Sitting of 17 February 1992

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

    Water Pollution
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many water pollution incidents were the subject of prosecutions in each of the last three years; and what was the total amount levied in fines in each year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I shall circulate the full information in the Official Report. The number of successful prosecutions in the National Rivers Authority's Welsh region was 65 in the year to 31 August 1990, 85 in the year to 31 August 1991 and 20 in the three months from 31 August 1991 to 30 November 1991.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware of what the National Rivers Authority calls the mysteriously high levels of copper, zinc and lead pollution in the lower Ogmore estuary in my constituency? In two successive years, the Government imposed budget cuts on the NRA yet Welsh Water was fined only just over £18,000 for 17 pollution incidents, although it is making profits that average £120 million a year. Does not the Minister believe that it is about time that the Government took stiff action,
    2
    so that the potential to fight pollution is not wasted as it is at the moment, due to the Government's lackadaisical attitude?
    Mr. Bennett: Apart from the fact that the hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong, the NRA's budget is £431 million. The NRA was established by the Government to tackle water pollution—something that the last Labour Government did not do. We have increased the amount of money being spent on purifying water and the results are clear. Welsh water is cleaner than English water and is some of the best in Europe. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is for ever denigrating the water of Wales.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: As I had severe doubts about the privatisation of water, can my hon. Friend tell me whether investment in water in Wales has increased or decreased since privatisation?
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend will know from the figures that, under the last Labour Government, investment in the water industry was severely cut by the Treasury. Since the industry was privatised under the Government, Welsh Water alone is investing £500,000 a day, or £1·8 billion over the next 10 years, to improve our water.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister acknowledge the enormous increase in water charges in Wales since privatisation? Given that the increase is hitting hard the water rate payers in Wales, should not all the money that is raised by Welsh Water be used to increase water standards, instead of being spread around as profits among private individuals, who are benefiting from a monopoly?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman asked me that question before, and he still does not appear to understand the answer. All the money, and more, raised from charges to Welsh water consumers is used for investment. For every £100 raised by charges, £108 is spent on investment. The shareholders of Welsh Water—a separate company —get dividends from the investments that Welsh Water makes in other interests. Nothing is done with Welsh

    3
    Water charge payers' money other than to invest it in water. The hon. Gentleman ought to understand that point.
    Following is the information:

    Prosecutions

    Fines £

    Costs £

    1 September 1989 to 31 August 1990

    65

    58,255

    40,926·81

    1 September 1990 to 31 August 1991

    85

    306,400

    77,582·23

    1 September 1991 to 30 November 1991

    20

    11,300

    6,007·23

    A small number of prosecutions have been unsuccessful. Costs for the period 1 September 1991 to 30 November 1991 may be subject to amendment.
    Further information is contained in the NRA's report "Water Pollution Incidents in England and Wales 1990", which was published last month.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the consideration he gives expressions of public opinion in assessing whether an application for NHS hospital trust status should beapproved.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I take full account of all relevant representations.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Minister accept that every opinion poll on the subject shows that the overwhelming majority of the public oppose NHS trusts and see them as a stepping stone to privatisation? If the Government—who privatised the gas, electricity and water industries—are returned at the next general election, they will privatise the NHS. Why do not the Government abandon that creeping privatisation and listen to the public, who want the NHS to be modernised, not privatised?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is, for instance, referring to the Wales Trades Union Congress opinion poll, but I shall quote from one of the instructions to those who conducted it:
    "Street ballots are to be held as a means of offering the public the opportunity to show their opposition to optingout.
    I hardly think that that was a fair poll.
    In 1979, Labour said that the Conservative Government would privatise the health service. Nothing has been further from the truth, and the position is still the same. We have no plans to privatise the health service. The latest opinion poll on the health service in Wales showed that nine out of 10 of the people who received hospital treatment in the past two years were very or fairly satisfied with it. Approval of the Government's conduct of the health service is at record levels.
    Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success that national health service trusts in England are enjoying should reassure anybody in Wales about any application that might come before him?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. Approval has been widespread and distinct improvements have been made. I remind the House of the figures and statistics. When we took office in 1979, an average of £170 per man, woman and child was spent on the health service in Wales. My recent announcement took the figure to £651. There is no question of underfunding—rather, there has been a generous allocation of resources.
    Mr. Livsey: Parents are allowed a vote when schools opt for grant-maintained status, yet no such vote is allowed when an NHS hospital applies to become a trust. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is very unfair?
    Mr. Hunt: The two examples are not comparable. There is no question of any national health service trust leaving the NHS. Parents have a vote on the governorship of schools, but health service trusts must show the Secretary of State for Wales that the quality of service will improve and that they will remain within the national health service.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I put it to my right hon. Friend that trust status is the finest form of devolution within the national health service, taking decision making down to the most local level. By increasing NHS spending by approximately 60 per cent. in real terms, the Government are showing the finest and best commitment to the NHS in Wales.
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. National health service trusts mean local management of locally based health services to meet local need. The previous Labour Government took all their time in office to reach a 9 per cent. increase in real terms. Under this Government, NHS resources have increased in real terms by more than 60 per cent.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that opt-out hospitals and the Tory commercialised internal market in patients are yet further examples of the Conservatives imposing policies from Whitehall that ignore the special needs and culture of Wales and have no support among our people? There is no support in Wales for those proposals, but there is anger that the Secretary of State will tamper with the national health service in the way that he proposes. When the election is held, his party will pay a heavy price.
    Mr. Hunt: We have had expressions of interest from parts of the national health service that would mean that trusts would be responsible for more than 65 per cent. of all acute services in Wales. The hon. Gentleman was a Welsh Office Minister in the previous Labour Government, when resources for the national health service increased by 9 per cent. Under this Government, resources have increased by more than 60 per cent. in real terms.

    Glyntaff Farm Estate
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of Taff Ely borough council to discuss the future of the Glyntaff Farm estate.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend has done so, but our officials are regularly in touch with the local authority.
    Dr. Howells: By any index, the Glyntaff Farm estate is one of the most deprived and run down in Wales, and there are many like it in the Principality. Its young population, including many young children, live in houses which are falling apart and which it is estimated will cost £22 million to repair. When will the Minister do something about the administrative constipation that prevents the Welsh Office from acting, and ensure that my constituents have a better life than they have had until now?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend, that we are anxious to facilitate the transfer of properties to the new tenants housing association as soon as possible, but, clearly, there are matters of finance which have to be sorted out. I can assure him that I share his concerns. I want to see it happen and we shall continue to maintain close contact with the local authority to ensure that it does.
    Mr. Murphy: With many estates in Wales such as Glyntaff in need of serious attention, with nearly 80,000 people on council house waiting lists in Wales, with mortgage repossessions at a record high and with nearly 20,000 homeless people in the Principality, does the Minister still insist that there is no Welsh housing crisis?
    Mr. Bennett: It is interesting to consider the reality of the situation, as opposed to what the hon. Gentleman says. Under Housing for Wales, we are this year giving £170 million towards the construction of new houses. The hon. Gentleman talks about waiting lists, but he should consider an article in the Daily Post on 7 February this year which states that Anglesey—Ynys Mon borough council said that it has been able to slash the waiting list from 1,522 people to only 147 by considering what people want, the number of people on the list and whether they have a valid demand. That is the reality.
    I am pleased to be able to announce today that I am making available a further £1 million to five local authorities to help them to tackle homelessness pressures in their areas. A lot has been done by this Government —we do not merely sit and talk as the Opposition do. Action is what counts and that is what we are providing for Wales.

    Primary Education
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79 at constant prices.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): In 1989–90 current expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Wales was £1,292. The equivalent constant price figure for 1978–79 was £974.
    Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that current and capital expenditure on education in Wales have risen in real terms since 1979?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I have just given my hon. Friend the figures for primary schools. He will, I am sure, be interested to know the figures for secondary school pupils
    6
    which show an even more remarkable increase of about 46–4 per cent., from £1,346 per head in 1978–79 to £1.971 in 1989–90.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister accept that it is fundamentally dishonest to represent those figures as an increase in real terms when they reflect only the fact that there has been a falling roll? Will he now turn his attention to the state of primary schools in Wales? Does not he recognise that primary schools throughout the Principality are suffering from a decaying fabric, from a lack of support from local education authorities as a result of the Government's cuts in real terms and as a result of the demoralisation of the teaching profession? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the crisis that is building in primary schools and, in the last couple of weeks of this Government. start to do something about that?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts, which is a record even for him. On overall current expenditure on education, there has been a 24 per cent. increase in a period when pupil numbers have indeed fallen, by nearly 15 per cent. On capital expenditure, during the past three years about 6 per cent. less has been spent than we allocated to local education authorities for capital spending, so the blame for crumbling schools must be placed at their door. It is they that have failed to spend the allocations that we have given to them. With regard to teachers' morale, I know that teachers are extremely pleased with the 7·8 per cent. increase which the review body awarded them with the Government's agreement.

    Rail Services
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had about the standard of rail services in north Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Twenty representations have been received since the introduction of the latest timetable in September. Most of those concerned the level of inter-city services between Holyhead and London.
    Dr. Marek: The Minister may agree with me that, at the next general election, it is technically possible for the representatives of the non-Tory-voting people of Wales to be swamped in the House by a south-east-dominated Tory Government who are hell bent on privatising British Rail. As the Minister's constituency is on the main line to Holyhead, I ask him to give a pledge to the House that in such an eventuality there will continue to be a proper, direct inter-city service between Euston and Holyhead.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman bases what he says on some bogus statements about the privatisation of British Rail, which we would heartily welcome, and the inter-city services. For the first time, we have the high-speed 125 trains running between London and Holyhead. They accomplish that journey in the fastest ever time—four hours, which is 30 minutes less than it previously took.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister has not answered the question. Will he tell the House specifically that there will be a guarantee that, whoever wins the next election, inter-city services will run between Holyhead and Euston —yes or no?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I welcome privatisation of British Rail. I have heard many complaints from the Opposition about the services of British Rail. I am sure that there will be a considerable improvement under a privatisation regime, including an improvement of the services between London and Holyhead.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of inward investment in (a) 1979 to 1983, (b) 1983 to 1987 and (c) since 1987; and what estimate he has made of future inward investment trends.
    Mr. David Hunt: Between 1979 and 1983, 102 projects were recorded. Between 1984 and 1987, 202 were recorded and, since 1987, 271 have been recorded. The recorded value of inward investment in Wales since 1984 is £4 billion and the number of new and safeguarded jobs now exceeds 100,000. We intend to build on those excellent results in future years.
    Mr. Jones: I welcome the successful figures which my right hon. Friend announced. Does he agree that all that would be put at risk if we were to return to the bad old days of excessive strikes and secondary picketing, not to mention the TUC's campaign of hostility towards inward investment in which it has described those companies as alien culture—a comment still not denounced by the Opposition, who have given a nod and wink of tacit approval?
    Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The favourable tax regime for companies and individuals is a great attraction, as are the work force and the industrial relations harmony which exists in Wales. When the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was a Minister in the second half of the 1970s, the number of working days lost per thousand employees was 1,183 a year. Between 1986 and 1990, the figure fell to 174. I now announce that we have the best figures for the past 100 years since records began. In Wales only 17 working days were lost per thousand employees. That would be placed in jeopardy if we were to go back to the bad old days of industrial strife and of the winter of discontent under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State advise the Welsh Development Agency, in its efforts to attract new investment, to be a bit more circumspect about whom it assists? Mady Gerrard, formerly of New York, when trading as GG International Ltd., left behind a trail of debts and then went into liquidation. With the full backing of the WDA, she is now back in business. Is that fair to all the small companies, especially in south Wales, to which she owes a lot of money?
    Mr. Hunt: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not cite one example in trying to prove his case. He referred to small companies. I am pleased to be able to announce this afternoon a package of 41 projects by small companies throughout Wales, involving the investment of more than £11.7 million, leading to the creation of more than 400 new jobs. That shows that it is not just major inward investment projects that deserve and receive help. The WDA and the Welsh Office also give outstanding support to small businesses.
    Mr. Morgan: If the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) would take off their rose-coloured spectacles for just a moment, they would see that a wave of bankruptcies is passing through Wales—like Sherman marching through Georgia. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the recession is now going so deep and cutting so far into the heart of Welsh industry and employment that it will take us several years and a change of Government to recover?
    Mr. Hunt: Not at all, and the hon. Gentleman should not talk down the Principality. Wales is weathering the worldwide recession far better than many other parts of the United Kingdom and the world. I am especially pleased to be able to announce today a £5 million investment by Smiths Crisps in Swansea. That is just another example that shows how well Wales is doing in terms of inward investment.
    Mr. Frank Field: Is the Secretary of State aware of the disappointment felt in my constituency at his Department's decision to refer the Hamilton oil project to a public inquiry? Does he accept that many of my constituents—shipyard workers, in particular—feel that the Government have caved in to pressure from one or two well-heeled environmentalists, putting their demands above the needs of the long-term unemployed in Birkenhead and the surrounding area? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he might be able to counter some of those fears if he expedited the public inquiry? Is he in a position to tell the House how quickly the public inquiry is expected to report?
    Mr. Hunt: I cannot comment on the merits of the proposal, which is formally before me for decision under planning law. I recognise, however, that the proposal raises issues whose significance is not merely local, and there have been a considerable number of representations both for and against it. In those circumstances, the holding of a public inquiry offers the fairest, speediest and surest way of dealing with the decision. I am happy to announce that arrangements are now in hand to hold an inquiry commencing on 12 May. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the final decision on the application will be issued as soon as possible after the inspector's report has been received and considered.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
    Is not my right hon. Friend's forceful presence in the Cabinet the main reason for inward investment in Wales? Does he agree that, if devolution has the consequences that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) predicts, there will be no voice in the British Cabinet arguing for the kind of conditions that have produced massive inward investment in Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that Wales gains considerably through the office of Secretary of State and from having a seat in the Cabinet. I know that the Liberal Democrats have conceded that their proposals for a Welsh assembly would mean the abolition of that post. It is about time that the Labour party came clean and explained why the Leader of the Opposition, having once been so implacably opposed to devolution for Wales, is now in favour of it. The position of Secretary of State is a

    9
    great asset in securing inward investment, and it is about time that the Labour party came to terms with the results of their devolution proposals.
    Mr. Barry Jones: We all celebrate the success of inward investment, which is crucial for Wales. We also remember that it was a Labour Government who first created the Welsh Office and then the Welsh Development Agency.
    Will the Secretary of State concede that the recession is one of the deadliest—and of the utmost seriousness—in respect of the Welsh economy? Whether on the M4 or the north Wales expressway, there appears to be a march to the dole with a loss of more than 2,500 jobs already this year. I hope that the Secretary of State is aware of the redundancies announced by employers in Wales, including British Steel. British Aerospace, Allied Steel, Ford, BP, Ferranti, Marconi, Ferrodo, National Power, Trecwn and Brawdy in Pembroke, Royal Worcester, Christie Tyler and South Wales Electricity. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he has no policy or strategy or, in Government, the will to deal with those pressing problems? He will lose parliamentary seats in Wales because he has no policies to tackle unemployment.
    Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman points at me and says that I will lose, I must inquire gently why the Labour party has not yet been able to put up a candidate against me in my constituency. As for the hon. Gentleman's doom and gloom, he is rapidly becoming well known as the agony aunt for Wales. He is an amateur merchant of doom and his comments were a forecast of the kind of problems that Wales would have if ever the Labour party were to win the general election.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage increase in real terms on expenditure on the Welsh language since 1978–79.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Direct Government grant support for the Welsh language has risen from £0.35 million i n 1978 to £7·6 million in 1992–93. That represents an increase in real terms of 669 per cent.
    Mr. Butler: Do not those figures show a dramatic increase in support for the Welsh language since the last Labour Government? What level of indirect support is there for the Welsh language?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Those figures cover assistance provided through part of the education system and to voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend is quite right, however—more support is given to the language through the education system than those direct grant amounts would indicate. For example, there is £3 million by way of grant under the GEST—grants for education support and training—programme. There is also the Government's very extensive support through their arrangements for the Welsh television channel S4C.
    Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister be a little more gracious than his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) and acknowledge the tremendous efforts of Labour-controlled authorities in south Wales and the valleys in respect of the Welsh language over many years? Will he remind his hon. Friend that making the Welsh language a political football does a disservice to that
    10
    language? How can a county like Mid-Glamorgan, which provides enormous support for the Welsh language through primary, secondary and other areas, pay its teachers the new pay award, which will cost the county £1·7 million, when the amount of Government grant will be only £700,000 and a shortfall of £1 million will thus have to be found from the poll tax payers of Mid-Glamorgan, which will mean £3 per head on the poll tax and the county will be capped for introducing that? Can the Minister advise the local authority how to get out of that dilemma created by the Government?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am, of course, grateful to the local authorities for their assistance and support for the Welsh language, and I do not think for a moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) or anyone in this House is seeking to make a political football out of the Welsh language.
    With regard to teachers' pay, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is as delighted as I am that the teachers have been given an increase of 7·8 per cent. He will also be delighted that the local authorities' standard spending assessments were increased by 8·1 per cent. by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government have given £3·5 million additional money to local authorities in Wales so that they can meet the necessary increase and give the teachers their well-deserved rise.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce during the next three months a Welsh language Bill to give the same status to Welsh and English in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The wide-ranging legislative proposals presented by the Welsh Language Board have called for very careful consideration. To this end, the Welsh Office has been consulting other Government Departments which would be affected. My right hon. Friend is weighing carefully the views which have been expressed, with the intention of announcing a decision on this matter as soon as possible.
    Mr. Howells: First, I should like to put the record straight, as the Secretary of State misled the House in saying that it was our party's policy to do away with the Secretary of State's office if our devolution proposals are accepted. That is not true.
    Secondly, I am very disappointed with the Minister of State's reply, as I am sure that the majority of people in Wales will be, too. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the people of Wales today that he will introduce such legislation before the next general election and that the same status will be given to the Welsh language as that given to the English language in Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not treating the question as seriously as he should. It is all very well for any party, such as the Labour party, to pledge that it will legislate for a Welsh Language Act, without actually spelling out what is to be in that Act. I for one, and my right hon. and hon. Friends, will not commit ourselves to saying that there will be such legislation without knowing precisely what will be put into that legislation. I have said that we are considering the matter most carefully and the proposals that were put before us, and we shall announce our decision in due course.
    Mr. Michael: The Minister of State is already practising for opposition. The only choice in the election will be a Labour Government, because the Labour party has firm commitments. We have said that in our first year we shall bring legislation before the House, and we have said what we shall put in it. The right hon. Gentleman's continued suggestions that we have not described the contents are untrue.
    Why has the Minister of State advised three Secretaries of State not to proceed with a Welsh language Bill when for a year there has been a consensus as a result of the publication of the measure by the Welsh Language Board? Why have the Government wasted a year, when a Welsh language Act could have been on the statute book by now? The Conservative party has revealed itself to be bereft of ideas and has failed to do the service to the Welsh language that could have been done by publishing a Bill a year ago and bringing it through Parliament this year.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The so-called supplementary question that we have just heard, which was really a statement, is typical of the slapdash, inconsiderate attitude of the Labour party toward a very serious issue which concerns not only Welsh speakers but non-Welsh speakers in Wales. The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to the proposals put forward by the Welsh Language Board. We are giving those proposals very serious consideration indeed.

    Job Losses
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to collect statistics on the number of jobs lost to Wales by outward divestment.
    Mr. David Hunt: None, Sir.
    Mr. Flynn: Have not the three Welsh Office Ministers become the three unwise monkeys of Wales, who neither see, hear nor talk of unemployment, but hide from it, ignoring the jobs lost through outward divestment? Hundreds of those are in Newport and Llanelli. The Government distort the figures by counting 50,000 people twice, but through all the fiddles comes the truth—that in Gwent 20,000 people are out of work, which is 10 per cent. of the work force. Do we have three monkeys or three cheetahs?
    Mr. Speaker: I imagine that that is spelt "ahs".
    Mr. Hunt: That is a very silly question about a very serious problem. Of course there are difficulties being faced by firms throughout the Principality wemake no secret of that—but according to the statistics, Wales is doing considerably better than many other parts of the United Kingdom and the world in weathering this worldwide recession. The hon. Gentleman should pay attention to the facts.

