.
The Peat Marwick McLintock report was issued for consultation to the nursing profession in August 1989 and the formal consultation period ended in February 1990. Subsequently, there was a wide range of informal discussions between the health departments, the statutory bodies and representatives of National Health Service management to try to establish the maximum consensus on the way forward.
Following the announcement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made in the other 'place on 4th February 1991, the Legislation Advisory Group was established and given the remit of considering what changes would be required to the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 in order to give effect to the government decisions on the Peat Marwick McLintock recommendations; that is, to alter the roles of the five state nursing bodies.
The Legislation Advisory Group comprised representatives of the four United Kingdom health departments, the UK Central Council and the
484
national boards. It has had several very productive meetings since it was established in March 1991, and has achieved near unanimity on all details of the proposed legislation. The nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions have been involved at all stages of our deliberations and their contribution has been both constructive and valuable. I take this opportunity once again to thank all the participants for their hard work.
The details of the provisions in the Bill are clearly outlined in the explanatory memorandum. Therefore I will not elaborate on them all at this stage, although I shall be happy to expand on my opening remarks if so requested during the course of the debate. However, I shall make particular mention of Clause 1. It increases the maximum membership of the central council from 45 to 60 and specifies that two-thirds of the membership shall be elected (rather than appointed as at present) under an approved electoral scheme. The remaining members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State, bearing in mind the need to secure that the members of the council shall include representatives of the three professions of nursing, midwifery and health visiting, and also representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom. The council is to have a president and a vice-president appointed by the council from among its members.
The increase in the maximum membership takes into account the increased workload which will be placed on members by the future role and responsibilities of the council, in particular the centralising of all professional conduct investigations at the council. The fact that the majority of members will in future be elected by the professions to which the council is answerable reinforces the principle that the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions should be fully self-regulating.
I move to another important aspect of the Bill contained in Clause 4. It provides for the non-executive members of a national board to be appointed by the Secretary of State rather than elected, as at present. In future the national boards will be smaller executive bodies with a more limited role and function, directly accountable to the Secretary of State. As regards executive members, the clause provides for certain officers appointed by the boards to be ex-officio members of the boards. It further allows for remuneration, pensions, allowances and gratuities to be paid by the Secretary of State (with the consent of Treasury) to members of the boards appointed by him. Finally, it gives the Secretary of State power to make any further provision with respect to the constitution and administration of the boards as he thinks fit.
Clause 5 amends the functions of the national boards by specifying that they shall approve institutions which provide courses of training for nurses, midwives, and health visitors rather than providing or arranging for others to provide courses at institutions which they have approved. The latter function will in future be discharged by health authorities, except in Northern Ireland where Clause 5(3) ensures that the role of the national board can continue as at present. The amendment reflects the

485
intention to permit the transfer for funding for the education and training of nurses from the boards to health authorities and health boards, where it is considered more appropriately to lie. The clause also removes from the boards their disciplinary investigation function, so that professional conduct matters will in future be the sole responsibility of the council. Finally, it removes a now superfluous requirement on the boards, in the discharge of their functions, to have regard to the interests of all groups within the professions, including those with minority representation. That last amendment is consequent upon the fact that the boards are required to exercise their amended functions in accordance with the rules of the council, which is itself required to have a proper regard for all such interests.
Those are the clauses which contain the main changes the Bill is to bring about. I believe that the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill is a non-controversial piece of legislation. It will not, overall, lead to an increase in public expenditure and is not expected to have any effect on public service manpower. I ask your Lordships to grant the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Hooper.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a clear exposition of the Bill, as is typical of her. I also congratulate the Government on producing a health Bill which is not contentious, which means that I can be brief when I respond.
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill has been generally welcomed by all the professional organisations involved and it is certainly not politically contentious. From the Opposition Benches we shall do our best to assist its passage. There is no need for me to analyse the nature and structure of the Bill as the Minister has done because, as she said, it is the result of full consultation with the organisations involved.
I wish to deal with one or two matters which we shall need to probe at later stages of the Bill. As regards Clause 1(4) (b), we understand that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to consult organisations in deciding on the one-third appointed members of the council. We may wish to consider whether the intention of a consultation should be written into the Bill to ensure a broader base of appointees, to the effect that the Secretary may or shall consult with the interested organisations. It will be interesting to have the Minister's response as to how she views that as a proposal when we come to the end of the debate.
We also understand that it is the intention of the Government to ring-fence the funding for nursing education at regional health authority level. We shall need some assurances as regards the nature and timescale of the ring-fencing. We shall need to be told what it means and how it will operate. In passing, we wish that the Government's enthusiasm for ring-fencing extended to other areas. The noble Baroness
486
will remember our debates concerning community care. When the noble Baroness responds, or perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, we shall wish to probe a little as to how ring-fencing is supposed to work and how it will be protected.
There is another area of concern of which I know the Minister is aware. I refer to the disciplinary functions of the UKCC. I am sure that that organisation, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives all feel that, in addition to suspension, there should be a power of reprimand or caution. I understand that an amendment has been drafted to write that provision into the Bill. Perhaps we could save time at a later stage of the Bill if we heard now the Government's reaction to the proposal. I know that all the organisations involved feel that this is an important extension which should be given to the UKCC. I understand that there may be legal problems and perhaps the Minister can advise the House on that.
I have mentioned the Royal College of Midwives. It is particularly concerned that the interests of minority groups such as midwives are properly protected. We shall need to examine that aspect as the Bill proceeds. I believe that in the 1979 Act, which this Bill replaces, the interests of minority groups are specified though they are not in this Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why that change of approach was adopted.
As I said, I shall be extremely brief as the Bill is non-contentious. All the matters I have mentioned can be dealt with quite easily when the House goes into Committee. I know that a number of speakers who are to follow me have considerable knowledge of the nursing professions and that their views will command the attention and respect of the House. I look forward very much to hearing them. It will also give the House a chance to pay tribute to the remarkable job that is done by all three professions mentioned in the Title of the Bill.

NATO Summit
3.33 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the NATO Summit in Rome on 7th and 8th November. The Statement is as follows
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the NATO Summit in Rome on 7th and 8th November which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
"Last July in London NATO agreed to adapt its strategy to the changed situation in Europe and to build up a new partnership with the countries of central and eastern Europe. At the summit we agreed how to carry forward both those tasks.
"The strategic concept reflects the British Government's objectives. These were to ensure that NATO remains the linchpin of Western security, charged with dealing with whatever security problems might threaten. The strategy reaffirms the

487
need for a collective defence based on NATO's integrated military structure and also on the need for both nuclear and conventional forces, kept up to date where necessary, but at significantly reduced levels. Alliance forces in every NATO country will be smaller, more mobile and more flexible. At the summit we endorsed the establish-men: of new rapid reaction forces, in which the United Kingdom will command the land element.
"The summit declaration establishes a North Atlantic Co-operation Council. This forum will enable NATO to discuss common security issues with the Soviet Union, the Baltic states and the countries of eastern Europe. At Britain's suggestion the first such meeting will be held at Foreign Minister level in Brussels in mid-December.
"We have agreed a wider role for NATO. Henceforth, NATO will not just be keeping the peace. It will be actively promoting peace. It will be prepared to help the countries of eastern Europe in planning defence forces in a democracy, with civilian-military relations, and in converting defence production to civilian purposes. The relationship may well develop still further.
"The NATO Summit also, for the first time, considered in depth the European defence identity and the alliance. We affirmed some important principles: first, the principle that NATO is the essential forum for consultation and agreement on policies bearing on the security and defence of alliance territory; secondly, endorsement of the British proposal to use the Western European Union as the means of strengthening the European pillar of the alliance; thirdly, the need to establish clear and open relations between NATO and the Western European Union and to involve other allies on issues discussed in the Western European Union which affect their security.
"Heads of Government received a report on Yugoslavia following a meeting of Community Foreign Ministers with Lord Carrington. In view of the grave situation in Yugoslavia and the repeated breaches of the ceasefire, Community Governments agreed in Rome on a series of restrictive measures. These include: suspension of the trade and co-operation agreement; suspension of benefits under the general scheme of preferences; and the suspension of the PHARE programme and restoration of quotas on textiles.
"Community Governments asked those member states which are members of the Security Council to promote measures in the Security Council to tighten the arms embargo and to take steps towards imposing an oil embargo. We are now consulting other members of the United Nations Security Council about the introduction of such measures.
"Community Governments also decided that positive action would be taken to benefit those parties who were being co-operative in the peace process. Taken together, these measures will increase the pressure on those responsible for appalling bloodshed and suffering in Yugoslavia. NATO Heads of Government issued a separate
488
statement making clear the allies' strong support for the efforts of the European Community to promote peace in Yugoslavia.
"We discussed developments in the Soviet Union. We publicly supported economic reform and democratisation. We stressed the need for the authorities in the republics as well as at the centre to respect their obligations on human rights, arms control and economic policy. In particular, we urged them to do everything necessary to implement the CFE and START treaties and to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
"We are living through a dramatic revolution in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We have to use all the means at our disposal—the European Community, the CSCE and NATO—to help them build stable democracy in their countries.
"NATO remains the core of our defence. Were we again to face a military threat, NATO would be there to meet it. But NATO is now reaching out to the countries of eastern Europe to help provide stability and a sense of security. All of us at last week's meeting agreed that the continuing American and Canadian presence in Europe is vital both to defending and to promoting peace in Europe. Britain will have a central part in that task both in the alliance and in the European Community. The decisions of the NATO Summit provide important guidelines for the negotiations leading to the European Council in Maastricht.
"I hope the House will welcome the outcome of the summit as a significant contribution to a sound defence and to democratic stability in Europe."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The Rome Summit was a very important occasion in view of the continuing argument within the Community about the place of defence in political union and the general view of Germany and France that the Community should operate independently of NATO.
Will the noble Lord tell the House whether the two principles listed on page 2 of the Statement mean that France and Germany now unequivocally accept the continued presence of the United States in Europe and the continuance of NATO? It certainly seems that the outcome of the summit has left the options open with regard to the development of European security, that the message to the Maastricht Summit is that NATO remains at the heart of our security policy. We welcome that assurance as well as the recognition of the need for a closer link between NATO and the former Warsaw Pact countries.
We further recognise that it will take time for the development from collective to co-operative security to take place, but that this may be achieved if a closer relationship between East and West Europe becomes meaningful and real and is not merely the product of wishful thinking. We further welcome the European commitment to NATO's rapid reaction force and we note that Britain is intended to play an important role

489
in this. Is the noble Lord confident that Britain will be able to make a substantial contribution? Can he guarantee that the percentage of reservists in the British contribution to the RRC will be no more than 20 per cent., as previously understood? Further, can the noble Lord say when further discussions on nuclear and conventional disarmament will begin? In particular, can he say whether Britain, as the major European contributor to NATO's naval forces, requires NATO to respond to Soviet requests for talks on reductions in maritime forces? That is particularly relevant in view of the Norwegian worries about this matter.
We warmly welcome the remarks about Yugoslavia. Can the Minister tell the House when resolutions or proposals are likely to be put to the Security Council of the United Nations, as mentioned in the Statement?
Finally, can the noble Lord say whether the Government intend to support non-proliferation measures mentioned by NATO by actively pursuing negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty and fully implementing United Nations arms embargoes on countries such as Iraq?
The Statement gives us confidence that there is a more likely possibility that agreement can be reached in Maastricht on the defence issue within the argument about political union.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, my noble friends and I are also grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. On the whole, Her Majesty's Government seem to have secured a satisfactory outcome to the NATO Summit. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the result.
The central issue, which is of some considerable delicacy of balance for the future seems to me to be this: for Europe to encourage a precipitate American withdrawal at the present time would seem to be both dangerous for the stability of Europe and to smack of considerable ingratitude for the contribution of the past 45 years. NATO, after all, has been an unusually manifest and triumphant success. There are very few international organisations in the history of the world which have achieved almost completely the objectives for which they were set up. NATO has done that for almost the past half century and it would seem appropriate to pay tribute to its primary architects who were Truman and Acheson, Attlee and Bevin. It has been a remarkable achievement and something for which we owe great gratitude.
Therefore, while I take this view about the great American contribution and the desire that it should continue, I think that at the same time it would be foolish to assume, with the end of the cold war, with other changes, with the weakening of the relative economic position of the United States, with the tilt in the balance of that continental country from east to west—although not likely to be over the turn of the century and beyond—some adjustment of America's degree of commitment across the Atlantic. Therefore, it would seem that the act of statesmanship which has
490
to be performed is not to encourage any precipitate withdrawal but, at the same time, look to the future and realise that Europe will have to take more responsibility for its own defence. I hope that that is the approach of the Government. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal could assure me that that is so.
I have only one small question about Yugoslavia. In general I welcome the approach. The Statement outlines the desirability of taking up sanctions against the aggressive forces within Yugoslavia while taking positive action to benefit those parties who are co-operative in the peace process. It is an admirable objective but quite a difficult one to carry out in practice. I should be grateful if the noble Lord has any thoughts to share about how effective sanctions can be brought against those who are being aggressive while benefiting those who are more anxious to see a peaceful solution brought about.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for their remarks. This undoubtedly was a successful summit. It was accepted that there must be a continued presence of the United States in Europe and a continuing role for NATO. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is right to remind us that things could change by the end of the century but at the same time we are entitled to put considerable reliance on the statement by President Bush that he believes that there should be an unshakeable commitment to European security by America and that so long as American forces are wanted in Europe they will continue in Europe. It is indeed very important, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said, that we should build up closer links between NATO and the former Warsaw Pact countries, and that was an important theme of the discussions.
As a result of the changes that are being made 23,000 members of the British Army will still remain in Germany. I cannot answer the specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, about the opening of talks; neither can I tell him when any particular resolution will be put to the Security Council on Yugoslavia. The decision was made, however, that those members of NATO who are members of the Security Council should certainly promote the decision of the NATO Summit.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, about Yugoslavia was that one does not know how hard the sanctions decided upon at the summit will bite. Somehow or other we have to put in place sanctions which mark the disapproval of the international community and do some good yet leave the way open to helping those parts of Yugoslavia which have actually helped the peace process.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Lord Privy Seal give the House any more details about the new institution of which he informed us—the North Atlantic Co-operation Council. This seems to be a most welcome and significant development. While it is

491
helpful to know that the first meeting of this council will be held in December and attended by the Foreign Secretary, will the Lord Privy Seal say something more about the composition of this council, the likely plan of its activities and how Her Majesty's Government intend to use their influence on what it does?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we certainly intend to exercise as strong an influence as we can on what it does. However, I regret that I cannot answer the noble Lord's specific question. I wish that I could. All I can say is that it was a conclusion of the council that such a co-operation mechanism should be set up. Perhaps the noble Lord will bear with me if I write to him on that specific matter.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, perhaps when he does so the noble Lord will be good enough to write to me too. I was going to ask exactly the same question and add to it a small supplementary question. Why was it decided to set up a new institution, as distinct, for example, from using the CSCE or a sub-committee of the CSCE for this purpose? I am against the proliferation of new institutions. I should have thought that that is a good Conservative view as well. I am sure that there must have been a reason, and I should be interested to know what it is.
I have two further points. When will the rapid reaction force become operational? I know that one or two top appointments have been made. I was a little disturbed to hear that it will be some time before it is thought that a multinational division will be formed and the other divisions will be wholly operational. I should be glad to hear what the position is. Arising out of that, and just as important as the establishment of the force, is the point that its role has not yet been determined. I certainly do not wish to be critical here. What is it to do, where is it to go, in what circumstances and for what purpose? That is clearly as important as setting it up. I realise that some time must be spent in working that out. I hope that agreement can be reached that its role will not necessarily be wholly within the present boundaries of the NATO area. We should look at the possibility of extending it provided we do not alarm people too much and provided we can get agreement on that.
Having said that, I add my congratulations. It is not a question of finding a role for NATO; it has been a question of adapting NATO to the changed circumstances. I am delighted to hear from the noble Lord that it will remain the linchpin of our defence. We must do everything we can to ensure that the Americans understand that this is in their interests as well as in ours.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful for the congratulations offered by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I am not so grateful for the questions, so few of which I seem able to answer. I cannot answer the question as to why it was thought that the North Atlantic Co-operation Council was necessary as a new mechanism. I shall have to come back to the noble Lord 3n that. I do not think that he need worry about
492
the timing of the coming into operation of the rapid reaction force. It is not as though there will be a vacuum before it comes into operation, and NATO deployments will continue until that change comes about. It is right to say that the new role need not necessarily be confined to the NATO area.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. In the Statement my noble friend referred to the fact that NATO would be playing a more positive role in the future. Does that imply that NATO will be more interventionist? If that is the case, can we anticipate that it could in certain circumstances be attempting a pre-emptive role in order to guard against the outbreak of localised incidents, if they can euphemistically be referred to as such, with the example of Yugoslavia in mind? In that context, is NATO likely to look beyond the strict confines of the European territories? It would be most helpful if my noble friend could throw some light on how he sees NATO's more positive posture in the defence of peace and the promotion of security developing.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the questions he has put and for giving me a breathing space. I can now answer the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. The aim is to make the NATO rapid reaction force operational by the end of 1992. The most important decision of the summit was the acceptance that NATO should remain the linchpin of Western security and WEU should be the defence component of political union in Europe. That is the real significance of the talks.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of WEU. Can the noble Lord tell us whether progress has been made towards resolving the ludicrous position whereby France, because of past suspicions, will not take part in the command structure of NATO? We are talking of WEU as the defence component without France being wholly within NATO. To talk of setting up interchangeable staff units and so on is quite ludicrous. Was there any sign at the summit of the French modifying their attitude? That would make matters so much simpler in view of the likely reduction of American forces in Europe.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have no reason to believe that there was discussion at the summit about a change in the present position of France so far as concerns the command structure of NATO. Apart from the communiquéabout the Soviet Union, France agreed with the conclusions reached and the important conclusion about WEU to which I referred a short time ago.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in thanking the Minister

493
for her introduction of the Bill. It is non-controversial and noble Lords on all sides of the House agree with its proposals.
It must be right to remedy a number of the defects in the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979. Those were highlighted in the Peat Marwick McLintock report and have been pressed for in the past by the UKCC. The Bill will provide a better legislative basis for the council to fulfil its regulatory functions more efficiently. It is not often that all professional bodies and noble Lords in all parts of the House welcome a Bill and are in general agreement with it. Perhaps the consultation that took place prior to its introduction is something from which we can learn.
One or two points need to be clarified. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has touched on some of them. There is concern about responsibility for financing nursing, midwifery and health visiting education being transferred to the health authorities and the health boards. We are all aware that when cash becomes tight education very often suffers. It has to because the service has to go on. We therefore welcome the Government's intention to ring-fence the sum of money necessary for education. However, can the Minister say for how long that ring-fencing will continue? I ask that question because ring-fencing is not a method which is very much liked by the Government or indeed by health authorities. Therefore, we wish to receive some reassurance about the length of time it will be in place. We should also like some guarantees that the fact that nurse education and training will be the responsibility of and funded by the RHAs in the future will not lead to a loss of momentum in the development of nurse education.
On Clause 7, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, all the bodies welcome the new power of suspension granted in the Bill, in addition to the power of removal from the register. However, I should like to join the noble Lord in asking that a further remedy should be made available to the UKCC; namely, that of cautioning persons, especially where the allegations of professional misconduct made against them have been proved or admitted and where removal from the register might be considered an excessive penalty. I understand that the idea of cautioning was included in the consultative document published on 30th September this year. I wonder why it is not embodied in the Bill.
I said that all three professional bodies are in agreement with the Bill. However, the Royal College of Midwives has a special concern which I should like to highlight and upon which I ask for the Minister's reassurance. The college feels that there is a weakness in the 1979 Act which has not been remedied in the present Bill. The central council has to consult the midwifery committee on all matters relating to midwifery. The college believes that that relationship should be strengthened and that it should go further to ensure that not only consultation takes place but also that the council should not unreasonably reject any recommendation of the midwifery committee. As the Royal College of Midwives considers itself to be a
494
minority group, I wonder whether the Minister can reassure its members that they need not feel threatened by the new legislation.
I welcome the Bill. We shall do our best to ensure that it passes speedily through the House.
4.3 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Minister for her presentation of the Bill and to speak in its support. I am a nurse, a midwife and a health visitor. Therefore, I have a personal interest in each of the professions named in the Bill. Further, prior to the 1979 legislation, I was chairman of the Joint Board of Clinical Nursing Studies, which was one of the nine bodies amalgamated under the 1979 Act. On the passage of the Act, I had the honour of being asked by the Secretary of State to be the first chairman of the English national board and, by virtue of that, a member of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. It is from that background and experience of what the situation was like prior to the 1979 Act, with the overlap of functions among nine statutory and governmental bodies, the problems of working through the provisions of the legislation and the division of work between the council and the boards, that I should like to support the Bill wholeheartedly.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, paid tribute to the contribution of the professions named in the Bill. I think that it is right and proper, as we are here this afternoon, to say that the education and the regulation of those professions is of paramount importance to the health service and to quality assurance in the National Health Service. Unless nurses, midwives and health visitors are adequately prepared for their roles and unless the professional practice is regulated, the quality of the National Health Service will suffer accordingly.
I believe that there is probably no need to remind your Lordships of the increasing sophistication in medical care these days and of the commensurate need for sophistication in nursing care. We have the impact of high technology and the demographic trends, with increasing numbers of elderly people in the population and their needs and dependency. We then have all the matters stressed in the government publication The Health of the Nation and the need for health promotion and prevention of ill health. Because of all the sophistication, nurses and midwives are playing increasingly important roles.
I have only perhaps to mention a few of the specialties in those professions to indicate the need for their adequate preparation and control. For example, if one looks at the advances in oncology nursing and palliative care, the work of midwives in special care baby units and the work of health visitors in special stress counselling clinics, one sees that they are the backbone of the National Health Service.
Therefore, preparation for those roles is essential. I must pay tribute to the way in which the present UKCC has tackled the needs of the professions. The recommendations contained in the report on Project 2000 for the training and education of nurses to take

495
their place from the year 2000 are now being implemented. I believe that exciting changes are taking place in nursing education which are preparing them for the future. More recently, the UKCC has produced its report on post-registration education and practice and on the future of community education. So the present bodies have been playing an important role it raising the standards of nursing education and in the regulation of the profession.
I believe that the provisions of the Bill outlined by the Minister have great strengths. That the UKCC should become the directly elected body means that the professions will be those to whom the UKCC will he accountable. That strengthens the whole question of self-regulation. The boards will be streamlined and I believe that, through that process, they will become far more effective and efficient. I also believe that, through the provisions of the Bill, the confusion in the division of work between the UKCC and board will be clarified and the whole of the professional conduct work will he taken over by the UKCC.
Not unnaturally, in a profession where Professor Judge called a report on nursing education fissiparous, reservations have been expressed about some of the provisions in the Bill. We have already heard some of them rehearsed in the House this afternoon. I have heard reservations as to the size and power of the boards and their ability to be innovative and responsive to national needs. I believe that the national boards took great pride in making provision for particular national needs. The Bill caters for that by making the UKCC accountable to the professions and therefore responsive to actual needs.
Secondly, I have heard reservations expressed about the loss of joint committees as provided for in Clause 3. In a profession such as health visiting, which before 1979 had its own statutory body, there is a feeling of loss at no longer having a joint committee. I feel that the Bill meets those needs because the council has power to set up committees and it must consult the professions when so doing. We have already heard about the apprehensions felt about the financing of nurse education and of the assurances sough" over ring-fencing.
This Bill gives me the opportunity to raise a matter that I mentioned on 13th February in our debate on the long-term objectives of the NHS. Whereas great progress is being made with Project 2000 and increased efficiency is being achieved with the consolidation of schools of nursing into colleges of nursing, the capital charges involved in bringing together colleges, for instance, in one building, have not been identified. I should be interested to hear an assurance on that point.
Our most important misgiving relates to the role of the UKCC in the regulation of professional conduct and its power not simply to suspend or remove from the register but to issue a formal caution. I regard the Bill as being uncontroversial. Given some clarification, I shall accord it my full support.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should also like to thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing the Bill. I wish to give it my strong support. I have been a member of the UKCC since 1988 and I have taken part in professional conduct committees. I know from first hand experience that the standards that nurses, midwives and health visitors set themselves are extremely high. I support them in their struggle to shake off the image of being angels or handmaidens. We know that they constitute a large. highly trained and scrupulously monitored professional body.
British nursing has laid the foundations for nursing education and practice in many countries. Nearer to home it has spearheaded attempts to improve professional practice within the EC, and as Europe continues to undergo change British nursing will have a key part to play in sharing its considerable achievement and skills.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, said that in this technological age nursing skills require a high degree of sophistication. I agree, but like the professions and indeed the council itself, I also strongly believe that good quality care embraces not only technical skills but compassion, gentleness and respect for one another. British nursing in my view succeeds in maintaining that very delicate balance. I am therefore mystified by the apparent reluctance to introduce limited prescribing for nurses. I think that everyone acknowledges that terminal care sisters and Macmillan nurses are the experts in caring for dying people, and yet they are not credited with the sense and skill to vary the rates of pain-relieving drugs.
Community nurses are not allowed to prescribe the simplest remedies, and they have to suffer the indignity of obtaining a doctor's signature, which also causes the patient prolonged and unnecessary suffering. Some doctors, I know, recognise the nonsense of the situation, and, perhaps one could say wrongly, leave a pile of signed prescriptions for the nurse to fill in. That is clearly not a desirable situation, but I think that it is an understandable practice, given the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I know that my noble friend the Minister will tell me that Touche Ross has been commissioned to report on nurse prescribing, but I wonder what is holding up that measure. Today we are dealing with a Bill of the most responsible nature, but we are absolutely failing to give nurses the responsibility and trust that they deserve.
We should appreciate that many people who need medical attention and advice neither want nor need to see a doctor. When we did a Marplan poll we found that 60 per cent. of people would prefer to see a nurse rather than a doctor for certain matters. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, about the innumerable nursing problems faced by the increasing number of elderly and handicapped people for whom we have to cater at home and by their carers. There are few health centres and surgeries where people are offered direct access to a nurse; yet we know that seeing the doctor is not always the best solution.
Often people need and want time to talk and to be listened to. A busy GP cannot always give them that

497
time. That has long been recognised in other parts of the world. Nurses here want to extend their brief to meet that demand. In this country we have a handful of nurse practitioners, and we urgently need many more to relieve GPs and to extend the choice of advice available.
I know that concern has been expressed today as to the problem with the funding provisions of the Bill; that they are perhaps not sufficiently robust. I also sense a healthy scepticism about the regions; that they are not to be trusted and that if money is not ring fenced, it will be spent elsewhere. I understand those pressures. When I was a district chairman, I experienced the temptation to raid the education and training budget to keep open a ward or a theatre or to progress new developments. But regions are now once removed from the intensity of operational pressures, and the new system, which is bureaucratically defined as Working Paper 10, is designed to ensure that education is protected from short-term expediency of that sort.
From my experience as chairman of the regional health authority for South West Thames, Project 2000, the new educational training scheme, has taken RHAs by storm. It has generated excitement and interest, and some of the best debates in my region have centred upon nurse education and training. In the past two years we have invested over £2 million in Project 2000. Some of that money has come from the centre, but some we have funded locally.
At present we have the ridiculous situation of regions being responsible for ensuring that sufficient skilled nurses are available to work in hospitals and in the community but part of the education budget for the training of the nurses to enable that to happen is being held by the educational boards. I welcome revision of a situation which means that in the North of England we are training too many nurses. That is extravagant not only in resource terms; it is a personal tragedy for young students who have completed years of training only to find that there is no job for them. There is real merit in bringing together the needs of the service and the resources available to ensure that the best quality of health care is given. There is also merit in allowing greater flexibility between pre-registration and post-registration education. On average, nurses used to spend only seven years working in the profession; today they spend 14; and so their needs for post-registration education are different. The NHS must be flexible enough to meet those changing needs. I believe that responsibility at the regional level is about the right level. It is not too far removed from the service and it is not too close to be pressurised.
I hope that we shall give the Bill a safe passage but I share the reservations expressed that there is no provision for a person whose registration has been neither removed nor suspended and who is not subject to a formal caution. I know that the backlog of cases coming before the UKCC is disturbingly long. Some people have to wait over two years to have their cases heard and that is unreasonable. Only 45 per cent. of those who come before the professional conduct
498
committee are removed from the register. We require more flexibility, and I hope that the Minister will respond.
The Bill goes very far, but it does not recognise the demand for nurses to be able to prescribe, to become practitioners even more in their own right. I hope that in the future we shall have a measure before the House that will not only include such a provision but will also provide a nationwide nurse-practitioner service and thereby give a tangible expression to more patient choice as embodied in the Patient's Charter.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am delighted to welcome the Bill and I offer it my strong support. I believe that its provisions represent significant milestones in the history of nursing, midwifery and health visiting. I wish to commend the Government for bringing forward the legislation, which I believe will be warmly welcomed by all the professions concerned.
As my noble friend the Minister has already indicated, the essence of the Bill is to provide for effective professional regulation based on the principles of professional responsibility and accountability. My noble friend has given such a clear exposition that I do not wish to add to it, but merely to highlight a few of the changes which I believe are particularly to be welcomed.
They include, first, the change in composition of the UKCC so that the majority of its members will be elected by the professions. This is a significant reflection of the principle of self-regulation. Secondly, there is the rationalisation of key regulatory functions relating to the maintenance of professional standards and conduct by bringing them together within the remit of the UKCC. Thirdly, there is the streamlining of vital educational functions by vesting important responsibilities in the four appointed national boards.
In my contribution I wish to pay tribute to my professional colleagues whose work has enabled the Government to recognise the profession's maturity in this way. First, I wish warmly to commend the UKCC under the leadership of Dame Audrey Emerton and Mr. Colin Ralph. The functions of the UKCC as laid down in the 1979 Act have been:
"to establish and improve standards of training and professional conduct for nurses, midwives and health visitors".
The council has responded magnificently to those challenges. It has brought into being the entirely new scheme of education for nursing known as Project 2000. This is designed to enable student nurses to have a professional education rather than a basic training; to enable them to understand the theory underpinning practice; and to have the opportunity to think about and to think through the assumptions and implications of their professional responsibilities.
If I may say so, this is a world away from the situation during my training a generation ago. I shall never forget my first ward report from a marvellous ward sister whom I remember with admiration and affection to this day. After giving me what I am pleased to say was a good report, she offered me a kindly word of advice. She said, "In your own

499
interests, nurse, as you go through the hospital, please do not ask so many awkward questions". My noble friends on the Front Bench may think rather regretfully that I have not changed much.
I am pleased that in our professional education we are now providing both pre-registration and post-registration students with an opportunity to think independently and critically about their own professional practice. The UKCC is to be congratulated or the way in which not only Project 2000 has been introduced but also the work it has accomplished on post-registration education designed to improve the knowledge and clinical competence of qualified practitioners. This underlies the philosophy of both the Government and the profession that every nurse, midwife and health visitor should be properly and adequately qualified to fulfil their professional responsibilities.
On the issue of professional standards, the UKCC has issued a number of key documents on professional conduct, confidentiality and accountability. As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, mentioned, as professional practice in health care becomes ever more complex in terms of clinical, ethical, legal and social aspects of care, there will be an indisputable need for better educated and more ethically aware practitioners, a need which the UKCC has been keen to meet along with colleagues on the national boards.
I therefore wish also to offer a brief tribute to the work of the national boards. In my capacity as chairman of the Health Studies Committee of the Council for National Academic Awards, I have had the privilege of undertaking many joint validations of new courses together with national board colleagues. If I may do so without sounding patronising, I wish to express my appreciation of the high standard of work undertaken by board colleagues during validation visits which are often arduous and challenging, given the complexity and the seriousness of the issues at stake. I am therefore pleased that the importance of the continuation of their work is recognised in the Bill.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may turn to three questions which I wish to ask my noble friend. All have been anticipated in the contributions from noble Lord; earlier in the debate. The first relates to the issue of professional conduct and discipline. I think that this was raised by every noble Lord who has spoken so far. I know that colleagues on the UKCC and from the Royal Colleges of Nursing and Midwifery share this concern. I hope that my noble friend will be able to help us.
I refer to the lack of provision on the face of the Bill for the UKCC to have the option of issuing a caution as part of a disciplinary procedure. I understand that this is not deemed to be technically necessary as it may be implied by the provision of more serious sanctions. I also understand, however, that the situation is not clear-cut and could be challenged. Therefore, my colleagues on the UKCC would greatly appreciate this unequivocal and essentially benign provision. They would particularly value it as it would provide them with an appropriate response to situations which do not represent grave misdemeanours and also because it would help to ease the backlog of cases currently
500
awaiting consideration. If my noble friend could offer reassurance on the matter, which I do not believe is contentious, perhaps in the form of a government amendment, I know it would be greatly appreciated and give much relief.
The second query refers to anxiety expressed by the Royal College of Midwives. It was anticipated by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, and also the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I refer to Clause 5(5), the subsection which removes a duty placed upon the national boards in Section 6(2) of the 1979 Act to,
"have proper regard for the interests of all groups within the professions, including minority representation".
As a group with minority representation on a non-elected body, midwives are concerned that nothing should be left to chance. The words were included in the 1979 Act to ensure proper recognition of smaller groups of health care staff outside mainstream nursing. Similar words remain in the 1979 Act relating to the UKCC. The Royal College of Midwives suggests that there is no logic for removing this responsibility from the national boards. I know that any clarification or reassurance my noble friend could give would be most welcome.
Finally, I have a query concerning funding for professional education. Again, this is a point that has already been anticipated by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and other speakers. Clause 5 of the Bill brings to an end the boards' responsibilities for financing nursing, midwifery and health visiting education, transferring it to health authorities or health boards. The Royal College of Nursing—here I must declare an interest as a vice-president of the college—has expressed concern over the proposal. It is concerned because in the past there has been a fear that education is vulnerable, particularly in times of financial cutbacks. The college therefore welcomes the Government's declared intention to ring-fence education funding in England at regional health authority level. However, as I understand it, this commitment is not prescribed in legislation. Can my noble friend therefore give some indication as to how and for how long such ring-fencing is to be ensured and protected?
I reiterate my overall delight in and unequivocal support for this important Bill. In its recognition of the professional maturity of nursing, midwifery and health visiting and in its principled provisions for the extension of their powers of regulation, I believe it will not only enhance the standing and practice of those professions but will also enable them to enhance the quality of care they provide for those for whom they are professionally responsible.
I end by congratulating the Government on bringing this initiative into Parliament, where I hope it will be received with enthusiasm. I also congratulate my professional colleagues on the UKCC and the national boards for their achievements, without which this Bill would not have been possible.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a legal assessor to the UKCC. It is by serving as such an assessor that I have come to know

501
something of the work of that body and also come greatly to admire its efficiency and high standards. Professional standards are constantly protected, defined and raised not just for the sake of it but for the sake of the patients and public being served by these professions. All that is not just a polite platitude but a real reason for saying that if this legislation is wanted by the UKCC we should respect its wishes and speed it on its way.
This Bill reflects the fact that the UKCC well knows its own business and is willing and able to control the affairs of these professions. It is worth raising a cheer for the work of the UKCC during the Gulf War when it enabled nurses to verify and update their registrations. With my limited perspective and with the authoritative speeches that have already been made, I shall not trespass into areas that I do not properly understand. However, I hope the Minister can enlighten us on the timescale of this measure. It seems that the changes proposed in Clause I have to be triggered by approval orders for both a proposal and a scheme under Clause 2. Presumably the existing regime continues unless and until approval orders are made. How long is all that expected to take? In that context, as regards Clause 16, will the Minister confirm that other changes will not be held up while the Clause 1 mechanism is being put into operation?
I now turn to the other proposed changes. As has already been mentioned, Clause 5 provides for a sensible transfer of functions relating to the investigation of misconduct. That has already been described as a streamlining measure. It is to be hoped that it will deal with some of the delay in getting cases before the appropriate committee. Previous speakers have referred to that matter.
Clauses 7 and 8 are also welcome. From my own experience and that of other legal assessors, I can inform the House that the conduct and health committees of the UKCC deal fairly and firmly, but also sympathetically, with a great variety of cases. These often involve detailed consideration of evidence and of almost every type of human weakness, both momentary and long-term. I stand second to none in admiring the way that task is carried out. In cases of misconduct it is never seen as just a punitive exercise; more often the committee tries hard to help the nurse concerned back on to the rails, if at all possible. At the same time the committee pays proper regard to the need to protect the public in general and vulnerable patients in particular.
Hearings are also often an opportunity for the committees publicly to explain and reassert professional standards. Clause 8 is useful in that context as it permits outside representation on the committees. That is a valuable if not an essential measure. I am glad to note that Clause 8 provides that the lay membership of such committees—I hope I may describe them in such terms—will not form a quorum. That reflects the fact that in certain cases technical matters are discussed which have to be left to the professionals to decide.
Clause 7 has already been mentioned. It provides for an additional power of suspension from the
502
register. It adds a useful measure of flexibility to the Bill. However, I am not sure whether it is intended that suspension should be used as a sanction, or as a protective measure pending investigation where a strong prima facie case is raised, or possibly for both purposes. As almost every speaker has mentioned, what is still missing is an express power to caution or reprimand. As things stand, a conduct committee can remove a nurse from the register or make no order at all. There are cases where removal from the register, thereby depriving a nurse of her livelihood, is too severe. However, the alternative of making no order seems too feeble and sends out the wrong signal. We all know that for some years the UKCC has wanted the power to caution or reprimand. Other professional bodies have such a power.
It is frankly absurd that the UKCC should have to put up with conflicting advice. When it wanted the power to caution to be put in the rules it was told it could not have it because there was no basis for it in the primary legislation. Then when it wanted to put the power in the primary legislation in this Bill, the message came back that that was unnecessary as such a power was implicit in the greater power to remove. Lawyers can disagree about almost anything, I am glad to say. However, the lawyers who disagree in this case are not those who will have to pay for the test case to sort this matter out. The position is highly unsatisfactory. To remove all doubt and debate on the topic, there should be a power expressly stated in the Bill to caution or reprimand. When I speak of a power to caution or reprimand, I speak of a power with the formal status of a sanction to be recorded as such. I am not merely talking about an informal ticking off.
Subject to those observations, I join others in welcoming this Bill. I wish it a speedy passage.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, in making this, my second speech in your Lordships' House, I expressed the view early this morning to one who must surely be the greatest authority in your Lordships' House, that one's second parachute jump is worse than the first. He gave me no encouragement. He said, "One's first speech is like jumping from a balloon, one's second is like jumping out of an aeroplane".
The Government have a proud record in the field of nursing. Since 1978–79 not only has the number of nurses and midwives in the UK risen by 69,000, but nurses' pay has increased by 48 per cent. in real terms. Nurses now have an independent pay review body, a modernised career structure and a modern graduate training system. Through Project 2000 there is a new system for training nurses which gives more weight to the process of learning and less to sharing the workload of hospital wards, valuable though that still is.
This Bill is much to be welcomed. It is welcomed by the Royal College of Nursing. That should come as little surprise. In the regular Treasury programme of reviews on non-departmental public bodies, Peat Marwick McLintock made recommendations which were the outcome of thorough research and consultation. That consultation continued formally