    Income Statistics
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures for (a) the percentage of people on retirement pensions as a proportion of the total adult population in Wales, (b) the number of families in Wales entitled to child benefit and (c) the percentage of employees in Wales earning under £20,280 annually.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The answer is (a) about 23 per cent., (b) about 350,000, and (c) about 90 per cent. Before
    12
    the hon. Gentleman asks his usual supplementary question—no, the people of Wales would not be better off under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister now aware that the recent figures provided by the House of Commons Library showed that only 2·5 per cent. of the population in Wales would be detrimentally affected by Labour's tax and national insurance policies, whereas 52 per cent.—including pensioners and mothers in receipt of child benefit—would benefit, in some cases substantially? Why do the Government not come clean and admit that, whereas Labour's tax policy would benefit the vast mass of people in Wales, the Government's policies would benefit and protect only a tiny privileged minority?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not looked at the record of the last Labour Government. Between 1974 and 1979, Labour increased income tax by 3p in the pound. Income tax is now 8p in the pound less than it was then. A man on average income with two children would pay £1,000 per year more under Labour. That is £20 a week. The people of Wales have not forgotten that. Nor have pensioners forgotten that under the Labour Government pensions rose by an average of 0·6 per cent. per year in terms of average total incomes. Pensions have risen by 3·3 per cent. per year under the Conservatives. That is more than the total of the last five years of the Labour Government.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy Payments
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what additional payments by the Church Commissioners are made to clergymen and women bearing the title of prebendary or canon; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissiones pay the stipends of two residentiary canons at each mainland English cathedral except Oxford, at a rate some 20 per cent. higher than the national average for a rector or vicar. There are other clergy bearing the titles of canon and prebendary who do so in an honorary capacity and do not thereby receive additional payments from the Commissioners.
    Mr. Greenway: Do my right hon. Friend and the Church Commissioners have any part in the payment of the salary of stipend of the small number of lady canons whom I understand to exist? Are there any plans to create canons out of people in holy orders of either sex who are only deacons?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, there is a proposal before the General Synod which will enable women deacons to be appointed canons and they would therefore come within the ambit of the possible payment by the Church Commissioners, but the measure enabling such deacons to be appointed as women canons would have to pass through this House before it becomes law.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Commissioner confirm to the House that when that measure came before the

    13
    ecclesiastical committee there was overwhelming support for it and that the committee's view was that, whatever the fate of the women priests measure, the measure to allow women deacons to become canons would give a career structure to women deacons within the Church?
    Mr. Alison: I am happy to confirm that. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the General Synod representatives reassured colleagues who were uneasy about the notion of appointing women canons that, unless the ordination of women was accepted by the General Synod, women canons would not be able to preside over or administer the sacraments in the cathedrals.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is sufficient differentiation between the payment to a canon and that to a curate, bearing in mind the substantial additional responsibilities that a canon bears?
    Mr. Alison: I will certainly consider the figures that my hon. Friend mentioned. The differential between the top and the bottom of the clergy and episcopal salary is a sensitive question which is considered regularly and frequently. My hon. Friend may well have a point that should be considered. I will certainly see that her unease is conveyed to the appropriate quarters.

    Agricultural Property
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is his current estimate of the total of agricultural property held by the Church Commissioners.
    Mr. Alison: As at 31 December 1991, the commissioners' agricultural portfolio consisted of about 154,000 acres, mostly let farmland.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the commissioner accept that following the vote on Friday it is likely that within a short time there will be a total ban on fox hunting, stag hunting and hare coursing in Britain? Does he believe that the commissioners should lead by example in banning such barbarous activities on their land?
    Mr. Alison: No. It has always been the practice in the Church Commissioners' holding of agricultural property to reserve the right of hunting not to the landlord but to the tenant so that the tenant, on the basis of his own conscience or attitude to hunting, can decide whether to let the hunt across the land.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will be welcomed in many rural communities, who feel that the campaign against hunting has been wildly misrepresentative and that fox hunting is the most humane way to control the fox population in the country?
    Mr. Alison: I voted in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend—I think that he was there on Friday—so I have some sympathy with what he says, but I repeat that the decision whether a hunt can cross a let farm of which the Church Commissioners are the landlord is entirely at the discretion of the tenant.

    Women Deacons
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the total number of women ordained as deacons in the Church of England as at 1 January.
    Mr. Alison: On 1 January 1991, there were 674 ordained women deacons in the full-time stipendiary ministry.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ask the Church Commissioners whether they would be willing to assess—and then publish the results of the assessment—what would be the benefit to the Church in terms of personnel availability if women were able to proceed beyond the diaconate to become priests? As a matter of full-time ministry personnel provision for the Church, has that been considered and if not could it be so?
    Mr. Alison: It is a slightly hypothetical speculative variant on which to give a clear answer off the cuff, and while awaiting the progress of the measure, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that although the number of male clergy continues to fall, and has fallen each year for some years, the total of men and women taken together has risen from 10,641 ordained clergy in 1986 to 11,052 last year, so the impact of women deacons is tending the make the total number of clergy go up, whereas the total number would fall if there were a single-sex ministry.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Buildings and Works
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps are being taken by the Commission in preparation for the transfer of responsibility from the Property Services Agency for buildings and works.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): A Director of Works—Mr. Henry Webber —was appointed in July 1991 to head a new Directorate of Works within the Serjeant at Arms Department to undertake the responsibilities formerly exercised by the Department of the Environment. A memorandum of understanding was agreed with the authorities of the other place in November 1991 to regulate the share of the costs of the works directorate between the two Houses. Appropriate estimates for parliamentary works for the next financial year were recently presented by the House of Commons Commission and on behalf of the other place. The Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill, which provides for the transfer of property and other legal rights and responsibilities to the two Houses, was presented on 7 February. Subject to the satisfactory progress of this 13ill, the transfer of responsibility for all works services to the two Houses is expected to be achieved at the beginning of April.
    Mr. Dalyell: I ask the hon. Gentleman a question of which I gave him notice a fortnight ago. Can Mr. Webber do anything about the intractable problem, probably 50 years old since the bombings, of the difficult but nevertheless shame-making stone rot in the Crypt, which

    15
    is extremely embarrassing for anyone who shows visitors with any knowledge at all around the Palace of Westminster?
    Mr. Beith: I went to have a look at the problem myself, mainly in the Baptistry area, and I know that the Public Works Office has been busy with it for some time and that the hon. Gentleman has brought the matter regularly to its attention. It is not within the province of the Commission and the authorities of the House until the beginning of April, but the authorities looking after it in the Department of the Environment are well aware of the concern and we intend to make sure that the matter is properly considered.

  WALES

    Advisory Council for Wales
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for an advisory council for Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I am continuing to discuss the idea of establishing an economic forum with interested parties.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend say a word about the consultations in which he has engaged with the other political parties in Wales and with Welsh local authorities, including those under Labour control?
    Mr. Hunt: The proposal was put to me by the Council of Welsh Districts at a time when the Council was under Labour control. Its position has been maintained since the change of control, and I am considering the proposal very seriously.
    Let me just say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) that if my earlier assumption that the Liberal Democrats would abolish the Secretary of State for Wales was incorrect, I apologise and am happy to accept what he says. The question of the economic forum, however, does not relate in any way to proposals for devolution.

    Business Investment
    Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he now has to stimulate business investment and attract quality jobs for the Monmouth travel-to-work area.
    Mr. David Hunt: The Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and other Government agencies operate a wide range of measures to stimulate business investment and to attract quality jobs in all parts of Wales.
    Mr. Edwards: Perhaps one of the measures that the Secretary of State could introduce would be the granting of assisted area status to the Monmouth travel-to-work area. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a delegation was preparing to meet him with a document, which has involved a considerable amount of work, to present the case for such status? The people of Monmouth, and the members of Gwent county council, Monmouth borough council, Monmouth town council and Monmouth chamber of commerce, are especially disappointed that the
    16
    Secretary of State has refused even to meet the delegation. What other proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have?
    Mr. Hunt: I am aware of the case that has been prepared by Monmouth borough council and 1 was very interested to read the report that it produced to support its case.
    We announced in 1988 that no change would be made in the current composition of the assisted area map during the lifetime of this Parliament. Since I received the council's submission, however, a number of additional points have been made to me and I am happy to announce that I have agreed to meet a deputation to discuss business investment in the area. The subjects discussed will include assisted area status.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Office Security
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent discussions he has had to improve security for Members' property when left in their offices.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have frequent discussions on security matters with the relevant authorities. It is most important that Members report any theft to the Serjeant-at-Arms as soon as these incidents occur.
    I am glad to be able to inform the House that, since Christmas, there has been a considerable reduction in the number of reported thefts. As I have often said before, the amount of property stolen would be considerably reduced if valuables were secured and desks and filing cabinets locked when offices are left unattended.
    Mrs. Mahon: Has the Lord President had any discussions with the security services? If so, is he satisfied that they are not once again trying to smear Opposition Members, as they have done in the recent past? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter seriously? We all know from "Spycatcher", and the amount that the Government spent trying to suppress it, that what I have described took place.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have not had discussions with the security services specifically about theft, but I have had such discussions with the relevant authorities. Let me say very clearly that I have found no evidence whatever to support any of the allegations of which I have read. I believe that they are entirely unfounded.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one has stolen into my room to remove the secrets held by my computer about the forthcoming election in my constituency? Is that because the people concerned know something that I do not?
    Mr. MacGregor: I doubt it, since, so far as I am aware, no one has stolen anything from me either. I am sure that such people would be fascinated to read of the wide range of constituency cases on my computer.

Business of the House
Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his practice that all parties represented in the House by hon. Members who have taken their seats are included in consultations by him as to the business of the House.
Mr. MacGregor: No. The present arrangements are of long standing, they work well, and I see no need for change.
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has undermined his growing reputation as a fair-minded and modernising Lord President. Will he consider his answer again, and grasp the old nettle? Given that only two parties the Government and the Labour party—are now formally involved in consultations, and given that in electoral terms all parties in the House are minorities—
Sir Donald Thompson: No, they are not.
Mr. Hughes: All the parties are electoral minorities. In the light of that, is not the only fair-minded and democratic way of conducting our business to allow it to involve all properly represented parties in the House of Commons throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. MacGregor: The discussions take place between parties which represent the vast majority of the hon. Members in the House. Setting the business of the House is a complex process and final decisions are often taken at a late stage. I do not believe that it is practicable to consult all eight minority parties represented in the House and I do not know what we should do with another minority party in the guise the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will know that the minority parties are given a chance to make representations about business of the House and are informed of it. I think that that is the only sensible and practical way to deal with the matter.
Mr. Winnick: As virtually everyone seems to have been informed that the general election date will be 9 April, could not the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make an official statement this week confirming that date?
Mr. MacGregor: I can only say that the hon. Gentleman knows something that I do not.
Dr. Cunningham: Why is the right hon. Gentleman being so coy? We all know that the Government have a timetable for an election on 9 April. Even the Financial Times has told us that the Prime Minister has booked his aeroplane for that date. Since we now have almost weekly guillotine motions and the Government are intent on railroading legislation through the House, why can the Government not make an announcement so that we all know where we are? The country would then know what the Government's intentions are, much of the business which does not have widespread support in the country could simply be junked, and we could get on with the election.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There is widespread support for Government legislation
18
and for those matters on which we have had timetable motions. I have been under pressure to get on with the legislation because many people want to see it in place.
On the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, all that is being done represents good contingency planning for the election date, whenever that might be.

Early-day Motions
3.33 pm
Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a short statement about early-day motions. In recent days, I have had referred to me a series of almost identical early-day motions which Members have sought to table. In considering the action to be taken, I have borne in mind the rule for questions, which lays down that questions are inadmissible if they are
"multiplied with variations on the same point".
Hon. Members will find that ruling in the 21st edition of Erskine May, page 294.
I have decided that it would be in the best interests of the House to apply the same rules to the tabling of early-day motions. Without such a rule, there would be a danger of the order paper being misused, not least during the period before a general election. If I am satisfied that the series of motions submitted are multiplied with slight variations on the same point and thus constitute a campaign, they will not be printed.

RECHAR
3.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European regional development fund.
I am pleased to announce that, following discussions with Commissioner Millan, the European Commission has said that it will release the money—about £121 million —due to the United Kingdom under RECHAR programmes. The Government will continue to maintain proper control over public spending. We will make it clear that priority will be given to projects funded from the European regional development fund, and we are taking steps to secure better value for money by increasing competition for Britain's share of the fund.
To achieve this increased competition, the Government want to encourage application for ERDF money from a wider range of United Kingdom spending authorities, including grant-aided bodies. Organisations such as British Coal Enterprise, UDCs and regional enterprise agencies make a valuable contribution to regional development. We are therefore initiating new arrangements which will place them on an equal footing with local authorities.
The Government have representatives on the partnership programme committees which decide on the allocation of European regional development grants. Those representatives will press for greater attention to value for money. The composition of the programme committees will also be reviewed to take account of the wider range of applicants.
To contribute to the RECHAR programmes, the Government will shortly be announcing new business support measures of our own to assist small firms in coalfield areas.
The present system for public expenditure control will remain unchanged. European regional development fund receipts have always been taken into account in determining forward expenditure plans which are in consequence higher than they would otherwise be, but in future published expenditure plans will show forecast receipts separately for each expenditure programme. The Commission has said that this will meet its requirements for transparency and enable it to be satisfied that the European regional grants have a genuine economic impact in the areas concerned. It will demonstrate that public expenditure cover will be clearly available for forecast ERDF expenditures. We shall be discussing with the Commission ways in which the present arrangements for forecasting structural funds expenditures can be improved.
The new arrangements will be introduced at the first opportunity. They will be applied in the 1992 round of expenditure discussions and will thus be reflected in expenditure plans from 1993–94 onwards. RECHAR receipts will, of course, begin to flow in the near future. Transitional arrangements will be made to provide public expenditure cover to accommodate this.
The House will be pleased to know that the threat to future regional fund receipts has been removed, the block on RECHAR funds has been lifted, and that the coal mining areas will receive the money to which they are entitled. The implementation of the RECHAR programmes can now proceed immediately.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Everyone will welcome the fact that the Government have now abandoned their plans——[Interruption.] Everyone will welcome the fact that the Government have now abanndoned their plans to divert European grants intended for Britain's coalfield communities to other areas, including keeping down the poll tax in Wandsworth and Westminster. The Government were caught with their hand in the till. The principled stand of the European Commissioner, Bruce Millan, has ensured that this RECHAR money will be invested, as was always intended, in creating new jobs, better training and a better environment in areas where Government policy has meant that mines have been closed.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that RECHAR money will go to the coalfield communities, including former coalfields such as west Cumbria, and nowhere else? Will he confirm that local authorities which receive RECHAR funds will not face reductions in their capital or revenue allocations by the Government? Will he confirm that this is what Commissioner Millan and the coalfield communities wanted all along? Would it not have been better to agree all this in the first place so that the RECHAR money would already be creating jobs, instead of which we have had a ludicrous 18-month delay followed by this humiliating climbdown?
Is it not true that the Government have accepted Commissioner Millan's requirement that, from 1993–94, RECHAR, and other regional grants, shall be separately identified in allocations to local authorities? Importantly, will the increased allocations to the RECHAR-receiving authorities be offset by reductions in British Government allocations to all local authorities, or will this be new money? Is it not true that the release of RECHAR money in 1992–93 is conditional on the Government's agreement not to allow local government spending rules to reduce the benefits to the mining areas?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British Government, who are trumpeting the RECHAR decision as a triumph, played absolutely no part in setting up the RECHAR fund which will bring an extra £121 million to coalfield communities? Is it not true that the Government's position has been, in their own words, "positively neutral"?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his belated acceptance of the European rules for regional funds to which Britain signed up in 1988 justifies the view of the Secretary of State for the Environment that what the Government were trying on was no longer viable, and that what has been announced today is plain contrary to the Prime Minister's assertion that Commission Millan was in the wrong?
As Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will the right hon. Gentleman now turn his attention to reducing the need for RECHAR in future? Has he noted that British mines have been closed while coal imports rise to levels that severely damage the balance of trade; and that, unless some change is made, Britain will soon be importing more than 30 million tonnes of coal a year? Will he press his colleagues to abandon their stupid and short-sighted plans to reduce Britain's 52 collieries to just 14, throwing 40,000 miners out of work and leaving Britain dependent on coal imports? Would it not be better to keep British mines open?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman accept this rundown of the British Coal industry, which is twice as
24
efficient as any coal industry in the European Community? Would he countenance the rundown of any other industry that was twice as efficient as its German counterpart—if there is such an industry left in Britain?
Finally, is the climbdown over RECHAR the first step towards ending the Tory party's mean-minded vendetta against British miners, their families and the coalfield communities? If it is, the about-turn on RECHAR will be doubly welcome.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) clearly does not understand the contents—[Interruption.]
Mr.Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he welcomed the announcement and then made it clear how disappointed he was by the release of the RECHAR money. The fact is that there never were any plans to divert this money elsewhere: it was always going to the coalfield communities. The proof of that is that the delays in releasing the money have delayed programmes in the coalfields. The sooner the money is paid over, the sooner those programmes can go ahead.
I can confirm that there will be no reductions in other funds to local authorities; there never were any, and none was ever intended under the existing arrangements.
It would have been better if these arrangements had been agreed earlier and the Commission had released the money earlier. We have sought throughout to be as positive and co-operative as possible, and we have sought to make our arrangements as transparent as possible. I am delighted that this has at last been accepted by the Community.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the release of RECHAR moneys in future. I can assure him that there will be transitional arrangements to allow for the fact that moneys which ought to have been spent this year will be carried forward into future years, and that extra provision for expenditure in those future years will have to be made.
The hon. Gentleman said that we played no part in setting up RECHAR. I remind him that the structural funds were set up at the behest of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the day in 1972–73.
The hon. Gentleman said that we ought to reduce the need for RECHAR in future. I can assure him that we are making the pits in this country into the most efficient coal mining industry in western Europe. That is the best guarantee for their future. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm the admission of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that at no point has any Opposition Front Bench spokesman pressed Commissioner Millan to speed up the release of these funds, which we wish had been released earlier.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that it will not be in vain for me to ask hon. Members to ask questions about RECHAR and not to make electioneering points.
Mr. Andy Stewart: Many congratulations are in order to my right hon. Friend for showing the European Commission the error of its ways in releasing our money for our hard-pressed coalfield areas. Commissioner Millan is as popular in Sherwood as the sheriff of Nottingham. He has denied my constituents the

25
opportunities for new job creation and leisure facilities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that at no time has the European Commission had any reason whatsoever for withholding our money?
Mr. Lilley: I think that congratulations are due to my hon. Friend for the vigour with which he has consistently pursued the interests of his constituents and of this country in seeking the early release of this money. I am glad that his voice as well as mine has been heard in the Commission. It is not in the interest of this country that I should stir up problems with the Commission at this stage, but I note the point that my hon. Friend has made. I think that it will be recognised as valid by his constituents and by people throughout the coal mining communities of this country.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will every penny of this RECHAR money be additional to what the Government had originally intended to spend in these areas, will local government spending and capital limits prevent any of the money from being spent in this or future years, and is any credit due to the Secretary of State for the Environment for changing this Secretary of State's mind?
Mr. Lilley: The answer to the first question is yes and to the second question no. The answer to the third question is that my right hon. Friend and I are always in accord on all matters.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I warmly welcome the statement that there are no more problems now on either side of the channel regarding the RECHAR distribution? Can he tell me, however, to whom the money will be paid? Will it be paid to a Government Department, or direct to the recipient who is due to receive it? Can we be assured that there will be absolutely no delay in disbursing the money?
Mr. Lilley: It is funnelled through central Government, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay. I believe that we shall also have co-operation from the Community for the speedy release of this money, and its transmission through, as soon as the particular projects are agreed.
Mr. Allen McKay: When the money is paid to each local authority, will it be listed in the Official Report showing what authority it has been paid to, when it has been paid, and how much?
Mr. Lilley: I will certainly consider that request, but it has not been the practice up to now.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this country puts about £300 million into this kitty, that it is therefore clear that the £121 milllion we are now receiving is indeed our own money, and that Labour Members would have done much better over the last 18 months if they had worked with hon. Members on this side of the House to get that money to this country instead of bolstering their own socialist appointees in Europe?
Mr. Lilley: In fact, this country pays into the structural funds something like £300 million more than we are entitled to draw out, even after allowing for the excellent Fontainebleau rebate which improved the situation very considerably, compared with that left by the last Labour Government. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that
26
we shall do all that we can to enhance the amount of money that we receive from the fund whenever we have reason and claim to do so, and that we shall also do all we can to ensure that it reaches the communities concerned as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Terry Patchett: Does the Minister agree with me that there is nothing like the prospect of a general election to make a Minister address his mind to his own faults?
Mr. Lilley: I had thought that the imminent approach of a general election might make it seem wise to those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench to support the British Government in securing the early release of the money. The fact that they did not do so probably shows poor judgment electorally, but certainly it shows a lack of loyalty to the coal mining communities.
Mr. Michael Alison: May I join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on the persistence and success with which he pursued these elusive funds from Brussels? I remind him that he secured them on exactly the same terms that Bruce Millan would have sought when the was Secretary of State for Scotland.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, on 22 January, Bruce Millan said that he would be prepared to consider additional funds, over and above the £120 million, specifically for Yorkshire in the light of the recent announcement of 1,100 redundancies, affecting particularly Kellingley and Whitemoor colleries in my constituency?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I assure him that I will press for additional funds wherever there is evidence of additional job losses after the original requests were made. That will, of course, include his constituency and the areas that he has just mentioned.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the coal mining communities of Wales that were being cheated of £19 million will welcome this belated decision? Will he give a firm assurance that, in relation to all future EC funds, the Government will adhere to the principle of additionality and, in particular, that there will be no clawback of money issued to rural authorities in Wales under the LEDA programme, which is now under question?
Mr. Lilley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this will be particularly welcome in Wales, which has many areas suitable for RECHAR funds. Moneys will continue to be additional, and we have always insisted that they should be. This makes it absolutely transparent that they are and will continue to be additional, so there is no question of clawing back.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision will be very popular in Scotland, particularly in the coalfields that require recharging, which is what the money is for? Is he further aware that Scottish people have been totally amazed that the Labour party, which aspires to form the next British Government, should constantly attack the British Government for trying to get our money back to carry out projects in our constituencies?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct. There will be much scepticism about the position that the Labour

27
party has taken—not only the parliamentary Labour party but a number of Labour-controlled local authorities. To be fair, some realised that they were cutting off their noses to spite their faces and were only too anxious to seek a settlement. They will be delighted that one has been achieved, and that will be particularly true in Scotland.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as one who was a Scottish Office Minister with Bruce Millan, I have always considered that Bruce Millan was the finest Secretary of State that Scotland has had in the post-war years? Is the Secretary of State further aware that, even in 1992, I still believe that Bruce Millan is the finest Secretary of State, because, by battering some sense into the thick heads of Ministers and by forcing the Government into this position, he has done more for Scotland than the three Tory Secretaries of State that we have had in the past 13 years and the conveyor belt of junior Ministers who have wrecked Scottish industry? Bruce Millan is in the process of rebuilding our industry.
Mr. Lilley: I have considerable respect for Commissioner Millan, and I am sure that he has respect for the hon. Gentleman, who, as a Scottish Office Minister, was responsible for administering the very system to which Commissioner Millan has been objecting. He would have been responsive to a plea from the hon. Member for early release of the money, and I am sorry that it was not forthcoming.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the much-needed £5 million Lancashire programme can now go ahead, and that it is no thanks to the Labour party that the Government have been able to get back what was our own money in the first place?
Mr. Lilley: Agreement will have to be reached on specific projects, but as soon as it is, the money will flow through and, I hope, go to the project in Lancashire that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the delay occurred because of the stupidity of the Government's policy? In view of the 18 months time-lag that has taken place, will he inform us what time scale will now be involved for schemes that will come about as a result of the Government's climbdown?
Mr. Lilley: We would have liked to achieve settlement a long while ago. I had a meeting with Mr. Millan in the company of my fellow Secretaries of State who are involved in the issue, and we sought to achieve agreement back in May. We thought that we were within a hair's breadth of getting it then; only the issue of transparency was identified by him. Consequently, things slipped back. Now that they are settled, we should welcome it.
The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question was, how soon would the money flow through? As soon as individual projects receive agreement, money will come from the Community and at this end, the Government will not impede the flow of that money to the relevant projects. I can assure him of that.
Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of his right hon. and hon. Friends and, in fact, of all fair-minded people?
28
Now that my right hon. Friend has made this breakthrough, will similar or the same rules apply to all regional development grants—for whatever purpose—coming from Europe?
Mr. Lilley: That is quite correct. All European regional development fund moneys will be separately designated in the public expenditure accounts, but we shall, of course, in all cases retain overall control of public expenditure, so not only RECHAR but all ERDF moneys will be treated in this way. That is why the threat of withholding that money as well as RECHAR money has disappeared.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is not the Secretary of State aware that, while he has dodged and delayed, the Deep Navigation pit in my constituency and Penallta next door have been closed, leaving us with the huge problem of unemployment as well as that of clearing up the mess left behind? Will he give us a categorical assurance that, as RECHAR was meant to serve directly the needs of the mining communities, the money will be directly spent in the communities where jobs have been lost?
Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have neither dodged nor delayed. We have had every interest in getting the money back into this country. After all, throughout this period we have to continue to pay our contribution to the Community. We wanted the money to come back and I can assure him that, now it is to be released, it will flow individually to the projects in constituencies such as his where it should be and where it should have been all along.
Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend stop beating about the bush'? Is it not the case that an unelected Commissioner in Europe with a loyalty to the European Commission has been trying to withold funds contributed to RECHAR by the taxpayers of this country? Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend has tried time and time again, month after month, to ensure that what should go to coal-mining areas gets there? Is it not a simple straightforward fact that the Commissioner has tried to prevent it and that my right hon. Friend has tried—ultimately successfully—to get the money back to the mining areas of this country?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend will know that I am a compulsive moderate in these matters, so I would not put it in quite the same language as he does. He is right to recognise that the British taxpayer puts very large sums of money into the Community. Naturally, there is much stronger feeling when any delay is incurred in our share, which is only a minority of that money, coming back to this country, and delight when it finally comes through as it has now done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.
Mr. John Evans: When the Secretary of State next meets Commissioner Millan, will he convey to him the grateful thanks of coalfield authorities such as that in St. Helens for his splendid victory over the long-running, mean-spirited intransigence of the British Government? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have been holding on to substantial ERDF sums for a considerable time? Will he consider repaying to

29
authorities such as St. Helens the debt charges that they incurred in honouring schemes which they have had to fund because of the lack of funds from his Department?
Mr. Lilley: One gets the impression that the hon. Gentleman would almost have preferred the impasse to endure longer. We have managed to persuade the Commission to release the money. It will come through and will go to local authorities, which will deal with the problem that he mentions.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend reflect that, in spite of his great success today in ensuring that the Commission backs down from its absurd stance on the matter, and although the British Government included my constituency in the RECHAR programme, the Commission took my constituency out of the programme? Will my right hon. Friend address the matter again today, so that the money can come into my constituency in Nottinghamshire? Will he also reflect on the great pity that, throughout this long-standing saga, the Labour party never sought publicly to attack Commissioner Millan to ensure that he made the money available to this country?
Mr. Lilley: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall give close consideration to his request to make representations on behalf of the coal mining areas in his constituency. Any arguments that I can deploy to that effect I will deploy, and I will try to get funds to flow to his constituency which may be additional to those about which we are talking today. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State today? Will he take a keen look at my constituency of Blyth Valley, in which, over the past five or six years, we have lost thousands of mining jobs?
Mr. Lilley: I offer the hon. Gentleman the same assurance that I will look at the matter, and that I will see what programmes are designated for his constituency and whether there is a case of further funds to be sought.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister accept that the vexed question of additionality has run for a long time? Does he also accept that, like his Government, the previous Labour Government had the problem firmly on their plate? Will he now tell us that, for all time, this hideous corpse has been buried and that, in future, we shall get our own money back for the schemes that it is appointed to finance?
Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that we have not buried the concept of additionality, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, is a difficult one, because it involves determining what would have happened if what did happen had not happened. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we seem to have got agreement in the area. The threat to British money being paid back to us has receded, which is as much good news for Northern Ireland as it is, for all other parts of the kingdom.
Mr. John Hume: May I put a straightforward question to the Secretary of State? Does he accept that the principle that underlies all regional funding in Europe is that it is additional to Government spending to harmonise living standards between the richer and poorer regions of Europe and that it should not be treated as a subsidy to
30
existing Government expenditure? If it is, it undermines the purpose. Will he now tell the House that he at last accepts the principle of additionality?
Does the Secretary of State agree that a similar serious mistake was made when signing the Maastricht treaty and agreeing to set up a cohesion fund for transportation and the environment, in that no region of the United Kingdom will get a penny out of that fund? That is especially damaging to a region such as Northern Ireland. After the channel tunnel, it will have more serious transportation problems, because it will be the only part that has no land link with the rest of Europe.
Mr. Lilley: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have always accepted the principle of additionality in respect of Community funds, and it often features in other programmes. As I should have mentioned to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the STRIDE programme funds which affect Northern Ireland are also being released. I note the right hon. Gentleman's point that we should not have signed the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Hume: I did not say that.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the 1988 regulations to which the Secretary of State referred called for the doubling of structural funds compared with the 1987 level by 1993, is it true that the Government believe that that will lead to no increase in the British allocation of funds? Do the Government agree with the Commission's proposal that the allocation of Community structural funds should be completely separated from other central Government allocations in the United Kingdom public expenditure system? As that is one of the most important points of principle for us for 15 years, will the Minister give us an answer—yes or no?
Mr. Lilley: I can confirm my hon. Friend's point that, although structural funds are to be double what they were in 1988, we do not expect that to lead to any increase in real terms in disbursements to the United Kingdom. That is one reason why the dispute about additionality arose. The regulations said that additional funds flowing from the doubling should be reflected in additional expenditure in the United Kingdom, over and above the normal additionality inherent in the way in which we accounted for that all along. As we were not to receive any additional funds, we found it rather difficult to display that those non-additional funds were additionally being spent. That difficulty, which I described as metaphysical, has now been resolved, and we are back in the world of the substantial.
On the second point, we are simply separately designating as a separate line in respect of ERDF funds for each programme in the public expenditure counts. That is not very different from what we have done in respect of the European social fund moneys, so it is not so much of a precedent as my hon. Friend fears.
Mr. Derek Enright: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his grovelling apology to Commissioner Millan, who has acted correctly throughout? I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, who, by his presence today, admits that he was wrong in his legal interpretations on RECHAR. Two questions that I would wish to ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "One."] One question that I would wish to ask is this: now that the Secretary of State has lost my

31
constituency a considerable number of jobs through this delay, will he make it clear to us what discussions took place with Commissioner Millan on the Court of Auditors report, published last December, which rebuked Commissioner Millan for his laxity in not having placed sufficient requirements on member Governments? Are there now sufficient requirements under the Court of Auditors report published on 13 December in connection with structural funds?
Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman has been hearing grovelling apologies, he has been hearing voices and should seek attention in the appropriate quarter. He should let us know whether he made any representations in an attempt to have the money released earlier. If not—
Mr. Enright: I did, Sir.
Mr. Lilley: In that case, the hon. Gentleman deserves the respect of Conservative Members. He is almost alone among Opposition Members in having done that. Certainly no Front-Bench Member did it, and I congratulate him. As far as the Court of Auditors report is concerned, it always seek financial, but not, I think, doctrinal, rigour.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, having served on the Regional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, I know only too well how mean the Labour Government —including Mr. Millan—were? Does he further accept that, when the European development fund was discussed in the European Parliament last week, a mere 13 Labour Members were present? The rest thought that nobody could see them and did not bother to turn up.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters is second to none. She has told the House an important fact, which reveals that the Opposition shed crocodile tears not only in this House but in Strasbourg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for revealing how little concern Labour Members really have about Britain getting a fair return from European funds.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State has referred specifically to increasing competition and expanding the number of organisations that may apply for ERDF funds. Will he tell us when he will be publishing the new arrangements, how the information will be disseminated, what qualifications, if any, will be placed on the type of organisation that may apply and how he will ensure that there is a co-ordinated strategic approach by any area in receipt of such funds, given that, in Scotland, at least, our regional authorities have a major responsibility for strategic planning, which we would not wish to be undermined?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady makes an important point, and homes in on something to which we may not have devoted enough attention today. One of the key features of the arrangements that have been brought in at our initiative is to increase the number of organisations that can compete for the given amount of money from Europe so that we can choose the best projects from a wider range
32
and obtain the best value for money. We shall be announcing guidance on how to do that as soon as possible.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather sad to hear sounds of regret from the Opposition that such a good and sensible agreement has been reached? Is it not a good thing and would it not be better for the Opposition to recognise that at long last a Secretary of State has come here with good news about a good story about a good settlement?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend highlights a tendency on the Opposition Benches to believe that what is good for Britain is bad for Labour. The Opposition respond in a way which shows that that is their basic feeling here as in economic matters.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State's statement of the high regard in which he holds Commissioner Millan. Will he here and now repudiate the disgraceful aspersions cast on the integrity of Commissioner Millan over the withholding of RECHAR funds, and will he give a commitment that he will call on his right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to immediately withdraw the scurrilous accusation that Commissioner Millan has been acting out of party political considerations?
Mr. Lilley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is noted for his fastidious language. It is inconceivable that he would have said anything implying that. If any aspersions are due, they should be cast on those Labour Members and Labour local authorities which put pressure on Mr. Millan to prolong the withholding of that money.
Mr. Harry Barnes: What impact will additional RECHAR money have on district councils in coalfield communities in respect of their capital allowances and standing spending assessments? Will North-East Derbyshire be able to move up from being 335th of 336 district authorities in terms of standard spending assessments per poll tax payments?
Mr. Lilley: The money will be transmitted effectively to local authorities through borrowing approvals rather than through standard spending assessments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I cannot tell him how that will affect individual local authorities, but I will happily try to get my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to transmit that information to the hon. Gentleman when it is available.
Mr. Frank Haynes: I am grateful for the statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, he could have made that statement earlier. It clarifies the situation: there are now two wallies in the Cabinet. After the fight that we have put up, how much of the RECHAR money will go to Nottinghamshire, bearing in mind that the Nottinghamshire Tories supported the Government in blocking the money going to the areas where it was needed?
Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have the same high regard for him as he has for me. He may have failed to realise that his Conservative colleagues from

33
Nottinghamshire were among the most vigorous in seeking the early release of that money. I believe that quite significant sums will go to Nottinghamshire and will benefit the coalfield communities in those areas, which will probably return more Conservative Members at the next election.
Mrs. Sylvia Heal: In welcoming today's announcement, which is long overdue for the people of mid-Staffordshire and elsewhere in Staffordshire who desperately need the money to regenerate the local economy, I must ask the Secretary of State to confirm that, as a result of the announcement, there will be no reduction in the general level of Government expenditure in 1992–93 and 1993–94.
Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's remarks. Far from there being a reduction in Government expenditure, because of the transitional arrangements necessary to accommodate the expenditure delayed from this year and deferred and passed over into next year, there will be slightly higher spending than would otherwise have been the case, because we will accommodate that expenditure which has unfortunately been delayed by the withholding of the money until now.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Would the Secretary of State confirm that the money which will come to St. Helens, as the last two coal mines have closed in the past five years, will come as quickly as possible, as we have many thousands of people who need to be put in work and who formerly worked for the coal mining industry?
Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly do all that I can to bring that about.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the Secretary of State telling the House rather a lot of porkies today?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we will not have that word. It escaped my notice last week. I had to look it up in the dictionary, but now that I know what it means, the hon. Member should please withdraw it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as you and the I-louse know what I mean, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could proceed.
Is not the truth to be found in the leaked Heseltine letter? It says:
"We cannot afford such an own goal in areas which are politically important to us."
West Cumbria was important to the Government. That is why they have caved in.
Mr. Lilley: I do not comment on leaked drafts, but I will comment on Cumbria. I can understand the insecurity that the hon. Gentleman feels. This measure will be welcomed in the coal mining areas in that part of the world. They will note that little pressure has been exerted by Labour Members to achieve it. It has been achieved by a Conservative Government, and they will be pleased with it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since this money is coal-related and, in a sense, pollution-related, will the Government consider with local authorities what could be done in the situation that now arises in Scotland where there is serious evidence from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that a massive ozone hole—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a hit wide of the statement.
Mr. Dalyell: No, it is precisely on this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Try and get it in order.
Mr. Dalyell: It is precisely on the point. It is pollution-related. The Scots are now faced, so we are told on page 1 of our national newspaper. The Scotsman, with —[Laughter.] It is not funny to have 300,000 skin cancer-related cases. That is the possibility. The evidence from NASA is no laughing matter whatsoever. I am asking a serious question. Will Government Departments consider this alarming—[Interruption.] If cancer is a laughing matter—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that the hon. Member has a great interest in this serious matter. It would probably be better raised in the Adjournment debate which I have offered the hon. Member, because he would then get a fuller reply.
Mr. Dalyell: I would ask simply for an acknowledgement of the concern of the Department of Trade and Industry in this ozone-hole-related matter.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the distribution of these funds will involve the Scottish Office and mining communities in Scotland? If that is the case, will he impress upon Scottish Office Ministers the need for parity of treatment in the distribution of RECHAR funds and RENAVAL programme funds? Many people in my constituency are deeply unhappy and disappointed with the performance of the Scottish Office in respect of the RENAVAL programme. I hope that mining communities in Scotland are treated better and more humanely than my constituency in respect of the RENAVAL programme.
Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this settlement applies equally to funds flowing through the Scottish Office to Scottish constituencies and local authorities. If he is asking for parity of treatment in the flow of funds from the Community, of course that will exist. On the flow of funds from the taxpayer, there is more generous treatment in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman wishes it to be reduced, perhaps he will spell that out a little more clearly.
Mr. Peter Hain: Surely the Secretary of State should be apologising to the people of south Wales for the scandalous way in which he has blocked all that money —perhaps as much as £30 million—while thousands of jobs have been lost in my constituency and in other mining communities in south Wales. How much money will now come to us, and what will the total be?
Mr. Lilley: The message seems to have been lost in the post as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned. We have not been blocking this measure; it has been blocked by the Community. That block has now ended, and everybody is satisfied by that. Significant and substantial funds will flow to south Wales coal mining areas via my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Hain: How much?
Mr. Lilley: That will depend on the amounts specifically agreed on specific projects by the Community,

35
but we will be acting to try to get agreement at the earliest possible stage and for the money to flow through accordingly.
Mr. William O'Brien: The success of the RECHAR initiative was brought about because local authorities argued with the Commission that some special treatment should be given to the areas in question. The fact that the Minister of State, Department of the Environment was present until a few moments ago demonstrates the need for local authorities and the Coalfield Communities Campaign people to be involved in immediate talks.
Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Coalfield Communities Campaign people will be included in talks about the distribution of RECHAR and the fact that there are further resources to be obtained? It is because of Labour-controlled authorities that we have got this far. Can we have further support for the initiative, with the co-operation of local authorities, in distributing the funds and requests for further funds to help rundown coalfield community areas?
Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that local authorities will continue to play their part on the committees that oversee the programmes.
Dr. John Reid: The Secretary of State talks about victory, but is it not true that today we have seen a victory of all the scale and dimension of Dunkirk? Does the Secretary of State remember Churchill's words, that victories are not composed of evacuations and withdrawals? Rather than talking about having moved the Commission, will he apologise to people in my community in Harthill and Shotts, and people throughout Lanarkshire, who have been devastated by coal closures and hit by steel closures for 18 months but have been refused urban aid? Will he apologise for the fact that, for 18 months, the money has been prevented from being distributed to them and he is going to them now only by virtue of the fact that he has withdrawn and the Commission has won? Will he join me and the people of Harthill, Shotts and Lanarkshire in sending our congratulations and those of the whole House to Commissioner Bruce Millan on the fight that he has fought?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. and learned Member—
Dr. Reid: No, not learned.
Mr. Lilley: Well, philosophical—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I withdraw that slur an the hon. Gentleman's character. The hon. and philosophical Member has misheard if he thinks that I have talked about victory. I have assiduously refrained from such talk, so obviously people have drawn their own conclusions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner that the money can flow through to areas which have been deprived of it the better we will all be pleased. That is what we all want.
Mr. George Foulkes: I am neither learned nor gallant, as you know, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not true that Cumnock and Doon Valley, which will receive a substantial amount from the RECHAR fund
36
for the west of Scotland, and which now has an unemployment level above 20 per cent., has had its money delayed entirely as a result of the intransigence of the British Government in coming into line with other Governments in Europe, who were happy to accept the rules?
It still worries me that the Secretary of State said earlier that "some guidance" about applications would be issued later. In Cumnock and Doon Valley, the local authority, the enterprise trust and other groups have already put a detailed, comprehensive scheme to the Scottish Office. Can I have an assurance from the Secretary of State that there will be no delay whatever in considering the scheme, so that people do not have to wait any longer than they have already waited?
Mr. Lilley: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Any guidance will be issued only to those who need it because they have not already learned how to make such applications. We want to encourage the widest range of organisations to put forward projects so that we get the best choice of schemes to which we can allocate the money.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) had a point of order. [Interruption.] We have not yet reached that stage. I believe that Ms. Quin wishes to ask a question on the statement.
Ms. Joyce Quin: The Secretary of State used the statement to announce changes to the way that European funds that are not connected with the additionality dispute with the European Commission would be administered in future. He mentioned the increased competition for funds that he was hoping to establish. Can he assure us that those areas that do not win competitions will not be abandoned, and that the criteria by which areas are judged to be eligible for European funds will be based on need, not simply skill in filling in applications or succeeding in certain competitions?
Can the Secretary of State assure us that the measures set out in his announcement will not weaken the role of local authorities in European funding? He said that he wishes to widen the composition of the programme committees to urban development corporations and others. Can he assure us that this will not simply be a way to put his own nominees on committees rather than having elected local representatives who know the needs of their own communities?
As the Secretary of State has given way to the European Commission on the main substance of the additionality dispute, will he take the opportunity, as my hon. Friends have asked him to do, to make a public apology to Commissioner Millan for the way that his integrity has been impugned over the past year? Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends referred to the timing of this decision and of the Government's climbdown. Surely the electorate would be wiser to trust the Labour party, which has campaigned for the release of these funds all along under the terms that Commissioner Millan wanted and which were of direct benefit to the areas concerned, and to realise that the Government have proved themselves untrustworthy in this matter.
Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Lady that there is no change in the eligibility rules for areas, projects and

37
programmes, which are essentially Communitywide. We are trying to encourage more organisations to apply within those rules for funds. I can assure her that there is no question of removing from the committees that organise these funds existing local authority members and other members.
As to an apology, I think it best just to express the delight of the House that the money has been released, and the hope that it will move speedily to the areas where it is required to help those who are afflicted by coal-mining rundown.
The hon. Lady concluded by referring to the Labour party having campaigned for this money. That is what it has conspicuously failed to do. It sought to make a party political point out of this. It refused ever to make representations to the Commission on behalf of the coal-mining areas and it has shown a two-faced response to the good news that the money is being released. That good news is the message of the day, and that: is the response that we shall see on the ground in the areas that we all care for.