503
on the issue of the report, to be followed by informal discussions thereafter between health departments, statutory bodies and NHS management. The result was a radical change in the structure and role of the UK Central Council on the one part and the four national boards on the other.
Two-thirds of the UKCC, its maximum size expanded, is now to be appointed by the Secretary of State on being elected under a new and self-determined electoral scheme proposed by the professions. Only one-third is to be appointed directly by the Secretary of State, and then only from among nurses, midwives, health visitors and medical practitioners, or from among people with qualifications that are considered of value to the council. That is in contrast to the position in the 1979 Act, under which all the 45 members are either appointed by the Secretary of State or nominated by the national boards. The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has come of age. It has had its adulthood acknowledged.
I like this Bill. It is right that these professions should be self-regulating. It is right that the Secretary of State should play a lesser role in the affairs of these professions. It is right that he and Parliament should limit themselves to the safeguarding of the public interest and that there should be a limit amounting to a general reserve power of veto over detailed constitutional and procedural issues. That is efficient and cost-effective management.
Apart from the tidying up of the 1979 Act, the Bill acknowledges the high level of expertise and ability in the professions, and, through it, the Secretary of State professes his faith in their ability efficiently to regulate their own affairs. He has delegated important professional functions to those best able to perceive their needs. Again, in contrast with the 1979 Act, the four new slimline executive national boards will now be appointed by the Secretary of State in each of the four countries. In keeping with the philosophy behind the provisions of the 1990 health Act, they will continue to be accountable to them. Here again, in their clearly defined role of approving institutions, validating courses including further training for those already registered, the boards afford a new and more efficient method of ensuring that appropriate professional training is delivered; and who better than the profession itself to judge what is proper training for itself?
Throughout the NHS there is a new spirit of enthusiasm and self-confidence. My belief is that it is born out of the trust that the Government have placed in the. marked and widespread ability to be found throughout the NHS: ability to stand on one's own feet, to run one's own affairs without unnecessary control from the centre, and to make decisions uncluttered by bureaucracy. The Bill mirrors those concepts so powerfully established in the new National Health Service and Community Care Act. I commend it to the House.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, at a time when the National Health Service is the victim of some untidy and almost uncouth political wrangling, it is good to welcome a Bill that is virtually non-controversial. It is a highly technical Bill. I speak with some trepidation because, although my family has been involved in the administrative side of medical care for seven generations as I have mentioned to your Lordships before, only our younger daughter has had experience of the nursing profession. I have not consulted her regarding the Second Reading of the Bill, but I shall no doubt receive some information from her as we progress towards the remaining stages.
Our daughter is currently a practice nurse for a general practitioner in south-west London. I echo the views of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege who said that practice nurses should be given more responsibility. It is good for them to be able to put into practice the comprehensive training at their disposal to help out hard-pressed and harassed general practitioners, of whom there are certainly many in the London area and in the large conurbations, by performing duties that they have learnt during their training.
Clause 4 goes a long way towards establishing a realistic programme for nurses, midwives and health visitors. I have always been against large committees. The Bill gets the matter about right. It is essential to have on a committee of this kind people who have had experience of, and currently have experience of, the nursing profession.
Perhaps I may say a few words about Clause 7, the part of the Bill that has been most discussed during our Second Reading debate. Nurses, midwives and health visitors perform extremely responsible duties. They become tired; they may at times become irritable. Mistakes are bound to occur. As one who has spent all his working life in the insurance industry, I know of some of the appalling cases of malpractice that have occurred, particularly in America. However, such cases are rare in this country and, although at present we have an adequate supply of nurses, particularly in the conurbations, we cannot afford to lose good nurses and midwives who have made a mistake which was not serious and not intentional. I therefore believe that the Government's intention to introduce a cautionary procedure will be implemented so that cases which do not involve a serious act of misconduct are treated with reasonable leniency. Obviously, there may be a few cases in which harsher penalties are needed.
We have here a Bill which will help the nursing and midwifery profession as a whole. We come back to the question of nurses' pay and accommodation and nursing shortages. The problems are not confined to this country. I recently spoke at a conference in Copenhagen when the question of nursing shortages, particularly with regard to elderly people, and midwifery shortages, was raised. We have all been here before, but the Bill will go a long way towards establishing a proper organisation for those hard working and dedicated people.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate on a Bill of great importance to the nursing professions. We have had contributions from people who know what they are talking about, perhaps best exemplified by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff. I had not realised that she represents all three branches of the profession to which the Bill applies. I am also glad that my noble friend Lord Harmsworth decided to try jumping out of an aeroplane, having so successfully landed from his original balloon jump.
I am also grateful for the general welcome given to the Bill and for the many valuable points made, all of which have demonstrated your Lordships' interest and concern in the future of nursing and your understanding of the valuable role that the professions play and will continue to play in the challenging times ahead. I join wholeheartedly with all your Lordships in saying once again that we all acknowledge and appreciate the work of nurses, midwives and health visitors.
Turning to specific issues and questions, perhaps I may start with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who suggested that we might write into the Bill a requirement for consultation with regard to Clause 1(4)(b). Such appointments are already subject to the provisions of Clause 1(5). Given the extensive consultations, which worked so well in the preparation of the Bill, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would hardly wish to make appointments of such importance without proper consultation with those who have an interest. I can and do undertake that he will do so. That undertaking therefore is clearly on the record. However, in our view, it is undesirable to prescribe in legislation whom he should consult on particular appointments. We feel that there is a need for maximum flexibility. That is a basic principle underlying all the provisions of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and all noble Lords who contributed to the debate referred to the power to caution in relation to Clause 7 of the Bill. Our legal advice is that the council, as the body charged with hearing and determining proceedings for a person's removal from the register, already has the power to caution. We are therefore advised that it is not necessary to write anything into the Bill. I understood that the council also received further legal advice which corresponded to that of parliamentary counsel. As a fellow lawyer, I bow and do not wish to disagree with the views expressed on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, except perhaps to quote again the dictum of an ancestor of one of his noble friends, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who in a slightly different context said: "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change". Presumably, if it is not necessary to write something in, it is necessary not to write it in. Bearing in mind the force of the arguments that have been expressed in the course of today's debate, I undertake to look again into the question.
Still on the subject of Clause 7 and the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to the power of suspension, in addition to the present power to
506
remove from the register, it is intended that this power should be used where a nurse, midwife or health visitor is deemed by the health committee of the UKCC for medical reasons to be unfit to practice.
A number of noble Lords raised the point about midwifery representation on the boards in connection with the provisions of Clause 4(4), which specifies that the Secretary of State shall secure that the majority of members of a national board are registered nurses, midwives or health visitors. We have made every effort to make clear throughout the negotiations with the statutory bodies that the Government will wish to ensure that the interests and expertise of each of the three professions are adequately represented. However, it is also necessary to provide for boards of wider expertise, not only clinical but teaching and management expertise. It may not therefore be appropriate to guarantee that a practising midwife or a health visitor must be a member of each board. I recognise the preoccupations voiced by my noble friends and other noble Lords about minority representation on the boards and the references to the amendment which is made by Clause 5 to Section 6(2) of the 1979 Act.
We know that the statutory bodies are concerned about the impact that that could have on minority groups. They may, and clearly some of them do, feel vulnerable and disadvantaged without the protection previously provided. Nevertheless, the amendment was made because, in the view of the health departments, the phrase no longer has any relevance when boards cease to be bodies elected by the membership. National boards are required to exercise their functions in accordance with the rules of the council, which itself is required to have a proper regard for all minority interests. In our view that provides sufficient protection for all groups within the professions.
With regard to ring-fencing or funding of education and training, which we all acknowledge is of great importance, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege was very reassuring as to the role of the regional health authorities, particularly as considerable change is taking place in the whole area. The Secretary of State's announcement of government decisions on the two consultation exercises—one on the Peat Marwick McLintock review of UKCC and the four national boards, and the other on Working Paper 10—made it clear that it was for employers to determine their needs for qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff. That is why regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, identified the education and training costs required to produce key, qualified staff in those areas and have protected them at regional level.
The ring-fencing aspect enables those costs to be removed from the contracting arrangements between purchasers and providers under the National Health Service reforms. In reply to the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and by my noble friend Lady Cox, the length of time that the ring-fencing will be in place will be as long as it proves necessary. We are satisfied currently that regional health authorities are taking very seriously their

507
responsibilities under Working Paper 10 but I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue carefully to monitor the position.
Perhaps while I am on the subject of education and training, I may refer to the other question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, about the capital costs for merging colleges of nursing. She suggested that they should be met by the department. We have limited centrally top slice funds to transitional costs of moving to Project 2000, not the costs of merging colleges as such, which health authorities themselves must meet. But a special one-off grant was made this year to the regions to help with the miscellaneous costs of moving to Project 2000. Again, that did not include capital as such but it included a contribution, for example, to additional library costs.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege also asked about the need for many more practice nurses. We agree that the role of nurse practitioners is vital and should increase, if not perhaps within the scope of this Bill. But we are aware of the need, and their numbers will undoubtedly increase. The current work being carried out in the UKCC on the subject of post-registration training, mentioned in its consultative document on community nursing, will, we believe, contribute to that increase.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, suggested strengthening the power of the UKCC midwifery committee. At present there is no evidence that the current situation, whereby the UKCC is required to consult the midwifery committee on midwifery matters, which does not restrict its powers any further, has not worked. Since the Bill is not intended to change the UKCC's role vis-à-vis any of the three professions there is no need to make any additional arrangement in that respect.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege raised another matter which is outside the scope of the Bill, namely, limited prescribing by nurses. We understand the anxieties about delay, but consultations with relevant agencies are continuing. We hope and expect that an announcement will be made in the not too distant future. Although it is not a matter for this Bill I shall pass on my noble friend's remarks to my colleagues in the Department of Health.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned implementation. We hope that if the Bill is enacted as speedily as possible—and I understand that all of your Lord hips hope that it will be—the reconstituted bodies will take office in April 1993. That is a tight timetable. I can confirm that Clause 14 provides that the existing council and board can continue in office until the new arrangements take effect.
In its reconstitution of the statutory bodies for nursing, midwifery and health visiting, the implementation of which will provide increased efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of those bodies and more direct accountability to the nursing professions which they represent, I believe that the Bill marks a milestone in the history of nursing. It can truly be said that it also represents the coming of age of the professions, and in that I echo the remarks made by some of my noble friends. I commend the Bill to the House.
508
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Tobacco Products Labelling (Safety) Regulations 1991 (SI 1991/1530)
5.2 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to amend the regulations to require United Kingdom tobacco manufacturers to print health warnings on packets of cigarettes which would not exceed in their import the health warnings currently required under European Community law.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is necessary to have a debate on this matter, not only because of the importance of the issue itself but also because there was no debate in the House of Commons. It is true that there was a cross-party Early Day Motion critical of the regulations and asking that they be withdrawn, but unfortunately there was no discussion of the matter in another place and therefore there was no vote upon the issue. Therefore, in my view it is incumbent on this House to make good that deficiency of debate. That is one of the reasons why I have raised the question today and I hope that we shall have a good, open and informative debate on the matter.
In my view, too many orders which affect the public and the best interests of British business slip through without proper debate. It is often only when it is too late that their baleful effects are understood by Members of Parliament and the country generally. At least on this occasion some of the arguments against the regulations can be deployed and placed on the parliamentary record.
The major argument against the regulations is not on the grounds of health but on the basis that they discriminate against British tobacco manufacturers and put jobs at risk. That is because the regulations impose upon British manufacturers the duty to print on tobacco packaging health warnings which are larger and more stark than those which our competitors are required to print. For example, the United Kingdom is the only EC member to propose the mandatory use of the words "smoking kills" on cigarette packets. Under the regulations the size of the health warning is 50 per cent. larger than required by the EC directive.
Before I deal with the likely adverse effects on the United Kingdom tobacco industry I should like to say a few words about one of the new messages, to which I have already referred. That message will state boldly and starkly, "smoking kills". The implication of that message is that everyone who smokes will be killed by smoking. That is patently untrue. Some smokers may die prematurely of what is commonly known as a smoking-related disease, but other smokers will not. Some smokers will die from other causes, not from smoking-related diseases. Furthermore, non-smokers who have never been near a cigarette in their lives will die of so-called smoking-related diseases.
As an example, perhaps I may quote a snippet which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 1st November 1991. It is headed "Smoker is 106". The item goes on to say:
"Mr. William Cornish smoked his pipe as he celebrated his 106th birthday yesterday. Mr. Cornish, of Budleigh Salterton, Devon, has been smoking for 80 years. He said, 'It's never done me any harm"'.
It looks as though it will not do him any harm. He has done very well and has lived much longer than his three score years and ten. Clearly smoking has not killed him.
How far down the road will we go with this type of labelling? Excess alcohol causes death in many people. It is a major factor in murder and violence. Are all beer cans and spirit and wine bottles to be labelled, "drinking kills"? A couple of weeks ago I looked at the road accident statistics for 1990. I was surprised by the figures. Some 5,000 people were killed and no fewer than 337,000 were injured on our roads in one year. Indeed, 60,000 of the injuries were very serious and in many cases will result in paralysis for life. In the light of that carnage is it suggested that 6 per cent. of a car's surface should be covered with a label stating, "cars kill"? Of course not. Yet it would follow logically from the regulations which we are discussing today that cars should be so labelled.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He will have heard the report on the radio this morning that in the city of Edinburgh pollution levels were monitored at 14 different points within the city and it was found that at 13 points the pollution levels were in excess of the level recommended by the EC in regulations. That is in the open air and, therefore, is one example of pollution for which smokers cannot be blamed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that intervention. I heard that news this morning and that roadside tests showed a high excess of nitrogen oxide in the air in Edinburgh. That does not occur only in Edinburgh. People cannot see exhaust fumes, which are invisible, and therefore the effects are largely ignored. Nevertheless, they exist and the baleful effects are felt by people living along the roads and using the roads. Many bus companies are banning smoking on buses but I venture to suggest that some passengers may suffer more harm as a result of inhaling diesel fumes while waiting for a bus than while sitting on the top deck where smoking is allowed.
Animal fats are said to be the major cause of coronary heart disease yet no one suggests that every pack of butter, cheese, fatty bacon, and so forth, should carry a label declaring "animal fat kills". They would be laughed out of court if they did so. Nevertheless, according to the medical profession animal fats are the major cause of coronary heart disease. The fact is that the message "smoking kills" is incorrect and misleading. It is reprehensible that the Government should force tobacco manufacturers to adopt labelling standards which in the case of other products would be unacceptable, if not illegal.
510
I turn to the main arguments against the regulations. First, the regulations discriminate against the United Kingdom's tobacco industry and in favour of our overseas competitors. In the face of that it is remarkable that the Department of Trade and Industry has not uttered a word about them. What is it doing to protect our manufacturing industry? It is a manufacturing industry, whether people like it or not. Indeed, was the Department of Trade even consulted before the regulations were made? The Secretary of State—God bless him—waxed eloquently at the Conservative Party conference and at the CBI conference last week about exports and the way in which the Government wanted to help exporters to increase their exports. In this case they are doing the reverse; they are not helping our exporters but they are helping the importers.
I must be fair and even-handed. This is not a party political matter. The official Opposition has been silent about these regulations and presumably its silence indicates assent. I can only express my surprise that the Labour Party, concerned as it is and as it should be about unemployment, especially in depressed areas, has not raised questions about the effect of these regulations on employment.
The regulations go much further than the EC directive requires in respect of United Kingdom manufacturers. The EC directive does not allow any member state to prevent the import of any tobacco product which conforms with its directive. Therefore, we cannot ban the import of cigarettes because they do not carry the health warning required under these regulations. Imported cigarettes and tobacco products will carry less stringent health warnings, as regards their size and wording, than UK-manufactured products. If the warning means anything it is bound to encourage people to smoke foreign-made cigarettes and tobacco products rather than British-made products because the labelling will give the impression that foreign cigarettes are safer than British cigarettes. Nothing could be dafter than that. Even the Minister is smiling—I believe she agrees that the situation is daft, but we must wait and see.
The irony is that should United Kingdom companies transfer cigarette manufacture to outside the United Kingdom they will not be subject to these regulations. Therefore, the regulations provide an incentive for manufacturers to move their businesses abroad with the resultant loss of British jobs and adverse consequences to the British balance of payments. The positive surplus on the British balance of trade in tobacco is no less than £513 million per year; that is, half a billion pounds a year. I sincerely hope that manufacturers will not move their production abroad. I implore them not to do so but nevertheless the risk will exist. If Rothmans decided to move its production abroad 1,300 jobs could be lost in the North East, which is already a depressed area. Surely we do not want that; surely that is not what we are after.
I have tried to show why I believe that the regulations are misconceived and more draconian than is necessary or desirable. I hope only that those who wish to see the British manufacturing industry

511
treated fairly and not worse than its overseas competitors and who are concerned with preserving jobs will deplore the regulations and make clear to the Government that they should think again and withdraw them. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to amend the regulations to require United Kingdom tobacco manufacturers to print health warnings on packets of cigarettes which would not exceed in their import the health warnings currently required under European Community law. —(Lord Stoddart of Swindon.)
5.16 p.m.
Lard Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I speak as a non-smoker but one who does not like to see an industry that serves this country well being picked on and clobbered. Under the departmental leadership of William Waldegrave and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, the Government believe that it is necessary to introduce these new regulations to harmonise labelling in the EC. They wish to produce a minimum standard for the size of the warning label, doubling the area from 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. of the packet. I cannot think of a better description than that used by the Foreign Secretary; he said that the EC is tinkering. Why in logic is it necessary to have the same size this, that and the other? If the Government would get on with some of the major problems besetting the EC, such as the CAP, and concentrate on them we should all be much better off.
I can see the situation of someone in the Ministry saying, "While we are doing this, and goodness knows why we should hurry, wouldn't it be a good idea to make it even bigger? Why don't we do even better than all the pathological people who are mad against smoking and make the label 50 per cent. bigger than anyone le else's? We shall have even more people saying that smoking kills". I ask my noble friend to consider whether it is really necessary to introduce this regulation.
We have managed very well under the voluntary agreement. One of the good aspects of the industry is that a voluntary agreement has existed for 20 years. It was last renewed two months ago. On occasions I have believed that the industry has gone too far in agreeing to emotional labelling such as "smoking kills". That is not the case in 99.9 per cent. of deaths. One might put the warning on every car because cars kill far more often than tobacco. The regulations will override the satisfactory voluntary agreements that have existed for so long.
The UK tobacco industry has done pretty well. It employs a total of 13,000 people in areas of high unemployment. It has a balance of payments of £500 million. It collects for the Treasury £7.5 billion in tax each year. That is a high yield of tax. Incidentally, we pay higher taxes on cigarettes than any of the main 10 countries. Of the 12, Denmark is the only country which imposes higher taxes on its cigarettes than we do.
During the recession British industry is struggling to keep its head above the problems. One would hope that Ministers, and every civil servant who gallantly
512
and conscientiously serves his Ministry, are doing everything possible at this time to help British industry wherever it is creating wealth, but not a bit of it. This trivial measure is brought forward to add to the problems of the industry.
We have been changing curricula in our schools. It would be rather nice to change curricula in the training of our civil servants. They should spend a month in France to see how the French look after their national industries. They could then come back and indoctrinate others. British industry, even if it is part of the EC, must give itself an extremely high priority. Each civil servant should be dedicated to ensuring the best for British interests over and above EC interests.
I understand that my noble friend has been in Brussels. The tobacco industry in the EC seems to be in a tremendous mess. It would make a very good Marx Brothers film if anyone were available to write it. The CAP receives £1,000 million per year to help tobacco growers in the EC, which are mainly in Greece but there are some in France and Germany. Much of the tobacco produced with the aid of that incentive is not very good to smoke and is not popular to European taste. Having subsidised its growth, we then subsidise it again and sell it to third world countries where there is no health warning and it is acceptable to less sophisticated tastes. It is astonishing. We spend £1,000 million per year in encouraging people to grow tobacco. We cannot sell a lot of that so it is sold to third world countries. That is a strange, hypocritical approach.
When my noble friend was in Brussels she looked at the matter of labelling and also at the suggestion that all advertising of tobacco should be banned. That is one example of tinkering or subsidiarity. That is a strange word which means that as much as possible should be done at the circumference of the circle and as little as possible should be done at the centre. I gain the impression that the centre grows in strength and numbers and that tinkering takes place all the time.
I asked the Minister to look at what happened when advertising was banned altogether. For example, the Italian industry has gone to the European Court of Justice on the size of labels. It is proposed to increase the area of the labels not from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent., which my noble friend is doing, but from 4 per cent. to 8 per cent. The proposal is for two labels on each pack. The appeal has been put forward to see whether that is legal.
When considering banning the advertising of tobacco one should look at the example of Norway. Norway stopped all advertising of tobacco 16 years ago; Finland banned it 13 years ago and Portugal banned it 10 years ago. It is strange but those are the only three countries in the EC where tobacco smoking has increased. Therefore, it does not seem to me that this is a worthwhile operation for the EC to undertake. This country has had voluntary agreements which were carried out fairly sensibly, although I found them to be rather extreme. In this country tobacco smoking has decreased by 25 per cent. That is a marked contrast. Why look in the crystal ball when one can read the record?
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken in one sense. Indeed, smoking has decreased by 25 per cent. but in the past six years it has remained almost stationary at 31 per cent.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I was quoting the figure over the past 10 years, but I note what the noble Lord says. If the Government discriminate against tobacco companies the companies will not remain competitive. As the noble Lord said, imports from the EC will be encouraged and increased. None of those imports will carry health warnings to the higher standards that we are now setting. They will carry their own local health warnings, which are much less severe. Several companies have production units overseas. If we continue to turn the screw they will transfer production overseas. I therefore ask why this should be done.
Many people have been led to believe through warnings and newspaper reports that people die from so-called passive smoking. In the United States in particular, where they love legislation and lawyers love business, people have tried hard to prove that someone has died from passive smoking, but have never yet succeeded. If it is proved I may revise my thoughts. However people are frightened into believing that by breathing in someone else's smoke they are liable to suffer from an oncoming cancer. That is untrue and not proven. It is just an emotional reaction.
Many housewives have tedious chores. They have to do the cooking, which is sometimes boring. I know that when my wife is bored or is cooking she smokes a cigarette. I believe that she smokes 10 per week. As a result of that she is more relaxed and at peace. It calms and comforts her. That must apply to millions of people who have boring tasks to undertake.
I am reminded of a tale where a man aged 70 or so went to see his doctor. He asked the doctor for an overhaul. At the end the doctor said, "I strongly recommend that at your age you give up all smoking and drinking". The man said, "Oh doctor, will I live longer?" The doctor replied, "No, but it will seem a hell of a lot longer". I cannot help but believe that if we continue to take this line, life will become very boring indeed.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, like the noble Lord I am a non-smoker and in that sense, I am neutral. However, is he telling us that all the medical conclusions about the dangers of smoking are nonsense?
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, of course I am not. I would not be so ridiculous. I am trained as a physicist. I look at results and deduce what is causing them. All my life I have looked at the facts, which is why I quoted the facts about advertising. Of course, I am not saying that all the medical conclusions are nonsense. However, people—and there are one or two in this House who are not here today—become pathological about smoking. They nearly spit. I have met people who have said, "Oh, you are smoking. How dare you come into this room?" That is the result of a campaign which we have all seen over the years.
514
It was said that sugar is bad for us and then it was said that sweeteners are bad for us. I had a constituent who had 6,000 tonnes of sweeteners on the ocean waiting to dock here when suddenly the government of the day decided that they were bad for health although I am glad to say that, in the end, they relented and allowed the consignment to dock. One hears that butter is bad or Flora is bad. We are always being told such things. I take them with a grain of salt, if not a grain of aspirin.
I ask the Government to reconsider this matter even at this late stage. Is it really necessary to make the life of this industry more difficult by carrying out these unnecessary measures.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to passive smoking and the lack of proof that anyone had died as a result of a person having smoked nearby. Has the noble Lord read the report about the research recently completed in California which was reported in the newspapers today? That shows that those who live in the same household as a smoker are 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. more likely to die of cancer than those who live in homes where there is no smoker. In one form of cancer death was 50 per cent. more likely. Yes, with statistics it is difficult to prove in any one case. Nevertheless, the statistics are sound.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says. I have not yet read the report but I shall read it. However, one case in the world does not prove that passive smoking is a serious danger. It is not.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, it is possible that I shall find it necessary to leave before the end of the debate in order to address the annual banquet of the Bristol licensed victuallers. Noble Lords interested in racing will agree that to speak on tobacco at tea-time and on the drink industry in the evening is a notable double. Therefore I hope I shall be forgiven should I have to leave.
My interest in the subject is known but I shall rehearse it again. For 17 years I had the honour of representing the constituency of Bristol, South. At that time it contained a large concentration of people who worked in the tobacco industry and an even larger concentration of people who were pensioners of the tobacco industry. I am happy to tell the House that when the matter of my suitability was put to the test, the electorate returned me with substantial minorities —sorry, majorities. I fear I am speaking of my next point. I was only removed by a combination of hard Left militants who decided that I was not a fit and proper person to be a public representative.
I have never cavilled about the medical evidence on smoking. Shortly after I entered the other place I served on the Committee on the late Sir Gerald Nabarro's smoking Bill and moved an amendment which led to the display of the tar and nicotine tables, which should now be seen in all tobacconists. Needless to say, the tobacco industry claimed the credit for that after I had done the donkey work; that is life as we know it.

515
I have followed the industry carefully. I have always said that people who do not give up smoking should be guided to forms of smoking which are less hazardous. My noble friend Lord Stoddart very ably outlined the disadvantages of the British tobacco industry under the regulations. While people continue to smoke it is invidious that our indigenous tobacco industry should be penalised at the expense of foreign imports. I should have thought that that was so self-evident that my noble friend's remarks stand on that point.
I return to a theme I have raised in your Lordships' House before today. In our society there are a number of middle-class zealots who lead an extremely comfortable life. When they see others in society who are perhaps not so well placed as themselves, they ease possible feelings of guilt by engaging in campaigns against what they regard as social evils. In that way they feel that they expiate any pangs of conscience that they may suffer for enjoying an extremely comfortable life. Once again the regulations are the result of campaigning by zealots who are trying to ease their middle-class consciences.
In his introductory remarks my noble friend said that there had been no debate on the matter in the House of Commons. However, these matters tend to slip through. The tobacco industry is not everybody's cup of tea these days and not everyone feels able to stand up and say something about it. I sometimes feel that questions in regard to the tobacco industry are put forward as trail blazers for possible other measures.
In the last Session of Parliament we had the Bill, now an Act, regarding the protection of young people under age from the sale of tobacco. That Bill went through all its stages in the Commons and in your Lordships' House until the Third Reading, when for the first time I raised the point that the only way in which the Bill could be enforced was by inspectors taking round armies of young children and sending them into tobacconists' shops to see whether they could persuade the shopkeeper to break the law. I shall not weary the House with more details. But it seems to me that if it is necessary to resort to that kind of measure in order to ensure that the legislation is enforced, we are going down a very slippery road.
I do not believe that tightening up on tobacco legislation will be the end of the story. Next it will be the drink industry; those involved will become a persecuted group. As my noble friend said in his introductory remarks, it will be alcohol next, then certain foods and certain practices. We shall become not only a nanny state but will employ an army of people: to go round to ensure that the various laws are being enforced. The whole thing is becoming nonsense. We need to keep a sense of proportion. We are in danger of widening the legislation too far.
We are now informed that snuff must be labelled. Are we really being told that in the House of Commons, after all these years, the box of snuff which is kept in the Doorkeeper's Chair so that Members may have a pinch if they wish, must be labelled so that Members will pause for a moment to think, "Is it all right? Should I have another sniff?". What is society
516
coming to? Things can be carried too far and I hope your Lordships will keep a careful eye on where we are going.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I hope that I am not a pathological zealot. It is about time we heard from the alternate sponsor, health versus industry. As a member of the Health Education Authority I offer my warmest congratulations to the Government on choosing the strongest warnings from the European Community list. Perhaps I should also congratulate the Department of Trade and Industry. The Government consulted fully on the draft regulations and health organisations agreed that the warnings should be larger than the EC minimum.
Smoking kills. Are noble Lords aware that it kills 110,000 people in the United Kingdom each year? That is around one in four smokers. I am not giving your Lordships anecdotes; I am repeating the results of serious medical research. Moreover, tobacco is the only major consumer product which is unsafe when used as the manufacturers intended. It must be right that cigarette packets should carry clear warnings of the dangers in the strongest possible terms.
When I was a teacher I became increasingly worried at the number of teenage girls and young women who smoked. The Health Education Authority recently produced a powerful campaign of short films to highlight what an unattractive and anti-social habit smoking is. Yet—I hesitate to use the word in this Chamber and am sorry if I give offence—do noble Lords realise that among young people aged 17, 22 per cent. of boys are regular smokers and 24 per cent. of girls? The figures at the age of 15 are more shocking. Among boys aged 15, 17 per cent. are regular smokers—that is, those who smoke one cigarette a week—and for 15 year-old girls the rate is still 24 per cent. We should do everything we possibly can to help them not take up the habit.
Unfortunately, recent research shows that it is not only smokers who suffer but also those who inhale the smoke, even though they may not smoke themselves. I ask my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing to look at the front page of today's Guardian which states:
"Non-smoking women who live with a smoker have a 50 per cent. higher chance of developing one form of lung cancer than if their partners did not smoke".
These are the latest findings from the American Association for Cancer Research. I fully support the Government's decision to make tobacco warnings more prominent. I consider it wrong of the noble Lord to try to reverse a decision made to protect the nation's health.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the tobacco industry and Her Majesty's Government appeared to me to have a sensible and most respectable system of dealing with tobacco advertising through the well-established voluntary agreement system. There has been 20 years of co-operation between the tobacco industry and the Government, each bearing in mind the seriousness of the subject and the health risks involved. These talks on the agreement have covered

517
health risks, the future of the tobacco industry and jobs, freedom of choice versus state moralising and consideration of the various pressures from the British Medical Association, ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) and the tobacco companies. There are a whole host of factors involved in determining how to warn smokers of any health risks inherent in smoking tobacco.
Somehow all this may fall apart. I believe that the Government are embarking on a course which will not only jeopardise the voluntary agreement system but also cause unnecessary friction between the tobacco industry and the Department of Health. I gather that the recent voluntary agreement, which can run until June 1994, contains provisions to cut advertising on shop fronts by 50 per cent. over that period. That is on top of the recent spend of £3.5 million on a campaign by the tobacco industry against illegal sales by retailers to children under 16.
Incidentally, as has already been mentioned, the banning of tobacco advertising by law does not necessarily stop people smoking. There have been tobacco advertising bans in many countries over the past 10 years. The result has been that in France smoking or tobacco consumption has risen by 5 per cent.; in Portugal by 7 per cent. and in Italy by 8 per cent. In Norway consumption has risen by 50 per cent. In the United Kingdom, under the voluntary agreement, smoking has declined over that period by 29 per cent. In Holland—another country operating the voluntary agreement—tobacco consumption has declined by 41 per cent.
What is unfathomable is the Government's determination to prove tougher on tobacco advertising than their European counterparts. These government regulations mean that the health warnings on British cigarette packets will be in stronger language, including "smoking kills", with the size of the warnings 50 per cent. larger than that decreed by the EC directive. I believe that this will result in some dire consequences of which the Government should be aware.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sorry to keep intervening in this way, but my noble friend said something that is inaccurate. He said that the EC decrees that the warning should be only 4 per cent. of the space on the cigarette packet. The EC states that it should be at least 4 per cent. thus allowing member countries to have a larger health warning if they wish. Italy and the United Kingdom have decided to require that.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am sorry to disturb my noble friend, but I never mentioned 4 per cent. in connection with the Common Market directive. I said, and I repeat, that the Government's recommendations are to increase the size of the warnings on packets to 50 per cent. above what the Common Market recommends and to use stronger language as well. I said that I believe that this will result in some dire consequences of which the Government should be aware. These regulations discriminate against United Kingdom-produced
518
tobacco products, especially cigarettes, and will greatly assist cheaper cigarette imports from Europe, especially Portugal, Spain and Greece.
The wording and the size of the warnings go much further than is required or is necessary to implement the EC directive. They will be stark warnings, increased in size and much more prominent, but cigarettes imported in packets from Europe will not have such stark and large warnings. I believe that this stance will harm the British tobacco industry, threaten more tobacco workers' jobs and disturb what has been a most responsible and co-operative voluntary agreement.
But the real danger, as I see it, is to place in jeopardy the health of many young smokers, most of them school children and the young unemployed who are not really able to afford the higher priced quality, low tar, British cigarettes. They will be looking for the cheaper brands. That means the imported cigarettes of high tar content without the same serious warnings on packs compared with the United Kingdom cigarette packets. Those imports may well flood the country with a distinctly increased danger to the health of young smokers especially the 300,000 children under 16 years of age. It will all be brought about by Her Majesty's Government intent on introducing much tougher regulations than any other EC country.
In that regard I ought to warn that when the single European market is established, British smokers will be able to buy unlimited cigarettes, cigars and tobacco at less than half British prices. For example, Portugal produces cigarettes at 30 pence per packet compared with £2 per packet in the United Kingdom. The imports will be cheap, high tar and consequently much more dangerous, unhealthy and high risk than the British products.
I know and emphasise that these youngsters and others should not be smoking cigarettes. Adults can please themselves: they have the freedom and the right to enjoy smoking tobacco. It is not for us to tell them how to live their lives. Indeed there is already too much dictatorship on the issue. But the fact is that youngsters are smoking in large numbers. It is right that they should be aware of the consequences. However, these regulations, insisting on the more frightening slogans and the increased size of the warnings—greater than the EC directive demands—are destined not only to harm our own tobacco industry and cut jobs, but also, through the encouragement of imports of high tar cigarettes, cheaply produced and of poor quality, a badly researched tobacco product compared with the less damaging British product, to place thousands of our youngsters at greater risk. I do not know why the Government are pursuing this policy and how it can be seriously defended.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I shall be very brief because most of the things I had to say have already been said. I must declare an interest as a smoker, having been smoking steadily and regularly