Points of Order
4.27 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I take points of order, may I say that there are two three-hour debates, which are timed, and a further debate of an hour and a half, in which many other hon. Members wish to participate, so I hope that points of order are on matters with which I can deal?
Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have the Government made a request for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement about the National Audit Office report, which shows that the taxpayer forked out over £2 billion too much for the disastrous water privatisation, and that the then Secretary of State for the Environment made secret £2 million payments to companies handling privatisation?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request, but I understand that the Public Accounts Committee may look at this matter.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions on the statement, an allegedly leaked letter was prayed in aid in support of an argument. My concern is that the Labour health spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has clearly, we all now know, organised industrial espionage and theft so as to get the information used—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about Waldegrave's PPS?
Several Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with this, please. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) must not make such an allegation against an hon. Member. He should withdraw the word "theft".
Mr. Hughes: On your instruction, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "theft". The point that I am making is that somebody close to the hon. Member for Livingston is plainly implicated in this. Should not the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how he comes by these documents so regularly? Is it not an abuse of the House that the hon. Gentleman comes to the Opposition Despatch Box and uses that information, and uses it deliberately to mislead?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not say such things. He has now been in the House for the duration of a full Parliament. Will he please put himself in order, and withdraw that last comment?
Mr. Hughes: I shall change it to "inadvertently to mislead".
Mr. Speaker: That is almost as bad. In any case, I think that the whole House would deprecate the use of leaked information, whatever its source.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). May I seek your advice? That was at least the third occasion on which I have heard the hon.—well—Gentleman name an

39
Opposition Member on a point of order. You pointed out to him, Mr. Speaker, that it would be normal courtesy, and decent of him, to inform the hon. Member concerned before naming him. I realise that we are in the middle of the lead-up to a general election, but for the hon. Member for Harrow, West to keep on doing this contravenes all the protocols and courtesies of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I hope very much that at all times, but especially just before a general election, hon. Members will adhere to the conventions of the House, which are of long standing and enable our business to proceed in good order.
Mr. Terry Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which has nothing to do with the preceding points of order.
As the Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of the House, Mr. Speaker, will you ask him to speed up the publication of the National Audit Office report on the accident and emergency service—especially in view of the fact that the position at the Worcester royal infirmary has now become so bad that two doctors are reported to have resigned in protest?
Mr. Speaker: I shall need to look into that matter. I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman about it.
Mr. Barry Porter: On a very short point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I revert to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said earlier? A leak, as I understand it, is generally accidental. What should we call information that is not given accidentally—information that is given deliberately to the House?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to say. As I have said, I deprecate the use of such information on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief, but I regard this as important. I am addressing you in your role as Chairman
40
of the Speaker's Conference—which, as you know, deals with electoral matters—rather than in your role as Speaker.
It probably escaped your notice, but, at the weekend, a very senior member of the Scottish National party suggested in Scotland that no one over the age of 35 should be allowed to vote in the forthcoming general election in that country. That would not affect me; I should still be able to vote. What would your attitude be, however, if such an outrageous suggestion were submitted to you on behalf of the SNP—if it were proposed that all the old-age pensioners in Scotland, and all other people over 35, should be disfranchised?
Mr. Speaker: As it happens, that piece of information did escape me. Last weekend, I paid a visit to Ulster—which I thoroughly enjoyed—so I do not know about the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised; but he said "if the suggestion were submitted", and it has not been so submitted.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a Scottish nationalist over the age of 35, may I assure you that there has been no such suggestion? The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) should not believe everything that he reads in certain newspapers.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the kindest thing that I can say is, perhaps that was another leak.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say that your visit to Northern Ireland was widely welcomed? All parties in the House were represented at your reception, and we wish you and your good lady well. Let me remind you that you are the only Speaker who, as yet, has not thrown me out of the House: I appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman—but I think that we had now better move on.

European Economic Area
[Relevant documents: Fourth report from the Trade and Industry Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 347 of Session 1989–90) on trade with EFTA and the Government reply contained in the Committee's third special report (House of Commons Paper No. 666 of Session 1989–90).]
4.34 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th December 1991, relating to the draft Agreement on the establishment of a European Economic Area; and supports the Government's view that the Agreement should be entered into by the Community and its Member States subject to agreement on amendments to the draft necessary to deal with incompatibilities between the draft and the Treaty of Rome identified by the Court of Justice in its Opinion 1/91.
The creation of the european economic area is a major step forward for the Community. It will bring significant economic gains to British industry and British consumers. The Government very much welcome this major agreement and look forward to signature within the next few weeks.
What we shall be signing is the most ambitious and wide-ranging agreement entered into by the Community. It will extend the main principles of the single market to the seven European Free Trade Association—EFTA—countries. I remind the House that those are Austria, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.
A single market of 19 west European Countries stretching from the Arctic to the Mediterranean will be created. It will cover the "four freedoms"—free movement of goods, capital, services and people. It will also cover related matters, ranging from agriculture to co-operation in research and development.
This debate is particularly timely. Last Friday, the Commission and EFTA negotiators made a declaration that the EEA negotiations had been successfully concluded. The next step will be formal initialling of a text by the negotiators this week. We expect the final text to be ready for signature by member states and the EFTA countries next month, allowing their Parliaments to ratify by the end of the year.
The declaration by the negotiators was made in the light of agreement last week on amendments necessary to meet the concerns about the EEA expressed by the Court of Justice. Those amendments affected the competition and institutional provisions of the EEA—I will describe the new version of those provisions in some detail later.
I know that it is not ideal to debate the agreement when we do not have a text before us. I hope that the full explanatory memorandum that I submitted will go some way towards making good the absence of a text.
It might help if I first describe the contents of the agreement and the benefits that the Government believe that it will bring to the United Kingdom and to the Community. I will then describe the institutions of the EEA, referring briefly to some of the amendments that were agreed last week to deal with the problems arising from the opinion of the Court of Justice on the agreement.
The first and perhaps the best known of the four freedoms is free movement of goods. When the United Kingdom left EFTA to join the Community in 1973., the
42
Community established free trade agreements with the remaining EFTA members. Under these free trade agreements, there is already tariff-free trade between the Community and EFTA in industrial goods and processed agricultural products. The EEA improves free movement of goods in a number of important respects.
There will be common technical regulations. The community and EFTA already work together in creating common European standards, but each side maintains its own technical regulations for purposes such as health and the environment. Those different regulations amount to a significant barrier to trade, as the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recognised in its report.
The Community and EFTA technical regulations have much the same objectives, but they achieve those objectives by different means. Under the agreement, EFTA will adapt to follow the methods used in community measures.
Manufacturers in the EEA will therefore have to follow only one set of regulations instead of a possible eight sets now. A major barrier to trade with the EFTA countries will be eliminated.
The agreement also eliminates other important non-tariff barriers to trade. Perhaps the most significant of those are the prohibition of discriminatory taxation on goods, the application within EFTA of rules on open public procurement based on Community legislation and the adoption of common rules on intellectual property. Those provisions will tackle some of the main potential types of discrimination against exporting companies. In addition, customs procedures and rules of origin are to be streamlined. That will make the task of the exporter of goods simpler and cheaper.
With those measures on the free movement of goods, the EEA will improve significantly the ability of exporters to trade throughout the 19 countries of the Community and EFTA. There will be a significant advance on existing free trade agreements. British companies will have greater export opportunities, and British consumers will benefit from lower prices and more choice.
For a market to be truly open, it must have rules that ensure fair competition. One of the most important parts of the agreement is that on competition and state aid. The EFTA countries will take on competition and state aid rules based on those of the Community. Those will include rules on restrictive practices and monopoly abuse. In addition, the EC merger regulations will cover the Community and EFTA.
The competition and state aid rules will be enforced by the Commission and a new independent EFTA surveillance authority with powers based on those of the Commission, with appeals going to the European Court of first instance or the EFTA court.
The adoption of similar rules by the Community and EFTA, which will be enforced by two independent authorities, will be a crucial element of the EEA. The conditions for competition throughout the 19 countries will be substantially improved. That will obviously benefit consumers. It will also help companies, which will no longer have to face a wide range of substantially different rules, and the agreement will lead to an open and competitive market throughout western Europe.
Unlike goods, services are not covered in the existing free trade agreements between the Community and EFTA. The agreement will lead to the free movement of services. The rules on services will be based on article 59 of the

43
treaty of Rome and the related secondary legislation. So the agreement will eliminate restrictions on the freedom to provide services within the EEA by nationals of the Community and EFTA who are established within the EEA. The services covered include transport, telecommunications, audio-visual services and financial services.
That freedom to provide services throughout the area is a major achievement. It will create new opportunities for businesses in which Britain, in particular, has traditionally been strong. That is so especially in financial services, where the EEA will adopt rules based on Community legislation on insurance, banking and securities. For example, British banks will enjoy a single "passport" to carry out business throughout the area.
The agreement also goes beyond the existing free trade agreements in providing for the free movement of capital. There is already comparatively free movement of capital between the Community and EFTA. The main advantage in enshrining the current practice in rules based on Community law will be that most restrictions by EFTA on inward investment will be lifted.
The fourth and final freedom provided for by the agreement is the free movement of persons. The agreement creates the right of EC and EFTA nationals to work throughout the EEA.
An essential element of the free movement of persons is the right of establishment, which will apply within the extended European area.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister outline the position of immigrant workers long domiciled in the European Community? Would gastarbeiter in Germany, for example, be given the privilege of free movement throughout all the countries incorporated in that economic area?
Mr. Sainsbury: I was referring to the right of establishment, which applies essentially to Community and EFTA nationals who will be able to operate as self-employed persons anywhere within the area covered by the agreement. They will be able to set up and manage undertakings under the same conditions as local nationals and they will be able to establish branches and subsidiaries.
There will be mutual recognition of professional qualifications throughout the EEA. Professionals such as lawyers, doctors and accountants will be able to practise in another country within the EEA without the need to re-qualify.
Those elements will form the basis of an area throughout which people will enjoy considerable freedom of movement—to work, establish businesses and carry out their professions. That will be to the advantage of British nationals who wish to move within EFTA.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Minister saying that nationals of Finland, Sweden or one of the EFTA countries will now be able to arrive at Heathrow and be allowed in with no restrictions or inquiries, provided that they have a passport for the country in which they are living?
Mr. Sainsbury: No, that is not what I was saying. I was referring to the right to carry out one's profession, the
44
mutual recognition of professional qualifications and the right for self-employed persons to set up in business. We are dealing with economic activity, not travel as such.
In addition to provisions essential to the four freedoms to which I have referred, the agreement also covers many related provisions. Examples are those on consumer protection, environment, statistics and company law.
There will also be increased co-operation between the Community and EFTA in Community programmes in a number of fields, such as research and development; information services; education, training and youth; small and medium-sized enterprises; tourism; and the audiovisual sector.
EFTA has also agreed to adopt measures to assist the poorer regions of the Community. The most important of those measures is a fund that will be set up and financed by EFTA. It will consist of 500 million ecu in grants, which will be given during a five-year period. In addition, EFTA will provide an interest rate subsidy of 3 per cent. on 1·5 billion ecu of loans.
The regions that will benefit from the fund will be Northern Ireland, Greece, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland and specified areas of Spain. The Government fought hard to ensure that Northern Ireland would be a recipient of assistance from the fund.
Mr. Denzil Davies: How are "poorer regions" to be defined? Why is a region like Wales, with gross domestic product per capita almost as low as Northern Ireland and the lowest in Britain, excluded?
Mr. Sainsbury: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is an agreement within the Community on the areas that qualify. Those areas qualify under the agreement, as under other Community arrangements.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Did the Government make out a case to the European Commission and EFTA to include help for other areas that have experienced industrial decline, such as Wales, north-east England and Scotland?
Mr. Sainsbury: During the negotiations, the argument was whether the same areas should qualify under those special arrangements for the European economic area agreement as qualified under other European Community arrangements. We fought hard to ensure that Northern Ireland was included in the "cohesion arrangements". They are not meant to cover small areas where there may be a problem—Interruption.] I am not referring to Wales as a small area, but the hon. Lady seemed to suggest that a town where a major employer had closed should be included in the agreement.
Ms. Quin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Lady will excuse me, I must get on, because this is a time-limited debate. I expect that she will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make her point then.
One of the most important subjects covered by the agreement is fish. The EEA does not extend the common fisheries policy to EFTA, but the agreement and separate exchanges of letters that have been negotiated in parallel will provide for reductions to tariffs on fish and fish products and for increased access for British and Community vessels to EFTA waters.

45
Tariff reductions will apply to a very wide range of fish species on a progressive basis. This will clearly benefit British consumers and processing companies. It is important to note, however, that tariffs on three species of particular sensitivity to United Kingdom producers will not be affected. These are herring, mackerel and salmon. The Government fought hard and successfully against strong demands from EFTA that tariff reductions should also apply to those species.
Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief.
Dr. Godman: I shall be brief. Under the terms of the agreement about fish, Spain and Portugal are given access to grounds in which they have no history of fishing. Why is that?
Mr. Sainsbury: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows that that was the result of long and hard negotiations and formed part of the cohesion aspect of the negotiations under which the poorer countries of Spain, Greece, Portugal and the Republic of Ireland sought compensation for admission to the agreement of the relatively rich EFTA nations. Part of that cohesion consisted of the loans and grants to which I just referred, and part was in the form of fish. The important point for the House is that British fishermen will benefit from greater access to Norwegian and Icelandic resources.
The Community share of the total allowable catch for north Norway cod under the existing EC-Norway agreement will be increased from 2·14 per cent. to 2·9 per cent. The United Kingdom receives about two-thirds of that share. On current estimates of the total allowable catch—the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is knowledgeable on this subject—the United Kingdom will receive more than 6,000 tonnes in 1993, which is nearly double the 1991 quota.
In addition, fixed amounts of cod in Norwegian waters will be allocated to Spain, Portugal and Ireland as part of the EFTA package for the poorer regions. Iceland will provide a small additional quantity of red fish. The allocation of this will he decided by the Community in due course. The United Kingdom has made it clear that it wants its fair share of this Icelandic fish.
The arrangements on fish were extremely difficult to settle. The industry is of special importance to a number of EFTA and Community countries, including, of course, Britain. Given the sensitivity of the sector both here and in other countries, I believe that the deals struck on tariffs and resources are good for Britain. We have protected from tariff reductions the species that are most vulnerable to increased competition from EFTA, and we have obtained a guaranteed share and an increase in the resources available to our fleet.
Before leaving the main sectors covered by the agreement, I should mention agriculture. Under the agreement, the EFTA countries will not participate in the common agricultural policy, but there will be a number of tariff reductions on agricultural products. Some of those reductions will be reciprocal. Others will be unilateral reductions by the EFTA countries on products from the poorer regions of the Community as another part of the EFTA measures for poorer regions.
46
This account of the main contents of the EEA makes it clear that it covers a wide range of sectors. For the EEA to lead to a level playing field across these sectors, or as near a level playing field as can be achieved, it is necessary to have an adequate institutional structure. The main political body of the EEA will be the EEA council. The council will consist of Ministers of the Community member states and the EFTA Governments plus the Commission. It will be responsible for political direction of the EEA.
Under the EEA council, there will be an EEA joint committee consisting of officials of the Commission, member states and EFTA countries. The joint committee will be the main forum for day-to-day co-operation between the two pillars. The two main functions of the joint committee will be to adopt new EEA rules and to settle disputes.
New EEA rules will be based on new Community legislation. There will be informal consultation between the Community and EFTA during the passage of Community measures. The aim will be to ensure that these measures are adopted in such a form that EFTA can accept the measures as EEA rules, but the Community will retain the ultimate right to legislate as it sees fit.
Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mr. Edward Morton, a gentleman whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting but who writes learnedly in the Financial Times? Mr. Morton states:
"The EEA offers them"—
EFTA countries—
"a consultation process so that they can be under no illusion that the actual decisions will be taken anywhere else than in the EC Council of Ministers with such input from the European Parliament as the Maastricht summit might allow." That is right, is it not?
Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is correct, and I suspect that it is for that reason that some EFTA countries have applied to join the European Community.
The original intention of the Community and EFTA was that an EEA court would play a key role in settling disputes between the two sides. The Court of Justice ruled that such a court was incompatible with the treaty of Rome. There was agreement last week that, instead, the joint committee should settle disputes.
If a dispute concerns interpretation of an EEA rule, the two sides can agree to have the matter resolved by the Court of Justice. The Joint Committee will be able to take other measures to deal with the problem, including possible suspension of the relevant part of the agreement, or rebalancing measures. It will also be possible for certain limited procedural matters to be referred to arbitration.
EFTA will create two new independent bodies to ensure the good functioning of the agreement by EFTA states. There will be an EFTA surveillance authority with enforcement functions and powers similar to those of the Commission. There will also be an EFTA court, which will be responsible for matters such as infraction proceedings brought by the EFTA surveillance body and competition cases arising within the EFTA pillar.
Sir Russell Johnston: Does the fact that the European Parliament has called for the new agreement to be again submitted to the Court of Justice make any difference?
Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that it will not be submitted and that all 19 countries will be able to ratify the agreement in time for it to come into force on 1 January 1993, which is the firm intention of the participating parties. We would not want anything to obstruct that arrangement, which is clearly to the benefit of Britain.
As within the Community, it is not enough simply for the EEA states to agree to adopt common rules. If the extended market is to have value, the rules must be implemented and enforced properly. The EFTA surveillance authority and the EFTA court will ensure that that happens.
I opened by saying that the EEA was perhaps the most ambitious and wide-ranging agreement to be entered into by the Community. The agreement will create a market of 380 million consumers, responsible for almost half the world's trade. It will lead to benefits for consumers and companies throughout the 19 countries. It will provide for closer co-operation between the Community and its closest European neighbours. For Britain, it will provide new opportunities for our exporters and benefits for our consumers. It will bring more fish to our fishing fleet and new funds to Northern Ireland.
The creation of the European economic area is a substantial contribution to the Government's objective of developing a Community that is open, outward looking and market oriented. It will facilitate accession to the Community by the growing number of EFTA countries that wish to apply, and it will ensure that trade within western Europe is based upon the principles of an open market economy that we hope will extend one day throughout the whole of Europe.
4.58 pm
Ms. Joyce Quin: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the progress that has been made towards the establishment of the European economic area. We strongly approve of ever-increasing co-operation between the countries of the European Community and the countries of EFTA. That seems to me and others to make great sense in today's world and it will help to solve some of the trading—and other—difficulties between the two groups.
As the Minister pointed out, a huge market is hereby created—the biggest in the world. About 380 million people are involved in the wider European area; a tremendous amount of trade is also involved. There is great interdependence between the two trading blocs. Trade with the European Community amounted to some 56 per cent. of all EFTA exports last year, and EC exports to EFTA amounted to about 60 per cent. of EFTA's imports. So the two blocs are closely linked, and this agreement will promote further co-operation and trade between them.
We are talking about countries with which we have much in common and with which we have had a great deal in common for many years. Particularly pleasing to the Labour party is the fact that there are countries in EFTA with very good social and environmental records, as well as good economic performance. The countries concerned are wealthy, and their wealth will certainly be to our mutual benefit. All the countries involved have higher per capita GDP than the average in the EC itself. Perhaps this agreement will finally bring to an end the economic
48
divisions which used to be described as "Europe at sixes and sevens" in the days when the European Community numbered six and EFTA seven.
I pay tribute to the Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, for the work that she has done in promoting the agreement. She was involved in discussions with the Commission president in 1988–89, and those discussions were one of the important stimuli for the conclusion of this agreement.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Would the hon. Lady also like to praise the excellent work of the Conservative party in Norway, which has done a great deal to ensure that the negotiations have continued successfully?
Ms. Quin: I understand that there has been quite a degree of cross-party support in Norway, but for various reasons I especially wanted to mention Mrs. Brundtland.
I am glad that the legal difficulty which seemed so prominent a few weeks ago now seems capable of resolution. It would have been a tragedy if the political and economical desirability of such an agreement had foundered on the legal niceties about which members of the European Court of Justice were concerned. I understand that an unofficial European Commission paper provided the basis for agreement last week. Rather oddly, the paper was called a non-paper—I believe that that is the official description of an unofficial paper in Community parlance. Perhaps another term should have been used.
Be that as it may, I hope that that non-paper has resolved the outstanding difficulty, although I accept the point made a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that the European Parliament may want to express concern about the legal arrangements, and that that might prolong the discussions throughout the course of this year. If the European Parliament wants to refer the matter back, I hope that the Governments, the European Commission and the European Parliament will be able to agree to a satisfactory compromise so that the agreement can go ahead and come into operation at the beginning of 1993. Certainly, by far the best time for this agreement to come into force would be the beginning of 1993, when the completion of the internal market is also supposed to take place. It seems only sensible that the two should go hand in hand.
Obviously, the world trading strength of Europe which this agreement represents gives Europe a position of considerable trading and economic power, but I believe that that position also carries with it considerable responsibilities. The Community and EFTA combined need to ensure that their actions promote world trade and do not result in a fortress Europe of the kind that many people, particularly outside Europe, still worry about. Perhaps at the end of this debate the Government will spell out in a little more detail how they see the implications of the agreement for world trade. It remains as important as ever it was that there should be progress on a firm agreement within the framework of GATT. We hope that this agreement will help, not hinder, the progress that must be made towards a successful conclusion of the GATT round.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: While I very much agree with the hon. Lady that it is important to avoid building a fortress Europe, does she agree that the

49
agreements will assist countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland which have been at such a disadvantage for so long and will smooth their eventual entry into the Community—an entry which, although delayed, will be welcome when it occurs?
Ms. Quin: The hon. Lady is anticipating our debate later this evening, when we shall consider the agreements with the countries of eastern Europe, but I certainly agree that helping the countries of eastern Europe and forming trading relationships with them is vital. I certainly hope that nothing in this agreement with EFTA will delay agreement with the countries of eastern Europe—an agreement to which we must attach a high priority, not just for economic reasons but for political reasons and reasons of world peace.
I wish to express some reservations about the Government's attitude to GATT. The Government seem to speak with two voices: the Department of Trade and Industry says that we must reach agreement within GATT as soon as possible, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been defensive about the Community's common agricultural policy and seems to have played little part in agreeing with some of the criticisms of the CAP advanced by the United States and by the Cairns group. If the Government had not antagonised their European partners with their double opt-out at Maastricht, they might have had more success in persuading their European partners to make further progress towards a successful outcome of the world trading negotiations which are so important for our economic future.
Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Lady is usually extraordinarily fair. On reflection, would she agree that objections to the reform of the common agricultural policies—a reform which is essential if we are to get any agreement on GATT—have come largely from the Germans and the French? I have not noticed United Kingdom Ministers causing any trouble—they are entirely trouble-free people—so will the hon. Lady apologise for what she has just said?
Ms. Quin: I was thinking of the many newspaper articles which appeared a few months ago criticising the Government for their over-loyal attachment to the European negotiating position, especially on agriculture. I should be happy to pass the hon. Gentleman the various press clippings that I have to that effect—they are well substantiated, and they certainly show that the Government have been somewhat over-zealous in their defence of the common agricultural policy, and have not done as much as they should to promote a worldwide agreement.
We need to assess how the agreement bears on the likelihood of EFTA countries which want to apply for full membership of the Community succeeding in obtaining it. There are suspicions that some countries may be unsure about enlarging the Community and may prefer to deepen rather than widen it at this stage. They may feel that this agreement satisfies the countries of EFTA so that we do not have to make progress in accepting into the Community those EFTA countries which have applied for full membership. Will the Government make their position on that clear?
The agreement should not be allowed to slow up the applications of countries which want to become full
50
members of the European Community. As they meet the criteria for full membership, they have every right to submit their applications and to have them dealt with sympathetically and speedily. That applies also to the countries in eastern Europe which at this stage are applying for associate membership but which eventually want to become full members of the European Economic Community.
When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will give us a few more details about what the agreement means in terms of benefits to the EFTA countries and what changes the EFTA countries may, as a result, have to introduce. We know that certain EFTA countries have rules regarding outside investment that make it difficult for companies in Britain and other parts of the European Community to invest there. I hope that the Minister will supply a few more details about whether there will be any remaining hurdles. I am thinking of the rules in Norway and in other EFTA countries, such as Finland.
We must also think about what the agreement means for us in Britain, particularly in our present parlous economic state. I believe that the Government made a tragic mistake at the European summit at Maastricht last December in opting out of both economic progress and the social chapter. It worries me, therefore, that the EFTA countries—which hope, with the European Community countries, to create this large economic area—may see the United Kingdom as a semi-detached member of the European Community, and may therefore regard this country as a less attractive country in which to invest and as a less certain member of the European Community in future. I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue in much more detail than we have heard up to now.
Mr. John Butterfill: Surely the hon. Lady recollects that President Delors said that the contents of the social chapter were likely to increase costs in this country and that it was the absence of those costs that led President Delors to say that we would become more attractive for inward investment. Is not the hon. Lady standing logic on its head?
Ms. Quin: I have often agreed with many of the things that President Delors has said in the past, but I do not agree with him about this issue. It is totally hypocritical of the Government to argue for a level playing field and then seek to distort it by means of unequal social conditions which put British workers at a disadvantage.
I hope that the Minister will provide a few more details to supplement those which appear in the explanatory memorandum, which does not clarify the position as much as it ought to do, regarding the different sectors of the British economy and how they are likely to be affected by the agreement.
The Minister rightly mentioned the importance of the agreement to the service sector. I agree that it is important. We may find that our service industries are able to expand in the EFTA countries more easily than they have been able to expand in certain existing member countries of the European Community. As for financial services, great opportunities will open up for us, but I hope that the Government will press the case for the implementation of the consumer directive and consumer safeguards when it comes to financial services within the European Community—something that they have failed to do tip to now.

51
Have the Government carried out a sector by sector survey of what the effects on our beleaguered industries are likely to be? I understand—perhaps the Minister will confirm it—that certain sectors are not included in the agreement. I understand that coal and steel are excluded sectors. Does the Minister believe that that will be a problem for Britain's coal and steel industries? The shadow Secretary of State for Energy said that British coal is the most economically and efficiently produced coal in the European Community. If the agreement included coal, would it not be possible for our coal industry to look at the EFTA countries as possible future markets? Have the Government carried out any studies or held consultations with the coal industry, both management and work force, about any opportunities that would be available to the coal industry in the EFTA countries?
Can the Minister tell us about the growth areas for our industry as a result of the agreement'? Will he comment on the worrying lack of preparedness for the single market that a survey published last week illustrated? Can he say whether the Government intend to look at that lack of preparedness in terms of the agreement with the EFTA countries? It will be important for our industry to be properly prepared not just for the internal market but for the European economic area when it comes into force.
The Select Committee on Trade and Industry made specific recommendations to the Government about helping our industry to prepare for the European economic area. I hope that the Minister will return to that important matter when he winds up the debate.
The Minister rightly referred to agriculture and fishing. Agriculture is not included—happily, the EFTA countries are to be spared having to adopt the common agricultural policy, but fishing is included to a certain extent. When those difficulties between the European Community and EFTA were at their height, it was described as a cash and cod dispute. I am pleased that the United Kingdom is to have increased cod allocations and that its fishing opportunities will be increased somewhat, but I am a little concerned about what rights Spanish vessels may have. They will be fishing in areas where traditionally they have not fished before. Many of us are worried about the huge catch potential of Spanish fishing vessels, particularly if proper conservation measures are not introduced at the same time.
Dr. Godman: Spanish fishing vessels going into Norwegian waters will encounter a kind of policing that they do not encounter in European Community waters. The Norwegians are very tough policemen when it comes to their fish stocks. I suggest to my hon. Friend that little or no fish in Icelandic waters will he offered to United Kingdom fishermen.
Ms. Quin: I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is important that whatever fishing agreement is reached should be properly policed. I regret the fact that policing of our own waters is often inadequate and that that has led to the over-exploitation of certain fish stocks.
My hon. Friends have asked in interventions what the agreement means for people. We have heard that it will promote the free movement of people and the right of establishment between EFTA and European Community countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and
52
Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to the position of gastarbeiter, which was not satisfactorily dealt with by the Minister. I should like him to give an absolute assurance that none of our ethnic minorities, who have sometimes experienced practical difficulties in travelling to other European countries, will be disadvantaged by anything in the agreement and that their interests will be looked after carefully when the agreement comes into force.
As for what the agreement means to the regions of the United Kingdom, the Minister was dismissive of our concerns regarding the cohesion funds and how they might be used to help the regions of the United Kingdom, apart from Northern Ireland. We very much welcome the fact that the cohesion funds will be used to benefit Northern Ireland. I feel strongly about that. None the less, the Minister did not say whether the Government had even put forward the needs of what are recognised in the European Community as regions in need of support: the objective 2 areas, as they are called—the traditional industrial regions that have the experienced economic decline in recent years.
We are not talking about small regions, and I was surprised when the Minister seemed to dismiss my comments as though I were talking about towns and villages. We are talking about Wales, Scotland, the northern region, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, and the west midlands. We are talking, therefore, about a large proportion of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Barry Porter: There is not an awful lot left.
Ms. Quin: In terms of territory, that is true. A large part of the United Kingdom has suffered industrial and economic decline under this Government. We very much want measures to be taken to rectify the regional imbalances.
I believe that the agreement could also represent a great potential for some of our regions, particularly those fortunate enough to face eastward, which will therefore find themselves in a geographically advantageous position in relation to the new combined market of the European Community and EFTA. The north-east hopes to be a bridge between the European Community and EFTA, as it is so well positioned geographically. The same is true of Yorkshire and Humberside, and of eastern Scotland. I hope that the Government will work with those regions to ensure that they make the best use of their economic potential. As the agreement will come into force at the beginning of January 1993, I am comforted by the fact that a Labour Government, committed to regional measures, will work with those regions, to their economic advantage.
What discussions has the Minister held with local authorities and the regions about the potential of the agreement? It may change the geography of Europe and make regions that have become accustomed to thinking of themselves as being on the periphery feel that they are more central to European developments in the future, which I welcome.,
The Minister mentioned research and development, which is important. I am glad that, under the auspices of the agreement, there will be joint initiatives between the European Community and EFTA, but the Minister gave few details, and there is little in the explanatory memorandum.

53
One crucial question which always arises when we debate European affairs is how level the playing field will be. I am still worried about the nature of the playing field, even as a result of the agreement. State aid varies widely throughout the Community. On the whole, state aid in EFTA countries is lower than in Community countries, but the playing field is far from level. One thing that has worried me—I hasten to say that I am not a subsidy junkie —is that we have reduced subsidies to industry unilaterally rather than within a framework agreed in the European Community. We must seek to correct that if our industry is not to suffer a disadvantage, as it has in recent years.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Is the hon. Lady saying that EFTA countries, which have lower state subsidies, have been less successful than EC countries?
Ms. Quin: No. I am saying that state aids can sometimes have a good or bad effect. Britain has much to learn from the supportive system in the European Community and EFTA countries—for example, the German regional Ender network and the similar system in Austria, an EFTA country which is applying for European Community membership.
I should like the Government to consider export credits, for which a level playing field has not been created in recent years. The Government have increased export credit premiums to industry, whereas industry in other countries, including in EFTA countries, has not been disadvantaged in the same way.
Do the Government feel that the institutional arrangements being set up to govern the agreement can work effectively? It seems that the institutional set-up of the European Community of 12 is already becoming unwieldy. What will he the consequences for administration, languages and so on when the Community consists of 19 or more countries?
Do the Government have any views on the simplification and streamlining of European institutions, or on something that Labour Members have traditionally been worried about—the democratic deficit and the difficulty that national and European parliamentary institutions experience in influencing what is going on in the secret conclaves of the Council of Ministers and the council of EFTA Ministers?
Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady assist us from her considerable expertise on the procedures of the European Parliament? She said that the Parliament wished to refer the agreement back to the European Court of Justice. I understand that it voted to do so last week, but that the Commission is saying that such further reference is not necessary. Can the Parliament reverse that vote, can it fudge it, or is it landed with it?
Ms. Quin: The European Parliament has given its view, as expressed in the vote, and it is for the Commission to respond. Other hon. Members may have more information, but my understanding is that the Commission could disregard the Parliament's views. However, in practice it is unlikely to do so. Therefore, I think that we are in for a period of further protracted negotiations on the subject. As the Minister has been party to the negotiations, perhaps he will comment on that when he replies to the debate.
Sir Russell Johnston: Picking up what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, is not the European Parliament supposed to ratify this treaty? Is that not one of the consequences of Maastricht?
Ms. Quin: Indeed. If the Commission has not responded to the European Parliament, the Parliament may refuse to ratify the agreement. Although theoretically the Commissison is able to disregard what the Parliament says, in practice it is rather unlikely to do so.
The agreement is good, and the Opposition support it. It certainly makes sense for it to come into force at the beginning of 1993. The Government's overall approach to European policy has been to marginalise us in important areas, especially the economic and social areas. For that reason, the agreement will have much greater benefit to this country if a Labour Government bring it forward at the beginning of next year.
5.26 pm
Mr. Kenneth Warren: The Select Committee on Trade and Industry welcomes this opportunity for a debate on the Floor of the House. We recommended such a debate when we studied trade with EFTA nations in 1990, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for having the good sense to allow hon. Members the chance to debate the agreement before a decision is taken on the form of the alliance with the European economic zone.
The agreement is a remarkably sound proposal and represents a remarkable achievement by all parties to the negotiations. In our 1990 review, we visited each of the EFTA nations with the exception of Liechtenstein. They were all eager to take part in an arrangement with the European Community, but none of us expected that it would be possible to hold a debate such as this only 18 months after they began to turn to the opportunities of the European Community in such a cross-party fashion.
Business men and the majority of parliamentarians throughout the nations that we visited were unanimous in their wish to be part of the European Community in some form or another. The Conservatives in Norway were leading the drive in that country. Our mission to those countries was slightly more newsworthy than our visit to each of the east European countries. Within six months, each of those countries had had a revolution. It has been suggested that we should adopt the title of the remarkable congressional committee in the United States, of Select Committee on Assassinations.
I am concerned that there should be no hold-up in the negotiations brought about by members of the European Parliament dancing around on the head of a pin as they usually do. I was concerned to read in the Financial Times and The Times last Saturday—I quote from the former—
"The European Parliament has further muddied the water by calling this week for any new EEA draft treaty to be resubmitted to the court"—
the European Court—
"for its opinion."
I know that it has to find a way to justify its existence, but I trust that it will not stand in the way of this remarkable opportunity to bring about the creation of a market of 40 per cent. of all world trade.
I deal now with a problem which faces us in the European Free Trade Association as it has faced us in far too many parts of the world. We have problems with a

55
consistently poor balance of payments record, and I regard the opportunity of these barriers coming down and of getting free access into EFTA, which has a consistently larger gross domestic product per head, as unique, especially for quality exporters from the United Kingdom market. The GDP per capita in the free trade areas is between 15 per cent. and 50 per cent. greater per head of the population, and our attention was drawn to the opportunity for quality goods exports into the markets of Sweden, Switzerland and Austria.
With regard to the recommendations made in the Select Committee's report, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend talk about the harmonisation of technical regulations and the mutual recognition of technical standards in the EEA. However, may I be assured that we shall not require those countries to lower their standards but that we shall try to rise to some of their standards—especially in terms of environmental protection—and especially of those set in Austria and Finland? I commend them to my right hon. Friend as worthy of further study. There is always a need to try to raise the quality of life which could be a major contribution to the negotiations.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) wondered whether there would be level playing fields. We always call for level playing fields, but I have never found them anywhere in the world. We should not count on them at any time. We must make do with the best opportunities we have to get into a game, whatever the quality of the pitch.
On the free movement of services and financial services in particular, will my right hon. Friend give some guidance on where the negotiations have got so far in terms of foreign ownership of companies, including banks? At the moment, there are severe restrictions within EFTA countries on ownership by foreign companies. May I also ask him about preferential public procurement? As he remarked, there are many state organisations in those countries and we want to be assured that there will be right of access, especially in those concerned with transportation and energy.
On transportation, what progress will be made in the negotiations—which we hope will soon be successfully resolved—to give the European Community access to a single and liberalised market for scheduled air transport services? As my right hon. Friend knows, Scandinavian air transport costs are about the highest in the world, and they are a great deterrent to exporters to go about their business there. Within the agreement that already exists between Swissair, KLM and the Scandinavian Airlines System, I hope that air transport liberalisation can be achieved more quickly than has been the case in relations across the European Community.
Fishing has already been mentioned. I must declare an interest in respect of Hastings and Rye. I regret that our boats will not be able to get as far as Icelandic waters even on a calm day, but we never give up trying. When the Select Committee visited Iceland and Norway, we were conscious of the point that has already been made about the need for those countries to be assured of not only the protection but the conservation of their fish stocks. I must speak up strongly for the people of Iceland, for whom they are the sole major resource. It is ridiculous to think of the likelihood of the Spaniards ravishing their fishing grounds.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I wholly endorse what he said about the conservation of fish stocks. Is he aware—he will undoubtedly have seen this when he was there—that the Icelandic Government have instituted by far the most rigorous and impressive programme of conservation of fish stocks of any country which has those interests at heart? Will he draw the attention not only of my right hon. Friend the Minister but of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to that, because our fisheries—as my hon. Friend knows—are coming under the same pressure, especially on the east coast?
Mr. Warren: I am very glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), because he makes a very sound point. The conservation measures that we saw in Iceland were of a world calibre of leadership. The question that occurs to me is, what is the advantage to the Spaniards in terms of the European market of scouring the fish stocks of, for example, Iceland, when they will merely sell on into the same market in which the Icelanders are trying to sell? I hope that we shall stand up vigorously for the Icelanders having forgotten—I hope—the cod wars of the past, and that we shall regard them as allies in wanting to share the market.
I know that a number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, so I shall conclude. I am conscious of the United Kingdom's identity of political interests with EFTA, especially with those of the northern tier of countries with which we share many common values. One advantage to the United Kingdom of such an extension would be that we would no longer be on the perimeter of the European Community—our centre of gravity would be more towards the centre of the combined interests of EFTA and the European Community.
As we move towards agreement, another remarkable step forward will be that neutrality and the balance with those who want to form military alliances are no longer a division or a problem. Ireland has been the only neutral within the European Community, but we shall, within the agreement which is being negotiated, bring in the interests in neutrality of Austria, Sweden and Finland and also of Iceland. We have here not only a major trade opportunity but a major political opportunity of important dimensions to this country.
As this agreement is being forged, may I ask my right hon. Friends and his colleagues in government—as they will be after the general election—to raise their eyes to new horizons and to consider the opportunities of incorporating the nations of eastern Europe as rapidly as possible into an economic zone, not merely the association agreements now being made? As chairman of the British-Russian parliamentary group, may I ask that the Commonwealth of Independent States is not forgotten, because we must offer it the possibility of being able to join the prosperity of western Europe as quickly as possible.
I am delighted to have had this opportunity to lend my support to the agreement which is commended to the House by my right hon. Friend.
5.38 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: Like the other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the draft agreement and hope that it will be accepted.