519
for at least 60 years. I have not reached 106 like the friend of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, but I hope that I shall.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Like myself, people employed in the United Kingdom tobacco and related industries will be strongly opposed to these regulations. They have seen a progressive decline in their numbers since 1979 caused by a combination of excessive taxation of tobacco products and company rationalisations, the latter in large part caused by the former. In 1979 there were 40,000 people directly employed in the tobacco industry. Today there are 12,000—less than one third of that number. Now, at a time of very high unemployment, Her Majesty's Government would impose much stronger health warnings than those necessary to implement the directive. This can only put our industry into an even worse position vis-à-vis foreign competition.
At the beginning of this year import penetration by cheaper, lower quality, foreign cigarettes amounted to 8.5 per cent. It was expected to grow to 9.5 per cent. by the year end. One wonders how much higher it will be if these regulations are enforced.
I ask your Lordships to consider this matter from the point of view of employees in the industry. They know that cigarettes are the most highly taxed consumer product in this country and that they are taxed more highly than in any other EC country—except Denmark, as other noble Lords have said. They know that their industry was responsible for net exports of £640 million in 1990 and contributed £7.5 billion in tobacco tax to the Exchequer. Now, having seen their numbers decimated in the past 12 years they can only regard these regulations with dismay. I realise that Her Majesty's Government justify these regulations on health grounds. However, I have believed until now that the philosophy of my party was in favour of choice—the freedom to choose.
We all get pretty fed up with being told not to eat this, that and the other, with having well tried medicinal products removed from the market place and with pettifogging directives from the bureaucrats in Brussels. But for the Government to go even further than those bureaucrats—about whom the Government have been known to complain from time to time—is really too much to bear.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate because it gives your Lordships a further opportunity to debate the issue of smoking versus health. Last Wednesday I spent a little time discussing how promotion of tobacco perpetuates the habit and I tried to persuade the noble Baroness not to oppose the draft European Community directive restricting tobacco advertising which was discussed yesterday in Brussels. I do not think that I was successful, but at least the issue will now go forward to be discussed and debated by the European Parliament. Members of the European
520
Parliament will doubtless be subject to much subtle, skilful lobbying by the tobacco industry in the intervening months.
My noble friend always argues his case vehemently and well. Often he is alone in his viewpoint, but in moving his amendments to weaken my Bill to protect children and young persons from tobacco in the last Session he was joined—as he was this afternoon—by my noble friend Lord Cocks. During that previous debate I began to feel that I was faced with a pair of terrible twins. Now I see that they have been joined by another of my noble friends, Lord Mason of Barnsley —the twins have become triplets. To continue with the analogy, perhaps I should also note noble Lords opposite who have also supported his position, so that now I have in my demonology a group of quaint, querulous quintuplets. Quaint, because like dinosaurs they are out of date and living in a hostile environment (certainly a hostile environment outside this House) which recognises the ghastly impact of smoking on health.
I believe that it is my role as a doctor to point out that cigarette smoke is a slow poison which, as the noble Baroness said, eventually kills one in four people who smoke habitually over a period of years. I think with 100,000 people killed by a habit it is reasonable to say that it "kills", not just that it "can kill", because people who do not want to read the message will say, "Ah well, it can kill but it won't kill me, so it's all right". "Kills" is the message which has an impact. Cigarette smoke contains a unique mixture of a large number of noxious substances including carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, arsenic, cyanide, ammonia, acetone and many carcinogenic tarry substances. Smokers who inhale have to endure the assault of these substances in order to obtain the nicotine which gives them the pleasure and relief from tension which they seek. Too often, of course, the tension itself is caused by the craving for nicotine which occurs a few hours—and often for much longer than that—after the last cigarette.
To put the record straight I should say that I do smoke a cigar occasionally, but I am very careful not to inhale it. That is when the most serious damage occurs. I have a great deal of sympathy with smokers. I understand the suffering which many smokers go through when they attempt to give up. Luckily, I never became addicted to nicotine, perhaps partly because when I first inhaled a cigarette at the age of 14 I turned a nasty shade of grey green and was violently sick. I think my body was reacting rather sensibly to that cocktail of nasty substances which were temporarily in my lungs.
I wonder whether the reasons put forward by my noble friend and his friends for their objections to the slightly larger health warnings required by the UK regulations have anything to do with the real reason? I think the real reason is that the tobacco industry is afraid—and possibly through market research it already knows—that slightly larger and starker health messages will encourage more people to stop smoking.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to my noble friend. May I assure him and emphasise that, when I spoke, I spoke for myself and not for the tobacco industry?
Lord Rea: My Lords, I accept that absolutely from my noble friend. These messages might stop more teenagers, for instance, from taking up smoking. That would be very serious for the tobacco industry. It is worth tracing the stages of the evolution of these regulations. Noble Lords may remember the position of the United Kingdom Government when the EC directive which gave rise to these regulations was debated in Brussels during 1989 by the Council of Ministers. The stronger messages suggested were opposed by our then Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, who, incidentally, as most of us know is a cigar smoker who has previously been a cigarette smoker. We lost the argument and hence the present regulations are the embodiment of that EC directive.
The regulations only prescribe a minimum size of warning of 4 per cent. of the surface on the back of the packet. There is nothing in the regulations to prevent a member state, on public health grounds, from requiring a larger warning. Italy, as has already been mentioned does so already.
There was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said, a period of public consultation in the UK after the EC directive was passed, before our regulations were finally drawn up and the requirement of a minimum of 6 per cent. of the packet face was included as a result, as she said, of these consultations with all the health professions, particularly the Health Education Authority. No one has so far mentioned the fact that the industry has been granted a judicial review of the legality of the regulations. The case will probably go to the European Court.
I ask noble Lords to consider whether it is likely that someone buying his usual packet of Benson & Hedges and seeing a slightly more prominent health warning on the packet will switch to another brand, possibly imported from another EC country, with a smaller health warning. It is surely more likely, if there is any effect at all on his habit, that he will be encouraged to smoke less or even to give up altogether. That is exactly what smokers should do, and that is why the regulations are framed as they are.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words before we hear from the Front Bench speakers. I have never before spoken about smoking and tobacco addiction. Many young people are taking to smoking and are not realising the dangers. They are doing so because we are making the appeal on the wrong lines. In all the debates on the subject I have never heard anyone suggest that the wickedness of the smoking habit is not so much the danger to the individual but the demeaning of the human being. It makes the smoker a slave. We should point out to young people that once they are addicted they will no longer be masters of their fate or defenders of their
522
soul. The smoker surrenders his will to the habit. If society itself becomes addicted to a habit in that way, society becomes demeaned.
I wish to make two more points. We should all look carefully at our own habits. I smoked and I drank but I gave up smoking and drinking. I did so because I was not prepared to allow myself to become addicted. I wanted to decide my fate for myself. I stopped drinking and I stopped smoking. I was not much better in health, but, my goodness, I was better in my contentment of mind.
Perhaps I may say this to the medical profession. It shouts all the time about the dangers caused to the individual by smoking. The profession should have a look at itself. I have had bitter experience of the addiction caused by members of the medical profession who so easily prescribed drugs which they must have known were addictive. They must have known of the great dangers, but they continued to prescribe.
We do not require more regulations which warn people about the dangers to their health. Young people are not inclined to regard such warnings as important. They say, as one noble Lord has already said, "It will never happen to me". We should put the issue on a much higher level. We should try to persuade young people that if they do not become addicted to smoking or to that other terrible habit, drinking, the better for all of us. That would move the issue on to a new plane.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is one of the pleasant courtesies of the House that we thank noble Lords for putting down Motions and for drawing the attention of the House to important subjects. I am not sure that I can extend the usual pleasantries to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. I prefer to reserve my position until the end of the debate. I should like to see what my noble friend decides to do with his Motion, although I can make some helpful suggestions.
I feel that my noble friend shows an unusual enthusiasm for European Community measures. I have listened with great care to the arguments of those who support the Motion and I have found them rather confusing. Are we talking about harmonisation, price, employment in the tobacco industry and health, with perhaps just a touch of residual anti-European Community feeling? I found it hard to tease out a theme from those who support the Motion.
As has been well said, the dangers of smoking are well known and documented. Anyone who has watched a heavy smoker die of lung cancer will not need statistics to convince him or her of the dangers of smoking and such a person will not be impressed by nitpicking arguments about the size of health warnings. If we accept that smoking is dangerous, then anything which reduces the flow of information concerning those dangers must have some very powerful arguments in its favour. We have not heard those arguments today.
Perhaps I may refer to the employment point which was touched on today during Starred Questions. My noble friends will know that it is Labour Party policy

523
to ban tobacco advertising. That is also likely to be European Community policy. What will happen to the employment argument when, after the general election, the next Labour Government introduce a complete ban on tobacco advertising? Do my noble friends support Labour Party policy in this matter? If they do, what will happen to the employment argument then?
We have heard a good deal about the size of the health warning, as if the argument broadly turns on that. We are talking about a difference between 6 per cent. of the surface area and the 4 per cent. EC minimum. I have looked at the diagrams at the back of the regulations. I do not have a ruler with me but, so far as I can see, a 50 per cent. increase in the size of the health warning is between a quarter of an inch and half an inch. I find it impossible to believe that such a difference will have the effect that has been argued.
We learnt in the Observer on Sunday that children of 12 are now targeted in the cigarette marketing strategy of a major tobacco company. Those who support the Motion might argue that the result of the changes they propose will be that somehow fewer children will be encouraged to take up smoking. That will be achieved by reducing the size and weakening the effectiveness of the health warning on the packet. Frankly, that belief is plain daft.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart introduced the Motion by saying that we had to debate it because there had not been any debate in the other place. We would certainly sit a good deal longer than we do if we felt that we had to debate everything that had not been debated along the corridor.
The noble Lord also produced what I thought was an extraordinary and pedantic point about the words "smoking kills". As he said, not all smokers die. Almost anything that stops children taking up smoking is worth saying. There are many examples of phrases that have been extremely effective but not absolutely accurate. The two that spring to mind are "Careless talk costs lives" and "Guinness is good for you".
We have also heard about employment in the tobacco industry. I say in passing that the Labour Party supports the regulations. If unemployment results there is the possibility of alternative employment. There is not much alternative if one is dying from lung cancer. Every change imposed on industry to improve public health has of necessity led to a change in employment. Perhaps I may point out in passing that agriculture has lost 100,000 jobs in the past 10 years. Many of the farmers and farm workers who lost their jobs are not now unemployed. They have found other jobs.
My noble friend Lord Mason referred to the health of young smokers, children and the unemployed. His argument seemed to be that he would prefer them to become addicted to better quality tobacco. If those who support the Motion are concerned about the phrase "smoking kills", surely they are not arguing that leaving the phrase on the packet will steer children and young people to poorer quality products. If the warning is effective it will stop them smoking altogether.
524
I am amazed that those who support the Motion are prepared to consider, if it is put to a vote and is successful, the possibility of headlines such as, "House of Lords votes to reduce size of health warnings on cigarette packets and to reduce the effectiveness of health warnings". It is no good my noble friend saying, as he may well do when he concludes, that he is not trying to amend the regulations but merely asking the Government to do so. If he thinks, as I am sure he does, that the Government have no intention of amending the regulations—I must say that I support them in that respect—then his Motion is tantamount to voting against the regulations, which, as we know, is quite contrary to the conventions of this House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention to the Procedure Committee's first report of the 1991 Session. I shall not read it to your Lordships, but if my noble friend reads paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 on page 2, that will put him right on the matter. It is not against the conventions of the House to vote on regulations of this kind.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am perfectly well aware of that fact. The Procedure Committee has dealt with non-fatal amendments, and this of course is just such an amendment. I say that because, even if it is carried, the Government do not have to take any notice of it. As we all know that the Government will not take any notice of it—at least, I hope that they will not—I still believe that, if my noble friend were to be successful, it would be a way of voting against the regulations. If he decides to press the Motion to a vote, I shall certainly advise my noble friends on these Benches to vote against it.
6.11 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the subject of tobacco labelling has been well and truly aired during the course of the debate as indeed has the sister subject of tobacco advertising, although it was not, strictly speaking, part of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
It bears repetition to say that the dangers of smoking are very grave. Smoking is responsible for more than a hundred thousand deaths a year. I believe that the figure of 110,000 was quoted by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. Such figures show that one-third of deaths in middle age are due to smoking. Smoking is implicated in lung cancer, in heart disease and in respiratory disease. There is no doubt that smoking kills; indeed, it is estimated to kill 25 per cent. of smokers. It kills over 20 times more people than is the case with road accidents. However, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that we also take very seriously the need to curb the number of road accidents and the need to control air pollution caused by our use of motor vehicles.
Smoking is a serious issue and the Government are taking it seriously. An important part of our Green Paper The Health of the Nation is the section which says that smoking is the,
"largest single preventable cause of mortality".

525
Therefore, the Government's aim is to reduce death and ill health caused by smoking.
In summary, I believe that I can fairly say that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, simply does not want tobacco manufacturers in this country to print health warnings on cigarette packets which exceed in their import those required under European Community law. Perhaps I should clarify the choice that we made on the subject of the warnings which are being used as well as on their size. In doing so, I should like to take the opportunity to clarify for the record the suggestion that my right honourable friend, who is now Secretary of State for Education and Science, did not oppose stronger health warnings on labels. That was because he wished to retain what we considered to be a very successful system of voluntary agreements relating to labelling, just as we would wish to do on the subject of advertising. However, that is not now possible as the European Community directive is in force and we must comply with it. That means that we must make the best of the present situation.
In the regulations before Parliament we have said that all cigarette packets should carry the message,
"Tobacco seriously damages health"
on the front of the package and, on the back, additional warnings which, complying with the directive, will have to be rotated on an equal basis once every 12 months. The warnings which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State chose are:
"Smoking causes fatal diseases;
Smoking kills;
Smoking when pregnant harms your baby";
and,
"Protect children: don't make them breathe your smoke".
Those warnings were selected from the list of 14 possibilities agreed at European Community level. They were selected because we believed them to be the most effective in making an impact. That view was supported by health experts during consultation on the regulations. We firmly believe that it should be impossible for smokers to ignore the terrible damage which their habit may do to their health and also to the health of those around them.
On the subject of passive smoking, the Government accept the advice of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health that passive smoking causes several hundred deaths in the United Kingdom each year. I understand that the Australian courts have heard a case on the matter and have concluded that passive smoking does cause fatal diseases. I should add that tobacco is the only major consumer product which is highly dangerous when used as the manufacturer intended. Alcohol can be dangerous if taken in excess. Moreover, animal fats can, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, cause heart disease; but, similarly, that applies when they are consumed in excess.
Reverting to the choice of warnings, I have already referred to the four warnings selected by my right honourable friend for appearance in rotation on the back of the packages. In addition, there are two warnings which must be added to the rotating system and which apply to all European Community member states. These are:
526
"Smoking causes cancer"
and,
"Smoking causes heart disease".
I believe that those two messages show how seriously the European Community takes the dangers of smoking. The clear intention is to maximise the impact of the health warning. The additional four UK warnings which we have selected do not exceed the import of these clear and unequivocal mandatory messages.
It has been suggested that the UK warning label will be made more striking than the EC's minimum requirements in size. That is because our warning will cover 6 per cent. of the surface of the cigarette packet, while the wording of the directive contained in Article 4 requires that such warnings should cover at least 4 per cent. of each large surface of the unit packet. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, the matter is currently sub judice. We do not yet know all the choices which have been made by other EC countries, although some of them have chosen 4 per cent. as the surface size. However, we do know that Italy has chosen a much larger size and that that has been contested. I should like to emphasise the fact that these regulations are not the result of the Department of Health thinking up the idea of having the strictest and most impactful health warnings, as I think my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing tried to suggest.
During the three-month period of consultation about the EC labelling directive, we received representations from the tobacco industry, retailers, health interest groups (both statutory and non-statutory bodies) and from a wide variety of consumer interests. There was a great deal of support for the directive's intention to use the most effective warnings, and health interest groups were keen to see the size of the warnings enlarged to make them as effective as possible. It was on that basis that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State decided to make the warning larger.
It has been suggested during the debate that that decision will mean unfair competition from other European Community manufacturers for UK manufacturers. I have been asked whether smokers in the UK will switch to foreign brands; I do not believe that they will. Home producers currently have more than a 90 per cent. share of the market. Smokers are notoriously loyal to their brands, hence the efforts to achieve brand identification in the industry's advertising campaigns which currently mystify some of us. It is difficult to believe that the size and nature of UK warnings will lead to an increased take-up of foreign brands, especially in view of the restrictions on advertising. That is also true in relation to the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that high tar cigarettes will now flood the market. That will not happen because this country is currently implementing the European Community tar yields directive which limits tar yields to 15 mg by 1992. There will be no high tar cigarettes anywhere in the European Community and therefore our imports will not be affected.
As regards exports to the European Community, the United Kingdom industry is again in the same

527
position as the industries of other European countries. We can export goods produced for the home market to all member states without any alteration other than translating the warnings into the language of the importing state, or we can comply with the regulations of each importing state. Either way, the competition is equal and fair. I must emphasise that all member states agreed the directive on tobacco labelling and are now implementing it.
Perhaps I may digress slightly. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing referred to the tobacco subsidies under the common agricultural policy. That is a subject dear to my heart. I should like to reassure him that UK health and agriculture Ministers consistently argue for the removal of those subsidies. I did so again yesterday in Brussels. We shall continue to do so, and the good news is that the amount of the subsidies is decreasing.
If we wish to discourage smoking and, in particular, the start of the smoking habit by young people, we must use all means at our disposal. If the new warning labels make smokers give up, or help people not to start to smoke, we should be delighted. All government tobacco measures aim to reduce smoking. We have had considerable success in recent years. Some figures have been quoted, but I should like to give nine. In 1974, 45 per cent. of the adult population smoked but in 1988 (the latest figures available) that was dawn to 32 per cent.
As to the impact on industry, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for clarifying his party's position. It is hard to believe that consumers will switch brands merely because the warnings in other countries are somewhat smaller. It must be said that our health policy will inevitably adversely affect the tobacco industry. Following the figures relating to the decline in consumption that I have quoted, that has clearly already started; but it is our clear aim to reduce the incidence of smoking.
I acknowledge that it is impossible completely to reconcile the aims of the tobacco industry and the nation's health interests. The Government's strategy aims to reduce the prevalence of smoking, and tough warnings are a part of that strategy. This is a small but significant step in the Government's action to discourage tobacco use. In that context, our action is fully justified. I urge the House to reject the Motion.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, first I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been a useful, good debate. Opinions have been put on record which had not previously been put on record. That is altogether good in a democratic society in a democratic body. At least I think that we are a democratic body!
Baroness White: My Lords, quasi-democratic!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is a good point. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, emphasised the need to assist manufacturing industry during a recession, and of course these regulations will not do that, as I hope I and other members of your Lordships House have shown. He made many other points and
528
raised the issue of passive smoking. He advised us—correctly, I believe—to take the claims of injury through passive smoking with a pinch of salt. I remind him that salt is also supposed to be bad for us; and so he had better not take too much of that or the doctors will be advising him that he is injuring his health.
My noble friend Lord Cocks said that the anti-smoking campaign was conducted by well-heeled middle class zealots who were easing their consciences. That was a good description, and it needs no further comment from me. He also referred to the nanny state and the host of inspectors who will be required to enforce the increasing number of regulations. I had believed that the Conservative Government were against more regulations, but apparently they are not because they impose more and more all the time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, has an interest because she is a prominent member of the Health Education Authority. She referred to the 110,000 people a year who die from lung cancer. I remind her that 710,000 people a year die in this country, and that means that 600,000 people do not die from lung cancer. Furthermore, the statistics refer to premature deaths from lung cancer. That means that any man under the age of 73 or woman under the age of 79 who dies is included in the statistics as having died of a smoking-related disease.
I ask my noble friend Lord Rea to explain why the Japanese, who smoke two and a half times as many cigarettes than the English, have an incidence of lung cancer less than half that of the United Kingdom. That is something that needs explaining. I hope that the medical profession will concentrate upon that discrepancy as well as on why smoking causes lung cancer.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to explain. The low Japanese figures are due to their diet and nutrition, which gives them the lowest heart disease rate in the world. It also helps them to have a lower cancer rate for a number of cancers compared with the rest of the world. However, they have a higher rate of some other cancers because of something they eat which is bad for their stomachs. On the whole, diet is the reason.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. It is the most revealing reply I have yet heard. He is now confirming that it is not only smoking that causes cancer but bad diet. We should take note of that and reflect upon it. I certainly shall do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, also declared that smoking was an anti-social habit. There is the rub. Do we make regulations and are we making these regulations because smoking is an anti-social habit or because it is a health risk? I believe that she was mistaken to bring up the fact that she and other people —but not everyone—believe that smoking is an anti-social habit. Before long, if we bring in regulations to satisfy everyone's view of what is anti-social, we shall end up doing nothing at all. That would be most unfortunate for people.
My noble friend Lord Mason rightly drew attention to the additional danger, especially to young