57
I recollect the Minister saying that the countries of the European Free Trade Association would not have to bear the burden—perhaps those were not the words that he used—of the common agricultural policy. The thought crossed my mind that it was a very good agreement for EFTA and that perhaps we could consider applying for membership of EFTA so that we could have the benefit of not having to contribute to the CAP, but no doubt that is not possible.
I will raise two matters which are not connected. The first is the cohesion fund. The Minister did not deal with the matter thoroughly and was extremely brief, although it is important. The Minister said that the EFTA countries will contribute 500 million ecu in grants over five years to what is described in the jargon of the Community as a "cohesion fund". Perhaps that contribution is the danegeld that they have to pay for not being part of the common agricultural policy. The Minister then told us that Northern Ireland is the only region in the United Kingdom that will be able to benefit from the cohesion fund. The Republic of Ireland will also benefit, and we have no objection to either Northern Ireland or the Republic benefiting.
I make no apology for mentioning Wales, because it is the poorest region in Britain. On European Community figures for last year, and taking the average as 100, gross domestic product per head for Wales is 85. Scotland is exactly 100. The north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside are slightly higher. The south-west, the east midlands and the west midlands are all higher. Wales has the lowest GDP per head in the whole of Britain.
Wales is located in the west of Britain. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) said that the agreement shifted the centre of gravity of the Community. As a result of what has happened in eastern Europe over the past few years, the centre of gravity has moved eastwards and, as a result of this agreement, it is now moving slightly northwards. The western areas of Britain will suffer. The whole of Ireland will be compensated to some extent, whereas Wales and the other western parts of Britain are in danger of falling between two stools.
The same is true of the Maastricht agreement, which set up a cohesion fund and an infrastructure fund. Both are based on the same definition of the poorer regions of Britain.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a basic feature of the Maastricht agreement that Northern Ireland is excluded because it is part of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Davies: I hope that the Minister will answer that question. It has never been clear to me whether the rules that apply to the cohesion fund under the European economic area agreement also apply to the cohesion fund under the Maastricht agreement. I understood that the Maastricht agreement dealt merely with national GDP per head. As the United Kingdom's GDP per head is higher than 100, Northern Ireland and Wales are excluded. This cohesion fund may be slightly different. I am sorry that the Minister hardly dealt with that point. I hope that he will tell us why Northern Ireland was included—there is no objection to its inclusion—whereas Wales, for example, was not included. Is Northern Ireland included in the Maastricht cohesion fund? If it is, why is not Wales included? Perhaps Wales is included. We must deal with that matter because it is extremely important.
58
It may take some time to attain economic and monetary union; but, as we move towards it, the centralisation of currency and the fact that we shall not be able to control our own currency or, to a considerable extent, our public expenditure will mean that the areas on the periphery—which, if Ireland is to be an exception, will be mainly those in the west of Britain, especially Wales, the north-west of England and parts of the west of Scotland—will not get the attention or benefit that they deserve. I hope that the Minister will give us a more adequate and a clearer explanation of the cohesion funds when he winds up the debate.
The second matter may sound esoteric and may not seem to be connected with the first point. I refer to the legal opinion of the European Court on the original draft agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin)—I do not criticise her for this—spoke about legal niceties. That is one way in which to describe the matter, but I believe that the court's opinion goes far further than legal niceties. The court set out clearly its view about what the European Economic Community, or European union as it will be called, is all about. I understand that the European Parliament may wish to send back to the court even the cobbled-up compromise reached as a result of the court's condemnation of the original agreement. If that happens, we may again come into conflict not with the court, but with the way in which the court interprets the basic purposes of the European Economic Community or European union.
Paragraph 17 of the court's opinion says that it follows, among other things, from certain articles of the treaty that "that treaty"—that is, the treaty of Rome—
"aims to achieve economic integration leading to the establishment of an internal market and economic and monetary union."
The opinion refers to the original treaty of Rome to which we adhere as a result of a vote in the House on the royal prerogative in 1972. Let us he under no illusion. Despite all the things that we were told in 1972, adherence to the treaty meant adherence to economic and monetary union, and not merely to a free trade area.
The opinion continues:
"Article I of the Single European Act makes it clear moreover that the objective of all the Community treaties is to contribute together to making concrete progress towards European unity."
The Single European Act was about European unity.
When one listened to some members of the Cabinet who now criticise the Act, it seemed as if the Act was just about the free movement of goods. Of course it was not. As the court has said and as the preamble to the Act says, the Act is about concrete progress towards "European unity".
The court also said:
"It follows from the foregoing that the provisions of the EEC Treaty on free movement"—
the free movement of goods—
"and competition, far from being an end in themselves, are only means for attaining those objectives."
That was the fundamental dilemma in respect of the EFTA-EC agreement. The court says that the articles on the free movement of goods and competition rules, and all the directives linked to them, must be interpreted on the basis that they lead to European unity.
I do not know what European unity is. Nobody has defined it and nobody seems to have a clue what it is. Is it

59
a federal or a confederal union? It is a serious matter that the court interprets directives on the basis of a goal called "European unity" which it is not prepared to define.
I digress a little by mentioning briefly the problem of Sunday trading. The Torfaen borough council case, which went to the European Court, was decided on the basis that any restriction on Sunday trading was a limitation on article 30 on the free movement of goods. I suppose that it is. If anyone closes a shop anywhere in the EC, it is a restriction on the free movement of goods. A sensible court which did not have a great goal of European union which it wanted to achieve would have said, "It is de minimis. Let us not bother about it." The European Court could not do that. In the court's view, a restriction under article 30 meant that the goal of European unity would somehow be affected. There was a nonsense decision.
There is a fundamental question here about the nature of the Community. It is no good our going to Maastricht, or the Foreign Secretary managing to have the word "federal" removed from that treaty, if the fundamental proposition advanced by the court is that we are talking in the EC about progress towards European unity. I do not know what European unity means, and it is a strange court of law that says that everything must be interpreted in the light of European unity and does not have a clue what that means.
That brings me to my final point, which is that we appoint judges to the court. I have never believed that there is too much wrong with the way in which our system of justice operates, with the Lord Chancellor appointing judges to the courts of England and Wales. There may be a case for a small committee of senior judges to advise him, and I have an open mind on that. The European Court is an entirely different matter. It is a political court whose goal is European unity and which interprets directives and treaty agreements in accordance with that political goal.
One of these days, we will have to look at the views of those appointed. Apparently, one judge was appointed recently and another is about to be appointed. There is also the Advocate-General. In the United States, which has a similar constitution, judges are asked their views on matters such as federalism and jurisdiction of the court. Apparently, we do not ask the judges whom we appoint to the European Court their views on European unity. Do they have a clue what it means? Have they ever thought about it? Those are matters which, some say, we should discuss.
The problem with EFTA and the EC highlights that difficulty. It was the EC's legal people who eventually said that the matter had to go to the European Court because they could see that there was a fundamental conflict in the development of the Community. The Community cannot develop as a free trade area, including all those other countries—which the Government seem to want and about which we are all in agreement—if we have the court saying that everything must be geared towards European unity, whatever that may mean.
We shall have to wait to see what happens with the cobbled-up agreement. Perhaps it will be all right. I do not know; I suspect that it may not be all right. I repeat that this is not a legal nicety but a fundamental problem, to
60
which the House will have to return before too long, concerning the development and eventual nature of the Community to which we belong.
5.52 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: I find myself in a slightly strange position. I am usually somewhat critical of the Commission and support the concept of redressing the democratic deficit. On this occasion, however, I support the position that the Commission has taken and am rather critical of that which the European Parliament has adopted.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Frans Andriessen, who has persisted with this matter despite having been obstructed by the European Parliament and the European Court. We need to take a broad view of these matters. We are talking about a dramatic development, in that the European economic area will comprise 19 European countries. Most important, it will take within itself a group of countries—primarily the Nordic countries—that have an enormous contribution to make to the concept and development of European democracy. The Nordic countries have one of the longest established democratic traditions in Europe. They have much to teach Europe about parliamentary democracy. We have made our own important contribution, but the more countries with such traditions we have in Europe, the better, and a step that will almost inevitably lead to the enlargement of the Community is extremely welcome.
It is rather sad that juridical minutiae seem to be preventing that from happening. It is not particularly edifying to see lawyers and the European Parliament arguing over such minute matters. The Commission itself believes that, under article 238, we could proceed as it had originally proposed. As I understand it, the only issue regarding the competence of the court was that the court felt that its competence would not extend throughout EFTA and that a compromise arrangement would therefore need to be made.
I hope that the arrangement that we have now reached will mean that the matter can now proceed quickly and that the St. Valentine's day decision will lead to a swift consummation of the love affair between the 19 nations of the European economic area. The draft treaty ought to be endorsed as quickly as possible. If 19 European Governments can agree that they wish to follow a particular course of action, it seems to me thoroughly undesirable that the institutions of the EC should seek to prevent them from doing so on purely technical grounds. It will be a sad reflection on the European Parliament if, the first time that it exercises its enlarged powers under the Maastricht treaty, it uses them so as to obstruct the agreement that has been worked out.
The agreement is enormously important to the whole European Community. In particular, in relation to Maastricht, the cohesion fund that has been established will mean that there will be considerable additional resources to help with the convergence of the economies of the European Community. The importance of that should not be underestimated. Inevitably, considerable problems will arise in achieving the degree of convergence envisaged under the Maastricht treaty, and, unless additional funding is available, that convergence could be long delayed.

61
The creation of the EEA, with the additional funds that the wealthier countries from the northern fringe and Switzerland and Austria will bring, will help that process considerably. In that regard, can the Minister tell us the extent to which the cohesion fund as proposed will meet the likely level of contribution that would be required from the EFTA countries had they been applying now for full membership of the Community?
This marvellous opportunity should be grasped by the whole Community. If it is necessary to interpret treaties in more flexible ways, I hope that we shall do so, and I hope that the European Parliament, in particular, will not stand in our way.
5.57 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: As always, I found the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) most interesting. I do not know that I agree with him that the referral of the treaty on the EEA to the European Court was legally insignificant and a technicality—I shall return to that in a minute—but I strongly support the paean of praise that he uttered for Nordic democracy. As he will know, Nordic democracy is non-confrontational, consensual and founded on proportional representation. I hope that we shall be infected with it very soon.
Mr. Ian Taylor: They have Conservative Governments in Nordic countries.
Sir Russell Johnston: Proportional representation does not preclude Conservative Governments.
The Liberal Democrats support the establishment of the European economic area, which, as several hon. Members have said, is clearly the prelude to the extension of the European Community. It also sounds the death knell of the alternative concept of a loose economic grouping, put forward by those who argued first against the establishment of the EC and then against moves to make it more effective by more effective integration.
EFTA was the only alternative to the European Community. That was why the British Government of the day, in their short-sighted fashion, were unwilling to work with the then six and took a leading role in establishing EFTA as the alternative. We abandoned that, along with Denmark and Ireland, in 1973, and it is now set to be wound up altogether. Therefore, we should recall the fact that those who took that "have our cake and eat it" attitude were wrong. Some, sadly, like the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), are still wrong.
I will not prolong this short debate, as many hon. Members wish to speak. Three hours is an absurdly short time to examine such a width of issues with any thoroughness. The Minister himself called it the most ambitious agreement so far signed by the Community. That highlights the great difficulty facing the House in dealing collectively in the Chamber with European Community issues.
The fourth report of the Trade and Industry Committee is full and detailed, and the Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), from whom we have already heard, deserve much credit. However, the report is a year and a half old, and it has not been debated. In any event, the views of a Committee do
62
not necessarily reflect the opinion of the House as a whole. The Government's reaction appeared in October 1990 and, to my knowledge, it has not been debated either.
I do not believe that such a procedure can be considered an adequate representation of Parliament's views on European Community negotiations or legislation. We should have full and suitably timed debates.
Mr. Warren: I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to our report. However, I assure him that the report was unanimous, and included the full support of a member of the Liberal Democrats.
Sir Russell Johnston: I was not suggesting that it was not unanimous. As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye said, the Committee was not divided, but that does not mean to say that that is always the case in Select Committees. If the principle is that it is adequate parliamentary consultation for a Committee to deal with an issue, I do not agree with that principle.
Mr. Warren indicated assent.
Sir Russell Johnston: Obviously the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye agrees with me about that. We need suitably timed debates that take place well in advance if we are to exert influence on the Minister before negotiations or Council of Ministers meetings.
There is another alternative: that the House should no longer seek to duplicate what is done in the European Parliament, but should leave detailed representations to that body and confine itself to debates on general issues —while of course always retaining the right which any Member or group of Members have of raising specific matters with Ministers. The present position is neither one thing nor the other. There is a pretence of exercising influence without the reality.
However, across the piece, the Community has conducted a good negotiation, and the Committee has produced a good report. I suspect that the replies to this debate will be truncated because of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate. If the Minister cannot answer all my points, I would appreciate it if he would drop me a wee note.
As several hon. Members have said, the arrangements on fish represent an advance in terms of access on what exists under the common fisheries policy at present. However, as the existing CFP agreement relates to estimates of available fish, have those been changed? The previous agreement was based on what could be fished properly and safely on conservation grounds, but is that now to be extended? On what basis is it being carried out?
The hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to policing. If the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is right—I think he is—there will be two levels of policing in fishing areas. There will be tighter control in Norwegian waters and less tight control elsewhere. That is very unsatisfactory, and the House and the Government, through the Council of Ministers, should do more about Community policing in Community waters.
The Minister referred to exclusion of fish species, and specifically mentioned salmon. Was he referring to wild salmon running in the sea, or did his comments include farmed salmon? The Minister will be aware that there has been a great deal of concern among fish farmers who produce salmon. That is an important industry in my

63
constituency, especially in Lochaber, where Marine Harvest has just been put up for sale by Unilever. There is much employment in the industry in respect of processing in Fort William and in the farms on the west coast, where there is little alternative employment. The concern related to the blatant dumping of farmed salmon by Norway. There was much negotiation and to-ing and fro-ing about that, and I wonder whether that was affected by the agreement.
Recommendation 4 of the Trade and Industry Committee indicated that the creation of the EEA would provide an opportunity for further progress on discrimination against United Kingdom alcohol, which of course includes Scots whisky and related Scots whisky-based liqueurs. As the Government have said that they hoped that there would be opportunities for further progress, I should like to know what further progress has been achieved.
With regard to recommendation 7, I would like to know the up-to-date position on competitive public procurement. As hon. Members will be aware, our construction industry is currently under-used and could well have competitive opportunities opened up to it.
Recommendation 9 relates to the promotion of direct flights from United Kingdom regional airports, and what the DTI called "innovative fares". That will be most welcome if it happens. However, considering the current war of words between British Airways and Virgin Airways, and recalling the fate of Mr. Laker, who certainly went in for innovative fares, I confess to being somewhat sceptical about that. Perhaps the fact that Lord King went into a huff and stopped paying money to the Conservative party might give the Government a freer hand—who knows?
Finally, I do not believe that it is that helpful for the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye to make abusive remarks about the European Parliament, satisfying though that might be. It is always very satisfying to make abusive remarks, but the European Parliament was simply defending the position of the court, which EFTA sought to circumvent. It is not unreasonable that the Parliament should wish to be assured that the new arrangements will make the position of the courts secure.
In response to the right hon. Member for Llanelli, the court is in reality a federal court. In reaching the new agreement, I hope that there has been contact between the institutions—the Commission and the Council—and the court so that there will be no delay. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, that that would be most undesirable. I hope that the European Parliament will not hesitate about ratification.
Mr. Butterfill: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that that is the technical position that the European Parliament has taken. However, in practice, surely it did not like the idea of a separate court with enhanced jurisdiction over a wider area. Surely it wanted to reinforce the position of the total competence over all Community matters of the European Court of Justice. That was a narrow-minded outlook, in view of the magnitude of the events that it was being asked to consider.
Sir Russell Johnston: I agree entirely with the definition that the hon. Member has spelt out. However, I do not
64
agree that that was a small-minded approach. I do not see the point of having two separate courts, given the short life of the agreement between today and the eventual adhesion of most of the members involved in it, with the possible exception of Iceland and, later, Norway.
In conclusion I entirely agree that this is a great step forward for all Europe. It was slow in coming, but it is all the more welcome for that.
6.9 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: There was a time when we were told that none of the EFTA countries would survive the Common Market. In fact, when this country had the opportunity of having a referendum, we were told that it would be the demise of those countries. One has only to look at the progress that EFTA has made, its balance sheet, and the eagerness of the EC now to make peace with it to realise that the prophets who prophesied doom were false prophets and that their prophecy was entirely wrong. We need to face up to that fact. It would be interesting to read the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members who were prepared at that time to read an obituary notice to EFTA and all its deeds. But EFTA still exists.
The widening of the European Community is to the good. I should rather see the EC widened than deepened, and I should like to see the possibility of it being a real European Community in which the whole of Europe is included. I am not arguing for federalism—everybody knows my views—but I am arguing for a unity amidst the diversity, and I am also urging for that interdependence which does not destroy independence. That is the way in which Europe should develop.
The new cohesion fund has the same objective as the Maastricht cohesion fund—to help people in the less-favoured areas of the Community who need to be cushioned because of progress made toward more prosperity in the more prosperous parts of the European Community. One would have thought that the same ground rules would adhere to this cohesion fund and the Maastricht cohesion fund, but they do not. This cohesion fund seems to take into consideration objective 1 areas of the EC. The Maastricht fund does not do that. For example, Wales, which is an objective 2 area, is completely left out. I should have thought that all parts of the European Community which are to be hit, and hit hard economically by what is going on in Europe, should be included in the cohesion fund.
I am glad that Northern Ireland, the only United Kingdom objective 1 area in the Community, is included. However, I do not think that other parts of the United Kingdom which are equally entitled to help should have been excluded. However, in the Maastricht deal, Northern Ireland alone is an objective 1 area and it is excluded. Three Northern Ireland Members of the European Parliament met the Prime Minister and drew his attention to that subject. He has argued that the criterion is different, that we are dealing with the United Kingdom as a whole and that, therefore, the objective 1 argument does not come into it.
I do not know how one can have two agreements, one arguing on one set of principles and the other arguing on another set. If the objective of the European Community is to be achieved, objective 1 and 2 areas in the United Kingdom should be included. I trust that, even now, the

65
Government will have second thoughts on this matter and I hope that the Minister will spell out exactly what the cohesion fund under this agreement will be in comparison with the cohesion fund under the Maastricht agreement.
The other matter which I should like the Minister to develop relates to fish. We are not getting the full story on fish. The measure deals with cod. I am not suggesting that the Minister is acting the cod, but someone is certainly not telling us the full facts. How much will United Kingdom fishermen benefit? May they have a firm figure?
I congratulate the Minister on the good document— one can read it. One cannot read the other documents that we are to discuss later. Perhaps it is another conspiracy of the Government to keep us from reading them. How can one read such documents? One cannot make them out. Even when I went back and said, "Give me another copy," the second one was almost as bad as the first. If I came from Aberdeen instead of Ballymena, I would go back even for a third copy that I could read.
The document tells us that the EC will have greater access to fishing grounds. It states:
"The EC share of the total allowable catch for North Norway cod will increase from 2.14 per cent. to 2·9 per cent."
It is said that we will do very well out of that because of the
"two-thirds of the total."
Will the Minister tell us what the total is and what the term "two-thirds of the total" really means? The document goes on to refer to France and Germany and states:
"Norway will also grant the EC separate fixed quantities of cod to be allocated to Spain, Portugal and possibly Ireland".
Those countries never fish in those fishing grounds. We are told that that does not alter the treaty, but the document is making a change in what was tightly negotiated by all those countries which had an interest in fishing and which were attempting to safeguard their fishing grounds. We now have a new fishing arrangement that includes Spain, Portugal and possibly Ireland.
Ireland is mentioned in the paper as the Republic of Ireland. How does the Republic of Ireland come into it? The paper says "possibly Ireland". Perhaps Ireland is excluded. Knowing the Republic of Ireland, I know that, if there is anything going for nothing, it will be in on it, all right. I should have thought that it would be in on this deal.
We need to know what will happen to those fishing grounds. Why does this agreement interfere with already agreed principles on fishing? Is it because Spain and Portugal opposed the treaty and that they had to be bought off? Is this the way that they were bought off? The Minister should tell us the truth. Is there a real benefit to our fishermen? If there is, I welcome it, because we in the United Kingdom have had a raw deal on fishing.
One of the things that we need to tell Europe over and again is that there would be no large fishing grounds but for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has given liberally to Europe. We are often told that the British are little Englanders, but that is certainly not the case in respect of fishing, because we have given liberally to establish a common fishing policy. I ask the Minister to tell us exactly how much we are to benefit. The document states:
"The Agreement can be expected to afford financial benefit to the UK by virtue of the increased opportunities for UK business as described above. Northern Ireland will be a beneficiary of the EFTA cohesion fund."
66
Of course I welcome that, but other parts of the United Kingdom which suffer unemployment and an economic plight such as that of Northern Ireland should also be included in that cohesion fund.
6.19 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that years ago the EFTA countries were reluctant to associate with the European Community. I remind him that Norway voted against membership of the European Economic Community in the referendum because of the understandable fears of many Norwegians, particularly in fishing communities in the north of Norway, about the common fisheries policy. There is no doubt that attitudes have changed but there was a deep fear about the CFP and open access to northern Norwegian waters.
I see that the Minister is away for the moment. I welcome the agreement, but some elements of it give rise to some concern. In my brief speech I wish to ask some questions which could perhaps be relayed to the Minister.
My first question is about the free movement of persons. Paragraph 11 of the explanatory memorandum published by the Department of Trade and Industry says:
"The Agreement prohibits discrimination between EC and EFTA nationals in respect of employment".
The Minister spoke about self-employment and the creation of businesses. But the same paragraph also says:
"this embraces the right to accept offers of employment actually made, to stay in an EC or EFTA country for that purpose and to remain there afterwards."
I ask the question that I asked earlier: what is the position of immigrant workers long domiciled in European Community countries? I refer, for example, to the North African immigrant workers in France or those known as gastarbeiter in Germany? It seems that the EC countries have reached some sort of tacit agreement about such European Community residents. By that, I mean that such people will be confined to the countries in which they reside now.
We are talking about several millions of people. Tacitly or otherwise, the European Community has affixed to those people second class-status as citizens. I do not believe that they will be allowed to move around the 12 EC countries, let alone the EFTA countries. I would like an answer to that critical point. We talked about the problems of immigration into the European Community, but we also have a serious problem of migration of people such as I have described, many of whom have lived for years and years in, say, France or Germany. They seem to have second-class status as citizens.
I promised to be brief, but I wish to ask some questions about fishing. I listened intently to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who is knowledgeable on the subject—as, of course, he needs to be—and to the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I agree with the Minister that the agreement will benefit some of our distant water trawlers with regard to north Norway cod.
I should perhaps declare an interest here. I am not a fisherman myself, but I have a brother who is the mate of a big freezer trawler. He and his comrades will undoubtedly benefit from the agreement because that trawler is one of the few which has the capability to fish in such dangerous waters. For reasons of safety, not all the trawlers that one sees in Ulster or the Republic of Ireland