529
people, of the high tar risk from imported cigarettes. I hope that the Government will take notice of that because it is relevant. The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, has been smoking for 60 years. He still looks extremely well, he is going strong and I sincerely hope that he reaches his target of 106 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, referred to addiction. Of course, he was right to do so, but on the other hand he said that he was not so addicted that he could not give up smoking, because he did. He also mentioned other addictions. Frankly, as my noble friend said, the medical profession has been responsible for persuading people to become addicted to various drugs. Let us not forget the great valium scandal where the medical profession quite wrongly prescribed tens of millions of tablets of valium, to the detriment of some patients.
My noble friend Lord Carter said that a Labour government would bring in a ban on tobacco advertising. He asked what I would do under those circumstances: would I support Labour Party policy? I support Labour Party policy when I believe it is sensible. I am not a hack who will support anything that my leaders like to hand down from time to time. After all, parties change their minds. I shall reserve my position on that, if he does not mind, and will answer him when the time arrives.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, made a good job of explaining the Government's position. I thank her for going into so much detail. The House deserved the explanation and I congratulate her on giving it. For that reason alone, it was worth having this debate. The noble Baroness knows that I do not agree with much of what she said, but at least she did us the courtesy of treating our arguments seriously as arguments which had to be answered. I do not agree with her on the main point she made in the debate that the regulations will not hurt British manufacturers. I believe that they will hurt them and that is why I brought forward this amendment tonight. I thank the noble Baroness and all those who have taken part in the debate.
Now comes decision time. I have to decide whether it is right that I should ask the House to vote on my amendment to the regulations. I have considered this very seriously indeed and have taken into account the conventions of the House. It is not against the conventions of the House for a vote to be taken on the regulations. That is clear and I am sure that the House accepts it.
On the other hand, while I do not wish to rock anyone's boat, I also have to take into consideration what my noble friend Lord Rea mentioned. The tobacco industry has been granted a judicial review. It may very well take a case to the European Court and in one sense that makes the issue sub judice. Therefore I do not believe that it would be helpful for me to press the amendment to a vote this evening. I hope that the House will forgive me for detaining it and for not pressing the matter to a Division but I feel that that is the right decision.
530
I thank the House for allowing the debate to take place in a reasonable, friendly and in some ways entertaining atmosphere. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Motor Car Industry
6.37 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals to alleviate the present difficulties of the motor car industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some Members of your Lordships' House have asked me what reason I had for wishing to debate the motor car industry. It is a convention of your Lordships' House that if one has a pecuniary interest one should declare it. I now declare that I have no pecuniary interest. I have no consultancies for any part of the motor industry, nor am I a parliamentary adviser to it, nor am I sponsored by my trade union, the AEU, a major union in the industry.
My main reason for wishing to debate the issue is that before we rose for the Summer Recess at the end of July the signs were there that the industry was in serious difficulty. I took the view that if it was possible to obtain a debate, in spite of all the calls on the time in your Lordships' House and in another place, it would do no harm to have one in an objective sense.
I was concerned that a few weeks ago, on 16th October, there was a Question on the Order Paper which was answered by the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who sat behind him, spoke of the success of the motor industry as though everything was all right. Everything is not all right. The noble Earl was referring to the export situation, which looks quite good, but developments in the domestic market are dangerous. Everyone knows that in any manufacturing industry, if the domestic base goes, as sure as eggs are eggs the export performance will be affected later and the whole industry may collapse.
I chose to debate this matter because the motor car industry plays a vital role in our economy. In fact it is a cornerstone of the British economy. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited has provided me with some figures. That body states that the export success of the industry in 1990 was shown by the £9.7 billion of exports. That sum took £2 billion off Britain's automotive trade deficit, outpacing oil as well as aerospace. The deficit for the first six months fell to £617 million compared with almost £3 billion in the same period of 1990.
The society further stated that the motor industry and its customers contributed £20 billion in taxes in 1990. That figure represents more than 13 per cent. of all government tax revenue and is twice the sum raised from taxes on drink and tobacco combined. It is therefore vital that this industry is encouraged to prosper.
I can recall a time during my days in another place and in my early days in your Lordships' House when

531
the motor industry was in serious trouble; it might well have gone out of business. Nevertheless, it rallied. The industry has transformed its operating practices over the past decade and output per head has increased by 90 per cent. since 1980. Some people may think that that figure could be improved upon, but nevertheless it reveals a tremendous increase in output.
Investment in skills and training has been as important for improved quality and efficiency as investment in machinery. The industry is performing strongly on both counts, constantly setting more ambitious targets. Massive international investment is making, Britain an important centre for motor manufacturing.
Let us consider some of the factors that are affecting the industry at present. Those in the industry are of the opinion that the Government's fiscal policy is not helping at all and is damaging the industry at present. At home the 1991 vehicle market is suffering its worse decline for a decade. After 10 months car sales were 22 per cent. down. The recession was aggravated by the Chancellor's punitive Budget last March Some of us are still trying to understand why it was so punitive.
As regards employment, at the end of the 1980s almost 800,000 people depended on a thriving motor industry and trade for their jobs. Over the past year 28,500 jobs have gone from the industry and from franchised dealers. Worse still, another 40,000 jobs are expected to be lost by the spring of 1992. The number of jobs, in the industry is 13 per cent. down on the figure in 1989. The 10 per cent. special car tax and the recently increased VAT combine to add more than 27 per cent. to the price of a new car. Those two charges have added about £1,000 to £1,500 to the price of a family saloon car. Among vehicle producing countries, this tax burden on new cars is at the top end of the European scale. That shows the size of our present predicament.
One of my main reasons for initiating this debate was to try to ensure that Britain's car industry competes on equal terms with the car industries of other countries. When the single market arrives, I want to see the British car industry competing on equal terms with the rest of Europe. I do not want to see our car industry being handicapped by a measure that our Government could easily remove without damaging our economy. Like other industries, the motor industry is affected by inflation, interest rates and the value of the pound abroad. What is unusual is the extent to which the industry is hampered by a combination of taxes which have a pernicious effect on this bedrock of our industrial base.
It is worth considering the position of the truck industry. In 1991 the number of trucks sold is expected to be the lowest since 1954. That is a dangerous position to be in. In two years Britain has gone from being number one in Europe for truck sales to number four. I n 1989 the British and German markets were about the same size. However, in 1991 the German market will be three times bigger than the British market. Although this is a cyclical business, the current downturn is the deepest on record and
532
represents a 53 per cent. drop in total sales of trucks and a 49 per cent. drop in van sales. That is a severe reduction. The severe market downturn undermines competitive ability and risks future investment in terms of people, product and machinery.
Cars and motor cycles are the only consumer durables subject to a sales tax of 10 per cent. in addition to VAT. Most noble Lords will be aware that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has produced a report on this matter. I understand that a report has also been prepared for Sir Leon Brittan for him to study in his capacity as a European Commissioner for industry. I do not wish to discuss those reports in detail as one has to look at the whole picture to grasp the position in the industry. However, I believe that one of the matters that has been studied is whether British people are paying more for the same car than their European counterparts. Vauxhall has carried out some research on this matter. It has concluded that, when one looks at the whole package, a British person buying a car obtains as fair a deal in this country as is the case anywhere on the Continent. However, we can make a balanced judgment on that matter only when we obtain the full reports. Your Lordships' House may debate the reports in due course.
I believe that a factor that helped the motor industry to reach a peak of success was its company trade agreements with some trade unions. The union I belong to has been successful in conducting negotiations with some car producers. Those negotiations have meant that some factories have been able to cut across the problems of demarcation disputes. That has all been done without the help of Mr. Howard in another place, who seems to have something against voluntary agreements and does not appear to believe they can be successful.
I could go into far greater detail. However, I am grateful that so many noble Lords wish to speak in this debate. There are many other aspects that other speakers can discuss in support of my case. My objective in initiating the debate is to raise awareness of the problems faced by an industry that is vital to the economy of this country. I wish to ensure that the Government are aware of the need to initiate constructive measures quickly to help this industry. If the industry deteriorates further, much effort will be needed to regenerate it.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for tabling this Question. I note that his Question seeks to address the present difficulties of the motor car industry. I was a distributor in the 1950s. The industry has always had difficulties. That the industry is so resilient is to its credit. It has survived the most enormous setbacks in the 40-odd years I have known it. So perhaps in some ways the present difficulties are no greater, though sometimes no less, than they have always been. What has accentuated the problem is the change in the way in which the industry is structured. I can recall standing on the spot where my noble friend the Minister will stand in an hour or

533
so. I set out the strategic decisions that government through Parliament had decided to take about the way in which the motor manufacturing industry had to go. I believe that those decisions were misplaced. At that time we were too involved in the emotional contortions that the words "British indigenous motor industry" conjured up in people's minds. It was absolute nonsense, as the past half dozen or so years have shown.
In the motor industry what is more indigenous than General Motors or the Ford Motor Company, with 60 or 70 years of existence in this country, offering so much investment, employment and the promise of even more of both? There can be nothing more indigenous. But at that time certain decisions were made which I believe gave rise to some of our present problems.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, urged, let us consider the industry. In the current financial year it has produced something like £21.5 billion in taxation. That is a little more than the noble Lord indicated but I shall not argue with him. Most of that comes from what I call the indigenous industry. At present Ford takes some 22 to 23 per cent. of the UK market, General Motors has something like 18 per cent. and the Rover company something like 13 per cent. All that comes from home based industry.
What does the home based industry look like today? Huge investment is demanded. It requires £1.5 billion to bring a new model to the market place. There is enormous investment in new plant, new factories and employment. The industry is now so colossal that we are in what is called (I do not like the buzz term) a global industry, to which joint ventures, whether they concern engines, transmission, bodies or even research and so on, give a global nature. That is what we are talking about.
What does the industry mean in terms of this country and our progress? We have to look at the United Kingdom element of that worldwide industry. We must consider first how it will survive, secondly, how it will grow and, far more importantly, how it will be able to compete with our West European competitors. I put it that way. I did not say "EC competitors" because most of the home based manufacturers expect to call themselves European manufacturers and quite rightly so, because that is what the Community and industrial co-operation mean.
However, within that context there is competition. It is between the West Europeans as distinct from the Americans, perhaps even the Koreans and the Japanese—who make up the smaller element of what we produce. There are three areas in which we alone discriminate against our home based industry compared with West European manufacturers. Frankly, they are in the Treasury Department and concern taxation. It is not design, productivity, distribution or distributors' arrangements which compare badly. Those are small elements. The fundamental issue is the way in which the Government —successive governments—have viewed the industry. The three areas in question are first the special car tax,
534
secondly VAT and, lastly, the way in which we treat the company car benefit (so-called). I should like to say a few words about each of those areas.
Noble Lords will recall that prior to 1973 we had a variable purchase tax rate. In the top bracket, at 25 per cent., were the luxury items. A motor car came in that category. When we abandoned that format and went to a 10 per cent. purchase tax system, we retained the luxury element in relation to the motor car and called it the special car tax. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, accurately described that element of motor car taxation—that element of the 27 per cent. motor vehicle taxation. It is one of the highest rates in Europe and one of the highest across the area in which we try to compete. It has stayed with us and appears still to be with us. Special car tax is a misnomer because 65 per cent. of the 1.7 million cars that will come on the market this year will have a business connotation. They are a tool and not a luxury. Indeed, the other 35 per cent. kept for totally private use can hardly be called a luxury. They provide necessary transportation, particularly in rural areas. As the noble Lord rightly said, the car tax on tax, coupled with purchase tax of 17½ per cent. means that one is looking at taxation of £1,000 or £1,500 per saloon car. The fact that no other European Community car-producing country levies that kind of tax is indicative of the edge that those countries have over us.
How then can the car be called a luxury? I should like to see that description disappear. Output in the heady days of 1989 was 2.3 million cars. In 1990 it was 2 million cars, and this year the figures are 1.5 to 1.7 million. Output is declining. Special car tax is one of the reasons for that decline.
The second reason is VAT. Of all the products that industry buys—computers, robots, telephones or whatever, from the highest to the lowest item, why is the car singled out to exclude VAT as an admissible charge? It is absolute nonsense. Indeed, that element produces out of the £21 billion tax take a sum of £3.3 billion. It is wrong. If it were abolished in to to the increased profit that would accrue to business, and thereby to manufacturing industry, would almost neutralise the effect by virtue of corporation tax.
The last item is the company car tax as a "perk", which was born of the need to control wages and salaries. Health, schooling and the motor car were seen as perks and a way of enhancing salaries. Such perks are now out of date, but they are hung on to. That element is worth about £1.5 billion.
The lower paid are at a disadvantage. The threshold for the tax is £8,500, and there is hardly a salesman on the road who is not affected. The salesmen, the earners and the grafters who drive a company car cannot leave it in the company car park; they have to take it home. Therefore they are penalised. That is wrong.
That package amounts to about £4.55 billion of the £21 billion. The company car is a business tool and that aspect has to be examined. Over the past four years the benefit scales have placed an additional burden of some 300 per cent. on the users of company

535
cars. Those people tend to be the lower paid, who drive the smaller, more efficient and cheaper cars. That must be wrong.
I do not wish to enter into the argument about the way cars are priced. I believe that that is the industry's business and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is to report on the issue.
The problems facing the industry, both manufacturing and retail—and the retail motor industry employs half a million people and contributes £1.2 billion through purchase tax on repairs and parts—can only be addressed by the Treasury. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not talk about the Government providing a climate in which business can thrive, because the Treasury impost is a depressant. I should like to see those charges disappear, preferably overnight. There will he winners and there will be losers. Either way, whether they are eliminated in one year or in five, there will be grumblers and those who say it is their right.
If we do not make those changes, dramatically and soon, there will not be just winners and losers: UK Ltd. will be the loser.
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the first time I had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was at a typical London corporate dinner. All the other executives played golf. I had stood on the terraces at Huddersfield Town. Real knowledge gave me an advantage. For 20 years I have earned my living in the motor industry—as a dealer, as head of a leasing company and latterly as a director of a manufacturer. I hope that real experience will allow me to bring some value to your Lordships' debate this evening. I certainly have a love of the industry.
I was delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, had deleted from his original Question the word "British". Had he left it in we should have been restricted to talking about Rolls-Royce Motors, Morgan Cars and Formula One.
The size of the investment required for the industry to be a player is enormous if the industry is to operate in the truly international scene. For example, last week Fiat announced that it would be spending 32.6 billion dollars on development. Even Rolls-Royce has a US transmission—"US" meaning United States in this cafe. The networks are complex and extensive: Ford with Mazda, Suzuki and Isuzu with General Motors, Mitsubishi with Volvo in Holland, Rover with Honda and, as suppliers, Peugeot and VW among others. There is no new British gearbox now.
There must also be more than a domestic market for sales. We have had vivid evidence of that since the beginning of this year when domestic sales fell drastically but production in the UK rose, largely because of the buoyancy of the German market. As has been mentioned, that market has now suffered a downturn and the consequences are apparent.
There has been government interference in the motor industry. Past governments were responsible
536
for moving the industry from its skill base in the West Midlands to Linwood and Ellesmere Port. When the cold winds next blew the unprotected branches fell off.
I worked for Rover when it was in the care of the DTI. The focus was not on the customer but on Victoria Street and the cars were built to meet politicians' timetables. Could there be any other excuse for the Maestro? We had the National Enterprise Board. As a measure of government success in running industry, its record was graphic —35 companies folded, 38 were sold at a loss and only 29 returned the taxpayers' money.
It is not the Government's job to pick winners and losers in industrial areas but—and my noble friend Lord Lucas did not want this said—to create a climate in which any industry, including the automotive industry, can survive. The enormous ups and downs we suffer in currency and in inflation have to be levelled out. No manufacturer can work in those circumstances. Although a few accountants think it clever when the only profit in a major manufacturing company comes from currency dealings, that is not the way to build a manufacturing base.
The Government have worked wonders in attracting inward investment into this country from automotive companies and, latterly, in ensuring that the Japanese cars built here can be exported to Europe. They must continue to defend that right of export, which was not easily achieved.
Japanese manufacturers here have shown us that we can build cars of world quality and the lesson has been well learnt. Apparently, in Sunderland they know when they are building better quality cars than the Japanese: the latter do not send their figures. Significantly, some of the research and development budgets of Nissan have come to this country recently, which is a great step forward.
There is much that the Government are doing. Perhaps they could go further in some areas. They could provide more help at overseas trade fairs and more economic counsellors at embassies whose job is not only to help find customers but also joint ventures to link this country with the global network. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, mentioned, we have a labour relations climate in which incoming companies can negotiate a single union contract. The AEU has been at the forefront in creating that climate.
The other area where the Government may consider helping is in the strengthening of relations with universities and polytechnics, particularly the latter, to help the industry exploit its innovations quickly and remain competitive.
As others have said, the whole of this discussion must be taken in the context of the fact that a report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is with the DTI. What its findings will be no one knows. Without doubt it will comment on the issue of the pricing of cars. That is an area where, unlike my noble friend Lord Lucas, I believe the industry as well as the Treasury has some way to go.
The industry supplies its dealers through a franchise system, with fixed agreements and margins. Traditionally, manufacturers have always given extra support to the car rental companies, to increase the

537
numbers of vehicles which that market takes and as a means of promoting models to new customers. Therefore, the rental companies were receiving much better margins than the dealers who had invested heavily in the franchise. That could—just—be supported as a marketing expense. However, in difficult times the manufacturer extended that additional discount to several large fleet owners. Consequently, those fleets are returning to the market used vehicles much more cheaply than can a dealer who is a franchise holder. The whole market for those models has therefore depreciated. The dealer takes less profit and the cost of those extra discounts to the fleet market are reflected in the price which the private customer pays.
Not only private customers but all customers lost value when a manufacturer recently used a price reduction across the board to stimulate sales. That is not a good definition of customer care. If manufacturers were to return to orderly marketing with simply an advertising support scheme for rental cars—substantial if need be—the market would undoubtedly slowly return to a more prosperous state.
We should remember that the motor industry does not mean only manufacturers. The retail side of the sector has an annual turnover of £55 billion and directly employs some half a million workers. Indeed, the retail motor industry is the largest employer of a full-time labour force in any retail sector. It has undoubtedly suffered tough times and in dealing with these much reliance has been put on the profits obtained from used cars.
In this country VAT on a used car is paid on the margin not on the total selling price. That is not the case throughout Europe and there were fears that the Community would direct away from our system. However, this was well protected by the Government. It is important that it continues to be so and that as the other VAT implications are dealt with—for instance, some member countries allow business users to reclaim VAT—the Government continue to be pro-active to ensure that our retail industry does not lose out.
It would also be helpful to the retail industry were the Government to remove the cyclic nature of sales driven by the annual prefix registration letter. By forcing such a large percentage of sales through August, the system puts enormous strain on the finances of retail dealerships and is supportive of imports whose factory holidays work to a different pattern to home manufacturers. The customer would benefit too by being removed from the crush.
The industry has always asked for the abolition of car tax. However, this raises large sums in revenue and is not totally out of line with European Community practice; five countries have additional sales taxes similar to car tax and others have luxury rates of VAT. Again, I suggest that some of the cost of the cars is as much with the manufacturer as with taxation. The industry used to say that it could not reach 2 million units without the removal of the car sales tax. It did, and did so substantially.
538
One possible reason for the removal of car tax would be if the Government were to tackle the issue of the company perk car. One of the contributing factors to the decline of the British motor industry has been the company car. Cars were built for transport managers who argued about the second wing mirror and were happy with vinyl upholstery. The consequence was that the UK built cars for these people but the private customer with money to spend looked elsewhere for his vehicle; in particular, to European imports. If the tax benefits were to be removed would we not also create an environmental benefit—undoubtedly smaller cars would be used—and there would also be great traffic benefits as people who commute in their company car by themselves would be much more likely to share transport or, where available, use efficient public transport.
It is an area much discussed, but can there be any justification for the accountant who drives only to his office, day in day out, having a car over the person driving to work on the line in the same company, or to a checkout in an off-centre shopping mall?
Such a move would also benefit the private customer who would have more power in his purse. As long as the fleet buyer is king the private customer will get, in many dealerships, a second-rate deal. Indeed, when Ford's UK chairman can say in today's marketplace that people want to come and bargain for the best deal that they can get I suggest that there is a failure to recognise today's customer. It is the nurse who needs a car for shift work, the mother who can get the children to school only by private transport and the young man whose parents do not own a car.
I conclude on an upnote; not about what the Government can do but why industry can do it without the Government, or perhaps alongside them. Originally, Japanese manufacturers planning to produce vehicles in this country assumed that they would have to bring their own component supplies with them but they have been amazed by the high quality of components available to them. Instead of relocating Japanese component manufacturers to this country their main routes are to buy from European companies where possible and, if not, set up a joint venture with such a company in order to ensure supplies of the quality that they need. As an alternative, they would buy a local company and find that it took very little time to turn the production round. Only as a final resort do they feel it necessary to persuade the Japanese component manufacturer to set up in this country. That is a great credit to the change which the component industry has driven for itself. The benefit of government focus on inward investment to this country is at its most obvious when these component manufacturers become more competitive and attract global customers.
Demand is not simply driven by the price of a product. Removing car tax would not bring back into the showroom the person who has discovered that his car does 60,000 miles quite efficiently. Nor would it change values on what brings quality to his or her life. What the Government can do is to continue their concentration on creating an economic climate by

539
defeating inflation and continuing to reduce interest rates so that the car industry can both reduce costs and stimulate demand.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. The motor car industry is important to the British economy. The noble Lord quoted the export successes and therefore I shall not repeat them.
Every year the industry invests billions of pounds in new plant, equipment and R&D to make the product more exciting to own and operate and more reliable, safe, fuel efficient and environmentally friendly and to offer good value for money. For example, during the past 10 years Ford has invested £960 million at Dagenham and £580 million at Halewood. During the past 18 months it has invested a further £200 million at Dagenham. Vauxhall and other companies have done the same and there has been new plant from Japan. Cars today are becoming more technically sophisticated, with growing levels of advanced electronics which will continue to require well-trained dealers and service personnel.
During the late 1970s the industry was heading for extinction. It was non-competitive in quality, cost and reliability of supply. At that time the market growth was filled by an increase in imports. By 1979 imports were at 55 per cent., reaching a high of 58 per cent. in 1989. The plants were overmanned; for instance, at Jaguar where I took an industry and parliamentary fellowship course 18 months ago. When Sir John Egan took over in 1980, 14,000 workers produced 13,000 cars of fairly poor quality and reliability. Nine years later a workforce of 12,000 produced 50,000 cars of better quality and reliability.
Output per head has increased by 90 per cent. since 1980 but there is still much to do to match our European competitors in terms of productivity and quality levels. It will be hard to achieve in some of our old plants built years ago, whereas a new greenfield plant such as Nissan has the advantage. It is now exporting cars to Japan which are, I am told, as good if not better than cars made in Japan.
As I said earlier, the industry is producing safer and more reliable and environmentally friendly cars and soon the electric car will he with us. There is also the catalytic converter which eliminates a major portion of exhaust gas pollutants. Today all engines are more fuel efficient by an average of at least 17 per cent. We also see diesel engines which are quieter, more powerful and more fuel efficient than their counterparts. On average emissions are down by about 30 per cent. aid they are 30 per cent. more fuel efficient than the petrol driven car with a three-way catalytic converter.
During the past few years the industry has made cars safer and has introduced a range of security features to deter thieves. It is working further to improve security. However, standards differ so a common BSI vehicle security standard adopted throughout Europe would be in the best interests of us all.
540
The noble Lord's Question asks whether Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to alleviate the present difficulties of the motor car industry. The industry would not expect the Government to move it to greenfield sites, but it could and should be helped in two ways, the first of which my noble friend Lord Lucas dealt with regarding VAT and special tax.
A second way to help the industry is to have a larger differential between environmentally friendly and non-environmentally friendly fuels. There should be a greater incentive to use unleaded petrol in order to encourage its use and the purchase of cars equipped with catalytic converters. Again, given the environmental and fuel efficiency advantages of diesel, the taxation incentives should be enhanced to further its acceptability among consumers. In France there is a considerable difference between the price of diesel and other petroleum fuels. The result is that about 30 per cent. of all new vehicles sold are diesel powered compared with just over 8 per cent. of vehicles sold in this country for the year to date. Furthermore, there should be a standardisation of diesel which will allow engine designers to work with a consistent fuel.
Why do we not remove all taxes on cars and collect the revenue from the fuel bought at the pump? That could not be done overnight but it is worth considering. It would reduce the environmental effects of motoring, thus forcing the manufacturer to compete in the area which really counts—fuel efficiency.
The UK motor industry has come a long way since the 1970s. It is now extremely important in the spheres of employment, exports and basic manufacturing infrastructure. It needs not support but equal opportunities to enable it to compete on the so-called level playing field. However, it still faces challenges as it goes towards the next century.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on bringing forward this Question this evening. I confirm from my own experience what he said about the truck industry. Last Tuesday I visited Ford Iveco in Slough to see the new cargo model being made. I learned from that visit that the number of trucks produced had fallen from 14,900 to 6,000. There had been a drop of £200 million in turnover and a reduction in employment from 1,400 to 800 people. Therefore, there is no doubt that the truck industry is undergoing severe difficulties even though British manufacturers are producing some of the best trucks ever.
As noble Lords have said, in the last Budget the tax burden on cars was raised to more than 27 per cent. We must bear in mind that that compares with 14 per cent. in Germany and 22 per cent. in France. Combined with a 20 per cent. increase in company car tax scales and the imposition of national insurance contributions on the company car and fuel benefit, the British motor industry was dealt a body blow just at a time when it was already suffering considerable difficulties and a downturn in UK sales as a result of the recession.

541
Sales at 1,600,000 this year will be down by 22.5 per cent. on the 1990 figures but since the projections in 1989 for sales in 1991 were 2,200,000 there is a real reduction of over 27 per cent. in the expected sales for this year. That is the real measure of the recession which is taking place and of the problems which the car industry is having to cope with. In fact, it was budgeting for sales at 2,200,000 and has had home sales of only 1,600,000. That could not have come at a worse time—only a year before the advent of the single market when competition from the Continent will be much stiffer. There, car manufacturers seem to receive a better deal from their governments especially where the car industry is state owned.
In my view the industry resents the lack of leadership by the Government. The industry needs leadership. Can the noble Lord, Lord Reay, say just what is expected of the car industry and where the car is expected to fit in with any transport policy which the Government may have?
It is accepted by the motor industry that the role of the car may very well have to change. There is a growing acceptance that the car as a means of commuting into town and city centres at peak periods is becoming non-viable and is increasingly seen by the public as a menace to safety and to the environment of built up areas. Until the Government give priority to public transport measures and other policies to deal with city centre congestion, the car will remain the favoured means of transport for journeys to work and shop.
We have heard what are the new tax burdens on car manufacturers. My noble friend pointed out that they amount to £20 billion this year and that has been confirmed by others. The manufacturers find those taxes more acceptable if the extra revenue was being used for better public transport provision. Extra money is being taken out of transportation generally just at a time when much more needs to be put into it, especially to assist the improvement and development of public transport.
The Government should encourage and help to speed up the change to more environmentally friendly cars. That means helping to enable people with older, environmentally unfriendly cars to buy newer cars sooner. That will not be achieved by heaping ever-increasing taxes on the motor industry and its products. Perhaps the noble Lord will comment on that aspect. Will he say what sort of discussions are being undertaken between the Government and the motor industry at present about the wide range of problems which exist? Can we be assured that the Chancellor will listen more closely to the representations of the motor industry before next year's Budget than he apparently did before this year's Budget o that he can avoid the serious mistakes which he made then?
Is the noble Lord satisfied that the British car industry is not being put at a disadvantage through hidden subsidies being made to European car makers especially in France and Italy? Are we investigating that? Are the Government making representations if such subsidies exist?
542
Those are problems in the motor industry. I believe that the industry sees those problems. The Government must have a policy towards the industry. I wish we could find out what it is. Perhaps the noble Lord will help us when he replies.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for initiating this debate on an extremely interesting subject. I worked in the industry for 43 years and have obviously seen many changes in that time. I have seen ups and downs galore. After the war it was a very difficult time for the industry because it was allowed steel to make cars only if a percentage were exported. The industry was quite pleased to export the cars but it forgot about all the spare parts which should have gone with them. Also, the cars were not adjusted to local conditions. On the Belgian pavés they literally fell to pieces. The American cars that went into Belgium had stiffer suspensions and shock absorbers and managed to survive.
At that time in the Midlands the car industry had a very insular attitude. I do not believe many people had driven competitors' cars from the Continent. The Austin Motor Company was always known as "The Austin". At The Austin they said that if it was not made in Brum it could not be much good. It was an extraordinary attitude and I am pleased to say that it no longer exists.
The industry has made enormous progress. It experienced terrible problems due to weak and ineffectual management. However, it survived all that and in 1989 the motor industry was as prosperous as it had ever been. I shall not repeat the figures already mentioned in regard to employment and job losses. However, it is interesting that 13 per cent. of all tax revenue is provided by the motor industry and its customers, which is an amazing figure.
I should like to say something with regard to the 10 per cent. special car tax introduced in 1973 as a temporary measure. Like most temporary measures it is still with us. The Government appear to be reluctant to get rid of the car tax. It seems to be unjust because it applies only to the motor industry and to no other goods. By the time VAT of 17½ per cent. is added, it adds around 27 per cent. to the price of a car. That has resulted in a reduction in car sales of about 24 per cent. The fact that VAT is not reclaimable on business cars discriminates against the motor industry. It is reclaimable for other business purposes such as office equipment.
The 1991 Budget increased personal benefit taxes on business by a figure way above inflation. Furthermore, employers' national insurance contributions will be payable on private use of business cars, whereas other benefits in kind are not so affected.
Truck sales are in a sad state and are expected to be the lowest since 1954. That is due to the recession. Companies make the lorries last longer. In some cases, with lack of business, they have taken one or two lorries off the road and are unlikely to be able to buy new ones for some considerable time. It is interesting that in 1989 the British and German markets were

543
around the same size, and the German markets in 1991 will be three times the size of ours. That is a sad reflection on the state of the industry.
The motor cycle trade has been seriously affected, with sales only one-quarter of what they were a few years ago. It is true that few motor cycles are made in this country. But thousands of jobs are seriously at risk in the dealerships and service outlets. I thought it strange in the Budget—it was not mentioned at the time—that the annual tax on motor cycles was increased by around 20 per cent. yet nothing was added to the annual tax of cars. It is strange because a motor cycle uses less petrol than a car and takes up less road space. I believe their use should be encouraged.
I am surprised that the Government have done so little to encourage diesel cars. In some European countries such as France and Germany diesel fuel costs only two-thirds the price of petrol. As a result, in France almost 40 per cent. of new cars are diesel powered compared with around 9 per cent. here. In October this year diesel sales reached 10 per cent. for the first time. Diesel cars do not require expensive catalytic converters and use around one-third less fuel than their petrol equivalent. They are therefore favourable to the environment and should be encouraged.
The multinational companies, both Ford and General Motors, have been criticised in the past for importing cars made in their continental factories. For instance, all Ford Granadas and Sierras are now imported. Vauxhall imports all its Senators, Carltons and Calibras. In the whole of Europe the Vauxhall Nova is built only in Spain.
However, the motor industry is not all gloom. Ford now exports a large number of Fiestas from its plant in Dagenham; Vauxhall manufactures a great many Luton-built Vauxhall Cavaliers in left-hand drive form, and they are sold in export markets as Opel Vectras. Around 80 per cent. of Nissan production from Washington is exported, mostly to Germany, and the export figures for the successful Rover 200/400 series continue to rise. As a result, although sales are down by approximately 25 per cent., production is down by only around 10 per cent. That is encouraging. As long as the European market holds up car production will not fall too seriously.
It is a great pity that government policy towards the motor industry and its customers appears to be hostile. One must hope for a quick change of heart so that this great industry, which is so important to the prosperity of the country, will once again be able to thrive.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Braybrooke: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for allowing one to take part in the debate. This afternoon we are dealing with one of the major, if not the major, industries of the country and the problems therein. Motor manufacturers employ a large number of people and even more are employed in ancillary industries. Their security and livelihood is obviously
544
of great importance and the destruction of this manufacturing base will be a tragedy which must be avoided at all costs.
Nevertheless, market forces play a major role in all businesses and alteration of product and diversification should be considered early before demand slumps to a dangerous level. One of the few businesses that has an ongoing clientele is the undertaking business. Even they experience competition from different firms and produce reproduction furniture in the summer when business is slack.
With your Lordships' forbearance I want to look beyond the downturn in the number of car buyers to prospects and possibilities for the future, star-gazing though that may be. I hope it will be of interest to your Lordships even though some may disagree.
The motor car is loved by many and deeply cherished. For most people it is their major purchase apart from their home. It gives the owner enjoyment, freedom, status and satisfaction. I am told that in some cases cars receive more attention than wives. Noble Lords may recall the story of a couple trapped in their new car in a traffic jam on Westminster Bridge. The wife said to the husband, "If you do not stop talking about this new car, Henry, I will throw myself off the bridge". He replied, "You always were a sport, Doris", quickly opening the passenger door.
I hasten to add that I have a great love affair with motor cars. I cannot imagine life without 12-cylinder Jaguars, although I doubt if I will ever buy another petrol-engine car—something about which I shall speak shortly. However, these privileges cost us dear. Perhaps I may draw an agricultural analogy, from what is another large business. Surely there is no inviolable right to produce cars beyond demand, any more than farmers can now demand agriculture as a way of life, with an assured market for all their lines of production. Farming is throttled. Many crops have quotas; production is limited and the rearing of animals for food production is in some cases totally uneconomic. It seems to be a crazy world when half mankind are alleged to be starving. But I understand that transport costs to far-flung lands cannot be borne.
We read that this month 101,000 units were produced in the motor industry in Great Britain and 58 per cent. of cars were imported in October. From that are we all to deduce that foreign cars are better? It is not the Government's task to interfere in design or endeavour to protect the home market. I suggest that exports must continue to be encouraged—and they have done remarkably well—with all speed. Only that will probably save the industry in its present state. Encouragement should also be given to buying British. I know that few cars are British these days though some of them carry British labels. For years we produced the best cars in the world and 50 years ago or more people who bought foreign cars were regarded as being a little unusual. It was mildly "non-U", almost like wearing co-respondent shoes. That is now no longer the case. I have been driving diesel Vauxhalls, and automatic ones too, for the past eight to 10 years. They are all made in Germany but my friends do not know because of the Vauxhall label.