67
should go out to those dangerous grounds. The same holds true for Icelandic waters, which are equally dangerous for small vessels.
The Minister mentioned a figure of 6,000 tonnes for the amount of cod coming to United Kingdom fishermen. The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked the Minister to give us a definitive figure. I should like the same information. The information that I have been given is that the figure for 1993 is 1,600 tonnes. Is the latter figure the increase in the amount that our fishermen will be able to catch or is it the total catch figure for 1993? I know that it is not the Minister's responsibility, but the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland. Does the figure refer to fish fillets or to whole fish as it comes over the side of the trawler? There is an important difference.
Paragraph 25 of the Minister's explanatory memorandum says:
"Iceland will provide a small additional quantity of fish, the allocation of which is still to be determined."
Did I hear the Minister aright? Did he mention red fish when he talked about the unknown Icelandic allocation? If that is the case, I wonder whether perhaps the United Kingdom and Germany could do a swap of allocations of red fish and Norway cod. Traditionally, United Kingdom trawlers do not fish for red fish. Would there be any chance of an agreement between Germany and the United Kingdom?
Despite the Minister's eminently reasonable comments about cohesion in relation to access for Spanish vessels to fishing grounds, I still believe that to give Spanish and Portuguese vessels access to grounds that they have never fished before bodes ill for the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy. There is no doubt that the Spanish, with their huge, over-large fleet, will seek access to United Kingdom grounds, from which at present they are rightly and properly excluded. That exclusion must remain. Now that the Spanish have won a significant concession on grounds that are not traditional to them, they will be heartened about their bargaining position in the mid-term review of the CFP. If the common agricultural policy is important, especially to Conservative Members, I can tell the House that the CFP is very important to our fishing communities in Scotland and, of course, elsewhere.
I am worried about the agreement which allows Spanish vessels to fish in new waters, because it will strengthen the position of the Spanish when they come to negotiate the mid-term review. We are almost upon it—it is literally months away. Now that they have the agreement to fish, perhaps in Icelandic waters and certainly in Norwegian waters, they will say that the derogation given to the United Kingdom protecting our inshore waters should be examined.
By the agreement, the United Kingdom is stirring up problems for our fishing industry in the mid-term review. I am aware that it is not the responsibility of the Minister, but it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and he is the ministerial representative of the Front Bench now. We are heading into danger.
Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible to take the reverse view? The very fact that the
68
Norwegians have been prepared to grant access will relieve some of the pressure on us to grant access in the review. It is entirely helpful that the EFTA countries are prepared, through the cohesion fund and fisheries extensions, to take some of the burden of introducing a level of convergence between the economies of the Community. The principal Spanish argument is an economic one. Spain says that it needs economic assistance. Whether that comes through the extension of fishing areas or other economic assistance is unimportant: the important principle is that the wealthier northern countries are giving more assistance to the poorer southern countries.
Dr. Godman: I am sure that the fact that the European Fisheries Commissioner, Mr. Marin, is Spanish has no bearing on what has happened. I trust the man that far. The Spanish will not catch much fish off northern Norway, but they have achieved a breakthrough in the negotiations between the European Community and third countries in terms of access to the waters of those third countries. That breakthrough is important to the Spanish Government and their negotiators, as will be seen when we come to the mid-term review.
Everywhere, there are far too many fishermen chasing too few fish. We all know that, and we are arguing for a decommissioning scheme for our fleet, which is too big for the stocks upon which it exists. The Spanish must face up to the same problems. They must halve their distant water fleet instead of coming into our waters.
Policing of waters has already been mentioned. Scottish and English fishermen going into northern Norwegian waters to fish tell us that the policing is much tougher than anything that they encounter in the European Community. The Norwegian coastguard knows exactly where every foreign vessel is fishing. Boardings are frequent and the penalties for infringement of rules are savage. Licences are taken away and huge financial penalties are inflicted on miscreants. That has always been the case in Norwegian and Icelandic waters. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is right: we are talking about two systems of policing.
I hope that I do not sound too chauvinistic when I say that the Spanish are among the worst when it comes to breaking rules on the catching of fish, not just in our waters but in Irish waters. They have a shocking record, but they will come adrift in Norwegian waters if they try such games with the Norwegian coastguard.
The Minister spoke about red fish, and I should like to know the precise figures on northern Norway cod. Paragraph 33 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the creation of
"An EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee, composed of MEPs and EFTA parliamentarians".
Was any thought given to placing on that committee of Members of Parliament from the 12 national legislatures of the European Community? If the purpose of that committee is to promote mutual understanding through dialogue and debate, I should have thought that Members of Parliament from EFTA countries would benefit enormously from meeting fellow Members of Parliament as we are the ones in the parliamentary front line when matters of this kind are debated.
I hope that, as this relationship develops, Iceland and Norway will give up the barbarous activity of whaling. They do not need to catch whales—they are both affluent north Atlantic countries—and I hope that, as a humane

69
gesture, they will renounce whaling altogether. Such a decision would be welcomed throughout the other 17 countries.
I hope that the restrictions on the dumping of Norwegian farmed salmon will be maintained. I seek an assurance from the Minister on this because dumping of such salmon has caused serious problems to our communities, which are largely dependent on the still young industry of sea fish farming. Although I have some reservations about the agreement, I think that in general it is a fine thing.
6.24 pm
Mr. David Howell: There can be no doubt that this is an important day for the changing shape of Europe, with the creation of a gigantic single market with a gross national product of £4,000 billion. It is much the world's largest single free trade area, being bigger than Canada and the United States together, and even when those two countries are joined with Mexico. Clearly, this change should be unreservedly welcomed as an advance in free trade which will bring prosperity to all peoples, provided that the lawyers and the European Parliament allow that to happen.
I must confess some sympathy with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about the workings of the European Court of Justice and its tendency always to find in favour of the treaty and the union in its most narrow sense. No doubt we shall come to those matters when the House debates the ratification of the Maastricht accords, particularly in the light of the subsidiarity item, item 3b in the draft Maastricht treaty. Presumably the judicial figures in the European Court of Justice will have to take account of that in the future.
In the meantime, we have this fabulous area of free trade, which we must strongly welcome and support. I have three quick points to make about it. First, this is all very temporary. We are looking at an arrangement that, almost before it comes into being, will be out of date and irrelevant, for the simple reason that several of the countries involved in it want to move on, as rapidly as possible, to full membership of the European Community. Austria and Sweden already have their applications in and hope that they will be under discussion as from June this year. Finland is reaching the decision that it wants to join, on certain terms. Switzerland will have a referendum in September, and I think that it will want to join, as will Norway.
The whole idea that the European economic agreement, creating economic space, would provide a new arrangement that would satisfy the EFTA countries has backfired. Far from satisfying them, it has disturbed the relationship that they had with the Community before and has led to the strong view that they must have membership. That is what is coming and, inevitably, this will lead to a pattern that is entirely different from the one that we are discussing today.
Secondly, what we are looking at today is part of the enlargement process that is about to sweep forward and will include not merely the five EFTA countries but the eastern European troika whose association agreements the House will discuss later, and perhaps the three Baltic states. Malta and Cyprus are also on the list, with Turkey at the end of it. There are also the new states of Slovenia
70
and Croatia, and heaven knows what other states will emerge out of the Balkan stew. All may want to become full members of the European Community.
The European economic agreement is just the first step in the gigantic drama of enlargement of the European union. We still speak of the European Community but, from the moment of ratification of the Maastricht document by all Parliaments, we shall have something which is quite different and which is moving in a different direction—the European union of the 1990s.
My third point relates to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) who spoke clearly and comprehensibly from the Opposition Front Bench about the changing nature of the Community institution. She is right to say that this step, and even more the further steps that follow inevitably from it through enlargement, are already changing the structure, character and nature of the European Community arrangements and the traditional or classic Community of which we have been a member for some years and which began in 1957, before our membership, with the original Six, under the aegis of the treaty of Rome.
We are now seeing the beginning of a huge change in the institutional structure. The document that we are discussing proposes that the 19 members should operate in a system that will give the new "Eftans" some kind of observer status, and a part-time relationship with parts of the Community structure and parts of the new union structure. It is difficult to see how that will work. We need only consider the problems—a positive tower of Babel— that will result from translation and interpretation requirements.
All that, however, is just another element of change in a European union that is already changing before our very eyes. What emerged at Maastricht—we shall discuss that further—was not just a system involving the Community, the old federal bit of Europe, but a system involving the intergovernmental or confederal bit in balance or alongside it: the pillars of common foreign security policy, interior policy, justice policy and so on. The EFTA countries will be associated with those pillars in a mild way through the agreement, and will want to be fully associated with them when they seek full membership of the Community, as they will do over the next two or three years.
I welcome what has taken place, and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the work that he has done in setting up such a gigantic free trade structure. We as a House of Commons, however, should realise that we are viewing what is merely a passing scene —a brief photo-shot of European development. Everything will change radically; soon, we shall be debating the development of a European union totally unlike the Community that we have known in the past and institutionally different from that Community. What we are debating this evening represents only one step in that direction.
6.41 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: It is most unsatisfactory that we should have to take part in such a truncated debate on a very practical and important matter within the European Community. It is particularly unsatisfactory for those who must speak at the tail end of the debate.

71
Speakers constrained by the time limit, as was the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), find it impossible to develop points that I consider important.
It is an extraordinary experience for me to congratulate the Government twice in one afternoon: first, on apologising to Commissioner Millan and putting right the whole RECHAR business; secondly—without reservation —on the EFTA achievement. A very good job has been done, which will benefit both the Community and the EFTA countries. I feel that the Commission's officials should be congratulated as well; we tend to forget that they have been working on this for a very long time.
Let me issue a warning. It seems to me, from what I have read and from talking to continental colleagues, that some member countries wish to postpone full membership. As has been mentioned, Austria and Sweden have already applied for full membership, and it is certain that Finland will do so in the next few weeks. We know, however, that some member countries wish to block that development. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are eager for EFTA countries to gain full membership as and when they apply.
I found the statements by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) quite extraordinary. I first heard him speak on Europe in 1979, when we were together in the European Parliament. It struck me then that the hon. Gentleman had an imperfect grasp of what the Community was about, and I am sorry to note that he has regressed further since coming to the House.
Is it not clear that the EFTA countries—far from being satisfied with their current status, and far from considering themselves self-sufficient—seek the Community's help on two grounds? First, they wish to improve their own prosperity; secondly, there is a certain idealism involved in their application for full membership. That certainly did not apply in the 1970s.
May I advance a small defence of the European Parliament, in relation to its dealings with the European Court of Justice? During the negotiating process, there was considerable dispute about what legal rights were contained in the treaty, and whether they could be put in place while still fulfilling the Community's rules. The Parliament, very properly, placed them before the Court of Justice, which—far from behaving in the way described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) —responded very positively, as anyone can see who reads the whole judgment.
The Court gave certain advice about how the treaty could be changed so as to fulfil the obligations that exist as a result of the various treaties that make up the Community. All that the Parliament is doing now is announcing a "holding position": it is saying, "Let us consult the Court of Justice to make sure that everything is right." Both Conservative and Labour MEPs, and people from all the countries concerned, have strongly backed the negotiations. The odd rogue elephant on either side has bucked them, but, on the whole, they have fought very hard for those negotiations. To suggest that MEPs are being obstructive is nonsense, and a failure fully to understand the proper custodial duties they have.
Much has been said this evening about eastern and central Europe, and the possible acceptance of those countries into full membership. I urge caution: it seems to
72
me that merging central and eastern Europe with the west has become very much the flavour of the month, but that no practical thought has been devoted to how the process should take place.
For instance, it is no good the Government saying to the Community—as they have said—"We must give all possible assistance to eastern Europe's move towards democracy and its attempts to reform its economies," and then saying, "But, Mr. Commissioner"—or "Mr. Delors", perhaps—"we will not let you spend any money on it." That, in effect, is what the Government did, and that is what is being attacked now. That is nonsense: either practical assistance is to be given to eastern Europe or it is not. The Government really should make up their mind.
With the advent of EFTA countries to the European Community, the social chapter will clearly become much more important, because it is an important part of their institutions. Where do the Government stand in that regard? How did they talk to those countries? What negotiating stance will the Government take when those countries are entering the Community, and—eventually —pushing for what the other 11 are already demanding?
While we are talking about cohesion, let me say that I have great sympathy for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all parts of the Community that have problems. We should remember, however, that the northern regions of England have the same problems; but, because we are not put together—although we have a sense of cohesion—we do not benefit from the cohesion funds. We have only recently begun to benefit from RECHAR, and we hope that that money will arrive very soon.
I must leave the Minister time to reply, but there has been no chance in this short debate to discuss external affairs. The relationship between the ACP—African, Caribbean and Pacific—countries and the EFTA countries is important.
The European Community has fishing agreements with third countries, particularly in Africa, where it has agreements with Senegal, Guinea-Bissau and a number of others. Has consideration been given to those African countries? It has not been mentioned in any document that I have seen, but are any EFTA countries asking for entry into such agreements?
The Government, in a first, faltering step, have done a very good job, and I congratulate them on it.
6.50 pm
Mr. Barry Porter: I, too, shall be brief. I add my voice to that of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) as I, too, want to know what European unity means in the context of the treaty and, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) I want to know about the moving panorama. It has taken a long time to reach this stage, with more countries wishing to become part of the Community or to have some relationship with it. In the meantime, the world is changing around us.
If we are to join the European railway train, I have two questions for the Minister. First, where is the train going? If I get on a train at Euston, I would like it to go to Liverpool. Otherwise, I have made a mistake and I end up somewhere else. Generally, I do not get that wrong. If I get on a train for European unity, where do I and the United Kingdom think that it will go?

73
I travelled with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to the EFTA countries, and they had some idea of where they wanted to go. Business men, bankers and financiers all wanted to join the Community, but there was little mention of idealism. They realised, however, that there was a huge market that would be beneficial to their importers and exporters. That is why they wished to join.
I refuse to be stampeded by people to whom the word "Europe" involves almost a political orgasm. That cannot be right. Europe is or will have to be something, but we do not yet know what. If we were in a station waiting room, it would be helpful if all the people waiting for the train decided where they wanted to go and if they wanted to go together. If they want to go to the same place, all well and good. If they do not, let them make some other arrangements.
I make no pretensions to be president of Mensa, but I can read the odd document. I become dubious about things if they cause 57 questions to be asked of the Minister—I gave up counting after that. Perhaps the Minister will give his own brand of reply. Let us not dwell in a fantasy land, because, as Humpty Dumpty said in "Through the Looking-Glass",
"When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
I am getting off that train for the moment.
Mr. Enright: To have an orgasm.
6.53 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: I shall not follow up that invitation while I am in the Chamber.
I, too, welcome this historic agreement, which has been negotiated over 20 months with great skill, patience and no few difficulties. It represents a great achievement if one considers that 380 million people will be part of a European free trade economic area. I am interested in this issue because, between 1969 and 1970, I was chairman of the European Union of Christian Democratic and Conservative Students, which covered the then EC and EFTA countries. I particularly remember that many of the countries that are now involved in this agreement were very concerned about the European Community because of their neutrality.
Times have changed. The Swedish Government have almost officially dropped neutrality and Austria does not talk about neutrality or its treaty obligations, because of its relationship with the Soviet Union. The changes right across Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, have led to a further dramatic impact, because countries such as Sweden, Finland and Austria feel that they no longer have to pay lip service to their position as neutral powers.
I was delighted that the agreement made its final leap forward under the Portuguese presidency of the EC. Portugal was the last member of EFTA to join the EC. It therefore understood the interests of its more recent partners. The agreement underlines the vitality of the European Community as a series of institutions. Let us not evade that fact. It is an agreement whereby EFTA countries have entered into a series of complex negotiations and accepted the "Acquis Communautaire" and the regulations in the areas in which the agreement has been formed, which were agreed by members of the Community—not them.
They have also accepted a remarkable series of commitments to be developed by the Community. They
74
have done that not just because they want to have access to an enlarged free trade area—important though that is —but because they understand why they wish to be part of the political union which the European Community represents. As Carl Bildt, the Conservative Prime Minister of Sweden says:
"Now we are heading full speed to the EC."
EFTA members understand that it is important to be part of the most vibrant political bloc in the world today. What sort of Community will it be if EFTA members join, as I hope that they will be able to do quickly?
There are important questions that we shall have a chance to debate in the House—certainly the British Government will have a chance to consider them in more detail during our presidency of the Community, starting on 1 July. How will the enlarged Community cope with subsidiarity? How will institutions be streamlined? Up to 19 countries could be trying to make decisions at once.
For example, if all the countries made opening statements to the council of Ministers, it would take more than three hours before they could commence the meeting. That is implausible. There would be enormous complications for the European Parliament, given the number of extra nations and their delegates. There would be great difficulties if the Commission were expanded beyond its current base. Those matters must be tackled quickly. Obviously, they will be tackled in ways which mean that certain concessions must be made by nation states. We must think carefully about what we would like those concessions to be.
This country is at the forefront of those wanting the Community to be widened. As I have said before—I repeat it now, because it is essential to appreciate this point—widening is not necessarily a way of avoiding deepening, closer integration. Widening will involve deepening. We must ensure that we understand clearly what the process entails and that we appreciate the difficulties. In the course of pursuing a policy to widen the Community, we must be prepared to accept deepening integration.
There are 13 official languages, giving 156 combinations for translation. It is clear that the broadened Community could grind to a halt. As the House knows, I am a good European and I obviously expect the Community to make the most sensible decision and to adopt English as its sole language. However, Scottish accents will be encouraged.
Institutional change is inevitable. We should think carefully about what that should be. As soon as possible we should welcome into the great Community those members of EFTA that have signed the European economic area agreement. When they become part of the Community, the Community and free trade will be strengthened, there will be a decline in the protectionist attitudes present in certain parts of the Community and the European union will be made much stronger.
6.59 pm
Ms. Quin: I shall be brief, because I had an opportunity to raise a good many issues in my opening speech and I am sure that the Minister is waiting eagerly to answer in full the many questions that have been addressed to him.
The Minister said that the debate was timely. I somewhat disagree with that. Indeed, following the comments made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), I feel that we are being presented with an agreement that is virtually complete,

75
and that it would have been helpful to have a wider and perhaps longer discussion at an early stage in the proceedings. None the less, many useful points have been made during the debate and I hope that the Minister will give a full response.
Reference has been made to the legal considerations and the views of the European Court and the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) took me to task slightly because he felt that I was downgrading some of the legal aspects of the case. I did not intend to do so. I realise their importance, but I also believe that the vital political and economic considerations that the agreement represents should not be overlooked. That was the danger to which I referred.
I am not surprised that many hon. Members spoke about their respective regions and the issues and industries in their parts of the United Kingdom; nor am I surprised that some hon. Members feel that their regions have been short-changed by the agreement and that it would have been a good idea to include the interests of some other regions in the agreement, not simply restricting it to the objective 1 areas in the European Community. In that respect, the Government are the victim of their own propaganda. They have made many dubious claims about economic miracles but they are not prepared to accept the real economic situation of our regions and the country as a whole.
I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the gastarbeiter and immigrant workers in the European Community, and the real danger that they may be consigned to second-class status.
I hope also that the Minister will respond to the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who urged that the EEA agreement should not be used by certain members of the European Community as an excuse to block progress on applications for full membership submitted by certain EFTA countries.
I believe that the United Kingdom can derive considerable benefit from the agreement, but I still have grave doubts about the Government's priorities in Europe and their overall strategies. It is simply not credible for the Prime Minister to say that he wants us to be at the heart of Europe yet, through the double opt-out at Maastricht, do his best to consign us to the periphery.
The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) said a good deal about trains. In many aspects of European policy, we are in danger of missing the train altogether unless we act to ensure that we do not lose the opportunities available to us. We need to make a success of our membership, both of the Community and of the European economic area, and ensure that our industries and regions can benefit to the full, not just in the Europe of the Twelve but in the wider Europe that we all want to see created.
7.5 pm
Mr. Sainsbury: The most important part of this short debate has been the general welcome that has been given to the agreement on the European economic area by both sides of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member
76
for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, it should be unreservedly welcomed. However, reservations, or should I say questions, about the agreement rained down upon me. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I too lost count of the number of questions that I was being asked. I must take advantage of the suggestion put by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that I should send "a wee note", as he so charmingly put it, to those hon. Members whose questions I could not answer in the short time available to me. I shall scour the pages of Hansard to ensure that everyone who has asked a question receives such a wee note.
I agree, at least on one issue, with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). It is sensible that the agreement comes into force on 1 January 1993 at the same time as the completion of the single market.
The resolution of the European Parliament was referred to by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). The recent amendments made to the agreement take account of the court's opinion last December. I am aware that the European Parliament has made a resolution that a further opinion should be sought. However, as the amendments take account of the court's earlier opinion, it seems to me that no further opinion is necessary and we should be able to go ahead with ratifying the agreement.
Another issue that attracted attention from a number of quarters, including the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), was fish. That is a particularly difficult and complex issue. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow recognised, it is primarily a responsibility for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I was asked precisely how much extra fish would be available to British fishermen. I am not capable of answering that question, because it depends on the total allowable catch. The good news part of the agreement for United Kingdom fishermen is that the European Community's share will be increased from 2·14 per cent. of the total allowable catch to 2·9 per cent. It is impossible to quantify that precisely, because it is a percentage of the total allowable catch.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye asked about another important matter—public procurement. I assure him and the House that EFTA has agreed to implement fully the directives on public procurement. That is one of the major advantages to be derived from the agreeement.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and various other hon. Members asked about cohesion. The House will appreciate that reaching an agreement on that part was difficult. Some objective 1 areas in France, Germany and Italy will not be beneficiaries of the cohesion aspects of the agreement. It will be appreciated that, if they are excluded, there will be no question of bringing in objective 2 areas. Indeed, it was only through the Government's strenuous efforts that we had Northern Ireland included as a beneficiary.
I emphasise that the agreement will facilitate EC membership for any EFTA countries that want to join. Through the agreement, they will already have adopted most single market provisions, and negotiations have