545
I wish to mention one point about the cost of diesel fuel. Over that 10 years, buying fuel in bulk, it has always been between six shillings and eight shillings a gallon cheaper than petrol. I use the old money to give noble Lords an idea of how much cheaper it is if you buy and store the fuel yourself. Like farmers, motor manufacturers should start thinking about diversification and ever-increasing exports. We threw away our motorcycle industry, through no fault of the people building the machines. I cherish my Velocette. We threw away our light aircraft industry, and again the employees were largely, if not completely, blameless. Cessna and Piper in the United States of America no longer produce single engined aircraft due to excessive product liability laws. That market—and a very valuable one it is—has been largely taken over by the French. The French, my Lords! I ask: why not Great Britain?
Some motor manufacturers indulge in the aircraft industry—Saab, in particular, on the Continent. Motor manufacturers are also pretty well placed to produce pressed steel or prefabricated items which could be done for the home market. I refer to cabinets, washing machines and the like. They could also produce panels, parts or even perhaps complete railway carriages. Heavyweight firms such as Vickers, who own Rolls-Royce, could produce railway locomotives, as could many other firms in the defence sector. Many motor manufacturers are now highly skilled in plastic moulding. I suggest that we must strive not to let the motor industry follow motorcycles and light aircraft.
The company car offers great advantages to the employee. There is of course no first cost of purchase. The choice of the car may be at the behest of the employee. Noble Lords may disagree, but I suggest that company cars are probably driven less thoughtfully and carefully than self-owned cars. Few company cars are diesel for obvious reasons. Why should an employee bother about the cost of motoring when it is not borne by him?
Sometimes farmers provide their employees with milk and heating oil. If, as an alternative, the employer decides to pay the farm worker more to cover these items on his own account, I suggest that he might possibly drink marginally less milk, but he would husband his heating oil most assiduously in order to get the maximum benefit from it at the least cost. I suggest that owner drivers do likewise.
With the probable demise of the company car diesel becomes even more attractive. I agree totally with the figures given by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron: that is, that 40 per cent. of cars sold in France and nudging 10 per cent. sold in this country are diesel cars. However, the carriage trade do not really like them. They burn too little fuel. There is too little service work to be carried out on the engines at £40 per hour. They probably also last too long.
Looking to the future I ask whether the industry, like agriculture, will ever have it so good again. In my view there are some warning signs. Is it acceptable to go on covering our beautiful island with ever more concrete? There is indeed foreign competition, but do
546
foreigners always play by the Queensberry rules? There are environmental considerations which the production of electric cars would satisfy. Aggravation and nuisance in towns is likely to increase. Great strides have been made in safety of late but unfortunately we still lose 5,000 lives a year and 35,000 petrol engined motorcars catch fire each year. Jack-knifing a 40-tonne articulated lorry is not uncommon. Should its speed be directly related to its braking capabilities? For example, can a 40-tonne lorry, travelling at 70 miles per hour, stop without jack-knifing and in the same distance as a family car travelling at the same speed? If not, why not?
I suggest that competition would come from a properly modernised railway system, which we have not got in this country. It would provide greater speed, greater haulage capacity for the horsepower used, less land take, greater safety and far less damage to the environment. A journey time of under four hours now between King's Cross and Edinburgh would be impossible to beat legally in a private car and is a likely threat to air travel.
I now turn to freight haulage. There are privately owned locomotives running on British Rail between Foster Yeoman quarries in Somerset and Acton in West London. On 26th May of this year one of these locomotives (of General Motors manufacture) hauled a train in excess of a mile in length weighing 11,982 tonnes. That is the equivalent of 315 lorries of 38 tonnes each, which would need 110,250 horsepower as against the 4,500 horsepower required by rail to haul the same load of granite or 24½ times as much. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for suggesting that Sir Winston Churchill might have said, "Some train— some engine".
Finally, are these pointers for the future? Can we manufacturers of food and cars ignore the market? Perhaps wise men cut their cloth accordingly and survive.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the UK's economic volatility is a major problem for our motor manufacturers. They need a more stable environment in which they can forecast demand and therefore plan production schedules, order supplies and specify manpower requirements with greater accuracy. As we have heard over and over again tonight, the UK market is at its lowest level for many years. I shall not go into the figures, but they are appalling. It is vital that our motor manufacturers are helped, and quickly, before European barriers are lifted in 1993. The Japanese will then increase their penetration at the expense of European volume makers. That is projected to cost the UK's largest car manufacturer alone, Rover, over 20 per cent. of its total European export volume. Last year its export sales, which were 43 per cent. of the total output, were worth over £1,000 million.
It may be that the Government's hands are tied by EC regulations, but Rover is a company that directly or indirectly employs 180,000 people in this country. It would be a great pity if financial problems should cause it to abandon developing cars scheduled for

547
1994 and beyond, some of them among the most interesting cars that it has ever conceived. I have three proposals, one or two of which the Government might consider and none of which should fall foul of Brussels. Unfortunately, all have been mentioned already, so at this late hour I shall be brief.
The first is the removal of the 10 per cent. car tax which places us among the highest taxed countries in the EC as regards new car purchases. No wonder there is now a form of "nearly new" trading, with lower margins for manufacturers and dealers. The second is the introduction of generous financial incentives to encourage greater interest in cars with environmental benefit s. We have heard from other noble Lords about the price differential in France between petrol and diesel, while Germany encourages drivers to buy cars equipped with catalytic converters by exempting them from the road fund licence for the first three years.
As in Germany, VAT might be reclaimed where a company car is legitimately used for business purposes and not just for an executive to go back and forwards to work. On my farm I can reclaim VAT on a tractor and a van. To many firms a car is just as important as a business tool. The last Budget was not helpful to the motor industry; I hope that the Government may consider some of these proposals.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, may I at the outset congratulate my noble friend Lord Dean on initiating a debate which has been of a very high standard and one in which a number of very interesting propositions have emerged. The debate ranged over a wide field and even included the daring revelation of the noble Lord, Lord Braybrooke, about his love affairs—albeit with motor cars.
I did not detect very much, if any, support for the policy of this Government in relation to the car industry. The Minister would do well to note that most of the speakers in the debate came from his own side. The clearest common denominator has been the significance for the United Kingdom's manufacturing position of the motor vehicle industry.
As my noble friend Lord Stoddart said in a very fine speech, the industry faces very tough times. Indeed, in briefing your Lordships' House, the motor car industry made explicit and serious charges against government policy. I quote:
"The Government's fiscal policy is putting the future at risk".
Perhaps it is one of those US components of the Government's policy to which the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, referred. I think in this connection it is a different US from the one to which she was alluding. This is a charge which emanates from a very respectable source and it is incumbent upon the Minister to answer very clearly what has been said.
What is the bleak scenario depicted by the industry—an industry at its lowest point for more than a decade? Over the past 12 months new car sales have plunged ominously and the slide continues. My noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, referred to truck sales being at their lowest level since the war. Reputable car dealers are
548
declining into receivership and liquidation as never before and component manufacturers too are deeply affected by the slump. The scourge of unemployment haunts the whole industry. It haunts dependent industries and businesses and indeed many industrial areas of the United Kingdom. One does have to ask whether, to quote the Chancellor, this is part of "the price worth paying" for the way in which they have waged the war against their self-induced inflation.
The industry resents the fact that the Budget, whose principal design—it is as well to remember this—was to extricate the Government from the poll tax debacle, has hit the industry for six. It is a situation of absolute nonsense, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Higher VAT, but no relief in the discriminatory special car tax.
One has to ask too where else among our competitors in Europe is the car industry singled out in such a discriminatory fashion? Why should cars be penalised, but not, for example, washing machines? The difference is very easy to explain. It is that huge revenues are enjoyed by the Treasury by embarking upon this injurious policy.
Regrettably the Government chose to ignore the representations which were made by the industry, as, indeed, they ignored the omens of decline which preceded those representations. What the Government preferred were the signs of false dawns. Car output remained stable until August, despite a massive fall in car sales. Exports were kept buoyant by a temporary increase in demand in Europe, notably in Germany. The rueful warnings of the industry went unheeded, despite the calamitous fall in production—30 per cent. in August, 11 per cent. in September —as the growth in exports slowed and the pace of decline in the United Kingdom car sales accelerated.
The difficulty—the main underlying problem—is that this decline, coupled with the run-down in jobs, is not just that these jobs, particularly skilled jobs, will disappear, but so will production plants, rendering the industry far less capable of meeting increased demands when the economy finally picks up.
Another important fact, seemingly overlooked by the Chancellor, is that motor cars account for more than 5 per cent. of total consumer spending. What he has been looking for is higher consumer spending to lift the economy out of the recession. There seems to be something of a non sequitur as far as concerns policy.
Let it be underlined, too, that Britain's trade deficit in times of greater economic activity is compounded by car imports. That is bad for our industry here and it is bad for the country. What is saving the car industry in Britain is regrettably not the British motor car industry but the motor car industry in Britain—and the two are different. It is the wave of inward investment by Japanese car makers into the United Kingdom that is responsible for that. Of course that has its very strong plus side. It has certain disadvantages as well. But the fact is that we have to be grateful that that has happened, as the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said in what I think the whole House will acknowledge was a very remarkable contribution to the debate.

549
The fact that the Government seem to have written off our own indigenous car industry has given cause for anxiety to noble Lords on both sides of the House. It has become rather fashionable for the Government to do that in the recent past. We have to ask if the judgment is right. Despite all its difficulties we do have the designers, the inventiveness, the technological skills and the work-force capable of promoting the industry; that has been made clear by a number of noble Lords tonight. What the industry needs is much more new investment to promote output, jobs, more environmentally friendly cars and the balance of trade.
Industry has major responsibilities in facing the industrial world of the future. There is a need to match the way in which the Japanese have mastered the art of producing many different models in a profitable way; the way in which they have concentrated on speeding up the time needed to change tools for different models, designing models that people want and selling them at a profit.
In the industry itself there needs to be less conflict, fewer restrictive practices, less "them and us", more flexibility, more devolution of responsibility and more information too for the workforce and for customers. Those are some of the ways in which we can work towards the radical overhaul in terms of human relationships at the workplace that is needed. There needs to be restructuring to meet the needs of modern manufacturing requirements. There is a need for more R&D to ensure that technology is kept at the leading edge in order to improve consumer choice and enhance environmental standards. The environment in the workplace must change, with democracy and the maximising of consensus wherever possible replacing division and autocracy. Happily, that situation is declining. Those are the ways to ensure commitment to the industry which is the key to industrial success.
The Government also have their responsibilities because the industry needs government. It needed government in causing the Japanese to invest in a major way in some of our regions. Those companies would not have established themselves here without substantial regional aid from the Government and from the European Community. There needs to be an increasing degree of partnership between the industry and government, each recognising the responsibilities of the other. The Government must be committed to an industrial strategy which provides stable and predictable exchange rates. That was said back in 1989 and has been said since by the CBI. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, speak at the CBI. I did not agree with as much of what she said there as I did with what she said today. There must also be an abandonment of the over-reliance on interest rates as an economic regulator which has clearly damaged this and many other industries.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart was right to say that policy in relation to the motor industry has to be related to an overall transport policy. What the Government do there is to indulge in ad hocery on a large scale. They do not have an integrated transport
550
policy. Indeed, the Minister in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has denied that there is any such thing as an integrated transport policy. He is about the only transport Minister in Europe to make an assertion of that kind. There needs to be the promotion of links with higher education which has all too often been neglected by this and other industries.
We cannot afford to conclude the debate without referring to the consumer. The customer has been the subject of many anti-competitive devices. It is true that that is to be the subject of a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. British consumers are required to pay more for their cars; consequently, they either do not pay those higher prices or, if they do, they have less to spend on other things, with corresponding damaging effects on the whole economy. Half the cars sold in the United Kingdom are imported. If we could cut a quarter of the cost of imports we could save nearly £2 billion a year on our balance of payments. It is important that sales of new cars are improved, not least because new, more environmentally friendly cars constitute one of the most effective safeguards against pollution of the environment.
There are new and massive challenges to be faced by the industry. There is the question of the recycling of cars and parts of cars. The German motor industry is demanding 100 per cent. recycling. That problem has to be faced up to. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, referred to electric cars. Possibilities are emerging in the United States of brand new technologies. All this will impact on an industry which requires to invest more and more in research and development to keep up the strenuous pace that is being dictated. The Government cannot divorce themselves from those factors and simply rely on the propositions of their ideology which are now vastly outdated, as they themselves concede day after day.
Once again I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dean on the excellent speech with which he introduced the debate and thank him for giving us an opportunity to range over so many issues widely in pursuit of a policy which we hope will be dictated by rather greater common sense than has been reflected by the Government's policy in the past year or more.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for raising this subject for debate. It has provoked an interesting, well informed, stimulating and enthusiastic discussion. The noble Lord must be gratified by the number of speakers from our Benches who have taken part in the debate, even though he may perhaps be disappointed by the number from his own.
I recognise that the recession has created severe difficulties for British car manufacturers, but I have been greatly encouraged by the way in which they have coped over recent months. I shall start by saying something about that commendable performance.
Despite the short-term slump in domestic demand, our major car manufacturers have managed to

551
maintain their 1990 production levels and indeed Vauxhall, for one, is currently breaking production records at its Luton plant. Such achievements have been made possible by the manufacturers' tremendous export performance. In the first nine months of this year, British car production for export increased by a staggering 89 per cent. compared with the same period last year, helping to reduce the trade deficit in the automotive products sector by 79 per cent. in the first half of this year. The success of the export drive indicates that our car manufacturers are now more competitive than ever, indicating our policy of exposing companies to competitive pressures.
Some people have said that this tremendous export performance is purely a short-term phenomenon made possible by the German boom since reunification. However, that theory does not correspond to the facts. In the first half of this year British car manufacturers exported a total of 36,000 cars to Germany, representing only 12 per cent. of total British car exports to the EC. That compares with 82,000 cars exported to France and 91,000 to Italy in the same period—the latter being an increase of more than 500 per cent. on the same period last year. By increasing exports to countries such as those, where the overall level of demand is falling, British manufacturers have succeeded in substantially increasing their share of these markets; for example, from 1 per cent. to 7 per cent. of the Italian market, from 5.5 per cent. to more than 8 per cent. of the French market, and from under 2 per cent. to more than 5 per cent. of the Dutch market. Perhaps that, more than anything, is the clearest indication that British car manufacturers are once again able to compete with the best in the world.
However, noble Lords will be aware that government policy in general puts more emphasis on setting the climate for long-term competitiveness and growth rather than trying to cushion manufacturing industry from short-term fluctuations. I therefore propose to highlight how current government policy has played a major role in laying the foundations for what promises to be a tremendous period of change and expansion for the UK car industry over the next few years. I believe that three policies in particular look set to have a fundamental impact on the future of our car manufacturers, thus helping them to become leaner, fitter and more responsive to consumer requirements.
First, there is the success of the Government's step-by-step reform of industrial relations and trade union law over the past 12 years which is widely acknowledged to have had a profound effect on the car sector and will clearly continue to do so. It is no coincidence that the widespread reduction in strikes and th3 overall improvement in industrial relations has occurred since government legislation was introduced. For example, it has outlawed secondary picketing, required secret ballots before official strikes, protected union members from unjustifiable union discipline, protected businesses and jobs against unofficial strikes and made all closed-shop practices unlawful.
552
In turn, the curbing of union power has enabled manufacturers to introduce new and more effective working practices. Of particular note among such reforms currently being introduced in the automotive sector are the recent changes in working practices which Rover and Vauxhall have introduced. At its plant at Ellesmere Port, Vauxhall has abolished demarcation lines, introduced team working and scrapped the multi-union negotiations in favour of a "single voice" bargaining system. Rover's "New Deal" involves the introduction of similar working practices based on trust in the workforce; for example, the abolition of clocking on. These changes are clearly the way forward if British manufacturers are to attain world best practice levels of productivity, and would simply not have been possible without government legislation to reduce the excessive power previously held by the unions.
Secondly, the fact that the three largest Japanese car manufacturers chose to locate in this country is very much a result of our policy of encouraging inward investment. By the time all three are fully on stream in the mid-1990s they will have brought at least 500,000 units of new annual productive capacity and 8,000 new jobs to the United Kingdom. However, the benefits of such projects are not confined to new production capacity and employment. Honda and Toyota will soon be joining Nissan in bringing a whole new philosophy to car manufacturing in the UK, involving not only radically new production techniques but also totally new working practices which lay emphasis on teamwork and trust; practices which can develop in the new industrial relations climate we have created. Already, during its short history in the UK, Nissan has established itself as one of the most efficient car plants in the world and, with Toyota and Honda soon to come on stream, the UK is set to become the centre of European best practice in the motor industry, enjoying the fastest rate of growth in car production anywhere in Europe.
Our policy of encouraging inward investment by the car manufacturers is also having a tremendous revitalising effect on the UK automotive component industry, as my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield recognised. Many component suppliers have had to improve product quality and reliability in order to meet Nissan's exacting standards and, at the same time, have been helped by Nissan to achieve those standards. By the time Nissan's Sunderland plant is at full capacity in 1993, producing 220,000 units per annum, the company will have an annual expenditure on European sourced components of £600 million, of which £400 million will be with UK suppliers. By the time all three of the Japanese inward investors are at full capacity in the mid-1990s, their combined annual expenditure on European components will have almost reached the £2 billion mark. It is clear that the British component industry is facing a unique opportunity, which I trust it will grasp with both hands.
Thirdly, our policy of ensuring free and fair competition and working toward the single European market is of great importance to the success of the United Kingdom investments made by the Japanese

553
car builders. That has been most apparent in our struggle to have so-called "transplant" production treated in the same way as cars produced by the European Community's more established manufacturers. We are therefore pleased that the recent agreement on Japanese car imports after 1992 secured our main objective of obtaining free circulation within the EC for such transplant production. I can assure my noble friend Lady Denton that we shall be maintaining close contact with the European Commission to ensure there is no breach of the free circulation principle in future.
However, progress has not been restricted to the Japanese manufacturers. We must not forget the remarkable turnaround which one of our more established manufacturers has experienced since the late 1980s. Since privatisation, Rover has experienced a phenomenal reversal of fortunes, with the consumer once again being able to have confidence in the quality of its products. In addition to quality improvement, Rover's productivity has soared from six cars per worker per annum in 1979, to 18 in 1989 and to no less than 35 cars per worker this year. That level of productivity is not far off Japanese levels, and, in fact, one of the main reasons for Rover's remarkable turnaround has been its ever increasing links with Honda. That alliance, which started when Rover was in the public sector, has proved invaluable, particularly in the field of product development.
Several noble Lords raised the question of the special car tax. Indeed, my noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Strathcarron did so. Other noble Lords took up various aspects of taxation. I do not think that noble Lords would expect me to go into any detail on the subject. I am aware that tax is an issue of concern to the industry. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will seriously consider the various representations which will have been made to him when considering next year's Budget.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, raised the question of car prices. The matter was also raised by several other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The MMC report on the supply of new cars was submitted to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 31st October. He is carefully considering its recommendations. The report will be published as soon as is practicable.
554
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, also referred to the current depressed state of the truck market, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron. It is inevitable that there have been cutbacks in sales of trucks and commercial vehicles as companies have deferred purchases during the recession. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron. Economic recovery will lead to an upturn in sales. British truck manufacturers are well placed to take advantage of the recovery in commercial vehicle sales and they will benefit from the strength inherent in the new international alliances which have been established such as Iveco/Ford and Leyland/Daf.
My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux mentioned the mounting concern on the issue of car security. The DTI and the Home Office have discussed the issue with British manufacturers with a view to improving the security features of new and current models.
My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever argued that Rover's sales to the European Community would be hit in the future by Japanese imports. All I can say is that we believe in the benefits of free trade and free competition as a stimulus to efficient manufacture, choice and low prices for the consumer. Rover is a company which has been reborn in the private sector, as I have argued, and seems more than capable of competing with the world's best.
In conclusion, the next few years promise to be an exciting period for car manufacturers throughout the world as they introduce fundamental changes in every aspect of their operations to meet the challenges of efficient car production in the 1990s. The fact that the British car industry has shown itself capable of responding positively to the current difficult conditions leads me to believe that its future is secure without special interference from government. Our policies of setting the framework for less adversarial industrial relations, encouraging inward investment and privatisation and promoting the single market will be seen to have an overwhelmingly positive and long lasting effect on our motor car industry as it prepares to meet those challenges. I therefore have every confidence that the UK car industry will continue to save itself by its own exertions.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  DRUG TRAFFICKERS: CONFISCATION OF ASSETS
  DRUG TRAFFICKERS: CONFISCATION OF ASSETS
  CATEGORY A PRISONERS
  CATEGORY A PRISONERS
  ROYAL GROUP OF HOSPITALS, BELFAST
  ROYAL GROUP OF HOSPITALS, BELFAST
  MINERS' UNIONS: MEMBERSHIP
  MINERS' UNIONS: MEMBERSHIP
  "THE PARENT'S CHARTER"
  "THE PARENT'S CHARTER"
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBERS: SALE SCHEME
  VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBERS: SALE SCHEME