77
covered much of the ground of an accession negotiation. That is a positive aspect of any EFTA country that wants to join.
The issue of the so-called gastarbeiter was raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. The new freedoms of movement for persons and of establishment for individuals and the self-employed apply to nationals of the European Community. Therefore, there is no discrimination. The new freedoms are specifically intended for nationals.
Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I shall send him one of the wee notes which I mentioned earlier. Time is limited.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East spoke about the steel industry. I emphasise that the EEA will broaden the opportunities available to United Kingdom steel makers, and that EFTA steel producers will be brought under the competition and state aid rules governing European Community industry. Some of the export restrictions which have protected the market for scrap and alloys in some EFTA countries to the advantage of their local producers will end. That is another positive point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South wondered where we are going. I emphasise that the agreement is worth while even if it is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford suggested, short-term. Not least among the reasons why it is beneficial is that it will help the entry of EFTA countries that seek to join the Community. There is no question of the agreement in any way blocking applications.
The House has recognised that this is an excellent agreement. It is a substantial achievement by the Government. It will provide new opportunities for British business men, bring benefits to consumers, and help in the development of the new Europe.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th December 1991, relating to the draft Agreement on the establishment of a European Economic Area; and supports the Government's view that the Agreement should be entered into by the Community and its Member States subject to agreement on amendments to the draft necessary to deal with incompatibilities between the draft and the Treaty of Rome identified by the Court of Justice in its Opinion 1/91.

Local Government Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
7.11 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 Local Government Bill [Lords]:—

Local Government Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)

  Committee
  1.—

  (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill has been allocated shall report the Bill to the House on 18th February.

  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on that day may continue until Midnight whet her 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 19th February.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  3.—

  (1) 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.

  (2) On the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

  Order of proceedings
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in the Standing Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Dilatory motions
  5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made 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
  6. 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
  7. 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 Bill 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 elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  8.—

  (1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Bill 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);

  79

  (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 Motion is made by a member of the Government; and

  (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 the 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) 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
  9.—

  (1) The proceedings on any Motion made 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 those proceedings.

  (2) If on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before Ten o'clock, 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
  10. Nothing in this Order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the 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 are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  11.—

  (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 the 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.

  Business Committee and Business Sub-Committee
  12. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) shall not apply to this Order.

  Interpretation
  13. 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 Bill [Lords].
  This is an important Bill, which implements parts of the citizens charter. The measures in part I will result in substantial improvements in the quality of local government. Part II initiates a review of the structure of local government in England that has been enthusiastically and widely welcomed. In many parts of the country—certainly in many parts that I have visited—local authorities and others are gearing themselves up for their hearings in front of the Local Government Commission and are anxious to get on with that.
  80
  The Government have no wish to curtail reasonable debate in Committees, but there is a clear difference between reasonable debate and filibustering. I have no doubt whatever that the Opposition by their tactics in Committee, have made a deliberate attempt to frustrate proper consideration of the Bill.
  The Bill received thorough consideration in the other place—more than 40 hours in total, including almost 20 hours in Committee. The detailed record of the Committee stage so far in this House provides the clearest possible evidence of a blatant attempt by the Labour party to drag out Committee proceedings. [Interruption.]
  The House will want to hear the facts. First, the Bill is a relatively short one of only 30 clauses. So far, the Committee has sat for 38 hours in nine sittings, and 30 hours have been spent on just four clauses. It is important to set the Opposition tactics in the context of the originally agreed pattern for Committee proceedings. Originally, six days were agreed for consideration in Committee, and that included five full days. The Government accepted that members of the Committee would want to have the opportunity to attend the debate on the revenue support grant settlement. For this reason, because that debate was postponed, two afternoon sessions were lost, but we readily agreed to add a seventh day to the Committee proceedings to make up for that lost time.
  It is self-evident that a single day was adequate for the four clauses on competition. On any reasonable basis of parliamentary scrutiny, that was surely so—and any reasonable Opposition would have accepted that. But clauses 8 and 9 have taken eighteen and a half hours. It is clear that the Opposition embarked on a filibuster in full knowledge of the time allowed for the Committee stage.
  The first 7 clauses deal with performance standards of local authorities. The Committee spent more than four hours on clause 1 and more than seven hours on clause 2, using up four morning sittings. Clauses 8 to 11 deal with the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to local authority professional services. The Committee finally reached clause 8 just after 7 pm during the fifth sitting on the afternoon of 6 February. The Committee then spent the next two full days on clauses 8 and 9. That included Tuesday 11 February, when the Committee continued until nearly 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning.
  In total, clause 8 took ten and a half hours. Even this very limited progress during the marathon sitting on clause 8 was possible only because my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities moved the closure on two groups of amendments. One group of amendments on clause 8 took over seven hours. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who is not present in the Chamber, led for the Opposition in the Committee. He opened with a one-hour speech, and had to be brought to order twice.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) spoke for 50 minutes. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke for a second time and had to brought to order for repetition. The closure was clearly accepted by the Committee Chairman on the basis of lengthy consideration of one group of amendments.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Why does not the Minister tell the whole story about that debate? At the end of it, the Under-Secretary congratulated me on the quality of my submission and my knowledge of the subject under discussion.
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is well known for his generosity.
  The lengthy debate did not stop with that group of amendments. Still on clause 8, the hon. Member for Brightside spoke for a further 55 minutes, and the hon. Member for Makerfield spoke for a further 1 hour 40 minutes and had to be brought to order.
  The performance of Opposition Members was a parody of that well-loved radio programme, "Just a Minute". They used every form of deviation and repetition and plenty of hesitation to waste time. They many times broke the rule about continued use of the same word.
  As the House knows, I believe in the sensible management of the legislative programme in the interests of the whole House. Under the timetable motion, there will still be a full day available to consider part II of the Bill. That will provide the same number of hours in Committee on those clauses as was spent on them in another place —that is, eight hours. The timetable motion does not prohibit further debate, but enables the original commitment to be completed.
  The House will not be at all surprised to know that we are not prepared to prolong consideration of the Bill indefinitely to accommodate the Opposition's tactics. It is significant that the Committee accelerated its consideration of the Bill as soon as it was known that the timetable motion was being tabled. That shows what was going on. The Opposition's filibuster makes the motion inevitable, and I cannot believe that it comes as any surprise to any Opposition Member. I commend it to the House.
  7.17 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Leader of the House is usually a courteous man, but he forgot to open his speech with a welcome. He should have said, "Welcome to the weekly guillotine debate," as such debates are a weekly occurrence on timetables enforced by the Government. He spoke about repetition and wasting the House's time. He might have acknowledged that the most repetitive business nowadays in the House is discussion of timetable motions imposed by himself.
  This is the 36th such timetable motion, but repetition does not make them any more valid. We have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman's speeches of justification get shorter and shorter, to the point where they are almost an apology for what the Government are doing. I assume that before long he will be asking us to take guillotine motions on the nod as though they were matters of no controversy. That would be absolutely wrong, and it could not be more wrong in respect of local government legislation.
  In the 13 wasted years of legislation from this Government, the area in which they have made the most horrendous errors in the largest number of Bills has been local government. In almost 60 Acts of Parliament during that time, an average of about five a year, the Government have made the most appalling errors, often steamrollering legislation through the House and coming to regret it bitterly afterwards. Perhaps the most outstanding example of all was the poll tax, but it was only one of many such pieces of legislation. The Government not only guillotined the poll tax in—they guillotined it out as well, thus creating parliamentary political history. Most parties can be forgiven at some stage in their period of office for wanting
  82
  to guillotine their manifesto commitments in, but this Government made history by guillotining their manifesto commitment out.
  Here we are again, with yet another guillotine debate. As the Leader of the House knows perfectly well, this is not so much about the Government wanting to get their business through, for which the right hon. Gentleman erroneously claimed widespread support, as about the Government's hidden timetable for an election on 9 April. That is what these successive timetable motions are all about. We read about Prime Ministerial jets and contracts ending on 10 April, and we know that the Government are in trouble with their timetable both here and in another place. This motion is all about a general election. It would do the right hon. Gentleman far more credit if he was candid with the House and the country and admitted as much.
  Mr. MacGregor: Clearly, I do not know when the general election will be, but I know that we have a substantial programme of legislation in a shortened Parliament. That is the point that I have to take into account.
  The hon. Gentleman has referred to the number of timetable motions that I have introduced. As he well knows, I am in favour of timetable motions for all legislation.
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is not alone in that view, but that view has been put to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House on the basis of agreed procedures agreed within the Standing Orders of the House—not on the basis of the arbitrary and unilateral imposition of the timetables with which the right hon. Gentleman is obliged to proceed.
  I suppose that we should exonerate the right hon. Gentleman to some extent as apparently he is an innocent. He knows that something important is happening on 9 April, but it seems that no one has told him what it is. All that he has been told is that he must get the business out of the House in time to accommodate what is to happen on 9 April. If the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that the Opposition and the public can see through that, he is deluding himself.
  The right hon. Gentleman should be called not the Lord President but, in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan, the Lord High Executioner as he chops off one debate after another by means of these timetable motions.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the time taken discussing clause 8 in part I. We do not apologise for giving detailed scrutiny to clause 8, which is about competition and goes to the heart of our opposition to what is being proposed.
  Talking of wasting time, I remind the Leader of the House that, thanks to the Government continually changing their mind on the timetabling of business in the Chamber, three potential half-days of Committee sittings were lost simply because of changes to the business in this place, which were entirely the fault of the Government's mismanagement and chopping and changing of business.
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): Two, actually.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is right. The third half-day was lost because the Chairman of the Committee unfortunately got stuck in a traffic jam. We do

  83
  not hold the Chairman responsible for that, but if the Government had done something over the years about the traffic in London, that half-day might not have been lost. Whichever way we look at the problem, it comes down to the fault of Ministers in the end.
  We make no apologies for taking time to scrutinise this legislation, especially in view of the Government's awful record of ineffectual—nay, highly damaging—local government, legislation over the past 13 years. As for the right hon. Gentleman's claim that one more day will be adequate to consider part II, I believe that that includes 18 clauses and four schedules. The House is being asked to agree to allocating one day to that. People outside this place who take an interest in proper scrutiny of legislation and the proper holding to account of the Executive—and even, I dare say, some fair-minded Tories—would say that it was asking for trouble to shove legislation through the House in that way without enough time for proper consideration. We do not accept that one further day is anything like reasonable to deal with part II.
  While we object to the way in which business is being pushed through here, outside this House hundreds of thousands of people who have to work in local government and millions of people who depend in one way or another on local government services are very angry about what the Government have done through all this legislation. They have disabled many effective and efficient local authorities the length and breadth of the country, Conservatives as well as Labour. They have damaged the efficient provision of high-quality services by their dogmatic approach to compulsory competitive tendering, and they have prevented the millions of people who rely on local government services from receiving quality and regularity in the services that they require. We shall therefore make sure, so far as it is within our power to do so, that this Bill is given proper consideration.
  The Leader of the House talked about the amount of time taken to consider the Bill in another place. That is a matter for their Lordships, but I have never heard any previous Leader of the House recommend that what had happened to legislation in another place should be the determining factor in what happens here. Government always have the right to introduce Bills in another place, but that is no guarantee of an easy passage in the House of Commons—nor should anyone assume that it ever would be.
  The Government have made serious errors yet again in these proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who has been speaking for us on these matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) have made that fact clear time and again. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham does not serve on the Committee, but he was involved on Second Reading and elsewhere—[interruption.]
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities mutters from a sedentary position about filibustering. The penultimate time we discussed one of these timetable motions, it was his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who made the longest speech, as we discovered by checking. The Minister should therefore not be too anxious to mention the length of speeches—[Interruption.]—and he should
  84
  certainly not persist in haranguing me from a sedentary position. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to him.
  I am merely pointing out that there is plenty of evidence that, when necessary, Ministers are willing to take up more than enough of the time of the House to make their somewhat inadvertent and irrelevant points. As the Leader of the House referred to what is and is not relevant, he should pay a little more attention to the stream of spurious points of order made by his hon. Friends if he is concerned about expediting the business of the House.
  Since the Leader of the House made his brief speech without providing any justification for this draconian timetable, and since he sought in no way to convince the House that 18 clauses and four schedules can be adequately scrutinised in one more day of Committee debate, I assume that he thinks, as has happened throughout this Parliament, that the Government can come along with their inbuilt majority and their rubber stamp and authenticate any decision that the Government take, however arbitrary, however unfair and however ill-advised it may be in terms of the proper scrutiny of legislation.
  The day is quickly coming when the electors of our country will hold the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends to account not only for all their local government legislation, the poll tax included, but for their mismanagement of the affairs of this country in general. When people have the chance to vote, this will be yet another nail in the Government's coffin.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Douglas French: I deeply regret the need for a guillotine on this Bill—indeed, I deeply regret the need for a guillotine on any Bill. It is not the way to achieve high-quality legislation that has been well considered and that has had all the imperfections ironed out of it. I regret in particular the imposition of a guillotine part way through a Bill. In this case, it means that a disproportionate amount of time has been spent on considering the first part of the Bill and that the later stages, in particular part II, which is of great importance, will not now get the attention that they ought to have had and that they clearly merit.
  I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, however, that a guillotine is necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, if we had proceeded at the pace at which we were proceeding, and if, in particular, there had been any additional enormously long sittings devoted to one clause, we should have been here until, probably, midsummer before we completed our deliberations. The Committee proceedings on clause 8 represent a classic example of the abuse—if I can put it that way—of the procedures of this House.
  I consider that it would be a much more efficient and economical use of the resources of the House if the amount of time to be allocated to a particular Bill were to be decided in advance. The time could then be allocated sensibly. If that is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House means by having a timetable for each Bill, I very much support his proposal.
  I believe, too, that the method of debate employed in some Committees is not very well suited to ensuring that detailed revisions of legislation are made so that one ends up with good and well-considered legislation. The

  85
  confrontational approach that is adopted in Committee does not produce the high-quality legislation that the House ought to be capable of producing. In addition to the context in which we are holding the debate, very much broader issues are at stake as to how Committee debates are conducted. When these matters come, as they do from time to time, before the Select Committee on Procedure, I hope that a clear look will be taken at the way that Committee debates are conducted.
  It seems to be abundantly obvious from the proceedings in Committee that the Labour party is against the Bill and that it wants to prevent it from making progress. It clearly tried to ensure that the maximum amount of time was devoted to considering part I in order to prevent us from—
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had the same experience in his constituency as I have had in mine, but the image has been created in my constituency that the Labour party wants the Bill, yet down here the Labour party is doing everything possible to delay it. Has my hon. Friend had that experience?
  Mr. French: My hon. Friend takes the exact words out of my mouth. I am coming to precisely that point and, if I am allowed to do so, I intend to enlarge upon it when I reach it.
  First, however, let me say that part II, which establishes the local government commission, ought, in my judgment, to be given very careful consideration. However, it is precisely that part of the Bill that has not been given proper consideration, due to the overlong deliberations on part I.
  I recall that, during the Second Reading debate on 20 January, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) opposed the Bill. He said that he was against part I and described part II as "an even greater disappointment". However, it needs to be placed firmly on record that Labour party councillors throughout the country support the Bill, and particularly part II. Many of them are extremely keen to see the establishment of a Local Government Commission. They are also extremely keen to see the establishment of the unitary authorities that will result from the commission's deliberations.
  The Labour party will have to make up its mind. Labour party councillors throughout the country want the Local Government Commission, as well as unitary status, where appropriate. Do those councillors therefore support the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen here, and the members of the Committee, who have been instrumental in blocking the Bill?
  Mr. Allen McKay: On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes regarding parts I and II. It has always been clear that the controversial part of the Bill relates to competitive tendering when it is compulsory competitive tendering. The lukewarm part of the Bill concerns the Local Government Commission. Would it not have been better, therefore, to introduce two Bills? The first would have provided for the creation of the Local Government Commission and would have gone through virtually on the nod. The second could have been debated for much longer in Committee, due to the controversial issues that it contained. This is only a bare
  86
  bones of a Bill. It contains no affirmative procedure. That is why it has taken some time to explore the issues involved.
  Mr. French: That is an ingenious solution which, were it to be applied, would get the Labour party off the hook, but that is not what happened. On account of the delays imposed upon the Committee in respect of part I, part II will not receive the consideration that it deserves. To me, that implies that the Labour party is not interested in part II being properly considered. It is not interested in obtaining a good part II. I have already referred to the fact that the hon. Member for Dagenham described part II as "an even greater disappointment" than part I. That does not suggest to me that he is pleased with part II; it implies that he has criticisms to make of it.
  Mr. Bryan Gould indicated assent.
  Mr. French: One of the difficulties is that, because we are being denied the opportunity to debate part II, Members of Parliament in all parts of the House will be unable to make those criticisms of part II that they might have felt to be appropriate.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes it appear that the Labour party has denied the Committee time to discuss the next stage of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman feels that we ought to have more time to discuss part II, he ought to come over here and vote with us against the guillotine motion. If he wants more time for the Bill, he ought to try to persuade his right hon. Friend that the Committee needs more time to discuss part II.
  Mr. French: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been following my argument. Of course we want this part of the Bill to be debated, but so far the debate has done nothing but obstruct its consideration. We cannot continue in the same vein. There comes a point at which, if the Bill is to become law, as it clearly should, we have to make progress. That is why we are debating the guillotine motion. We should not be debating it now if so much time in Committee had not been consumed particularly on clause 8. Important though clause 8 is, it has thrown the Committee's deliberations and what ought to have been the normal timetable for the Committee out of all reasonable proportion. That is why we are in this position.
  Labour councillors have expressed sympathy and support for part II of the Bill. Do they support Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in blocking the Bill, which would suggest that they are insincere in their declared support for the Local Government Commission and the prospect of unitary status, or do they genuinely believe in unitary status, as the Bill proposes? If so, will they disown the conduct of the parliamentary Labour party? Which is the genuine and true voice of the Labour party? It is speaking with two voiceson this part of the Bill—
  Mr. James Paice: Only two?
  Mr. French: There may be more, but I am perfectly content with those two, because they completely contradict each other.
  It is incumbent on the Labour party to explain its attitude to the Local Government Commission and the prospect of unitary status. I hope that that question will be put to Labour councillors. Do they support the attitude

  87
  adopted by their own party in Parliament to part II of the Bill? If not, will they distance themselves from the conduct of Labour Members?
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am a member of the Committee considering the Bill, but as far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has not made any comment on part I. He has no opinion on whether his constituents' pensions are taken away, or on compulsory competitive tendering.
  Mr. French: I have views to express about part II. The speeches of Labour Members, including those of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), have been so lengthy that, in the interests of progress, Conservative Members have not made long speeches. That underlines the defect in the approach to Committee work.
  I believe that part II is at the heart of the Bill. I wish to debate the terms of reference of the Local Government Commission and its composition, which interests Labour Members, but, as matters are proceeding, I shall not have a chance to do so.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle will know that I have tabled amendments on the terms of reference for the Local Government Commission as he has signed them. I am grateful for his support and for that of my hon. Friends, but it appears that we shall not have an opportunity to debate them.
  Mr. Martlew: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is more vocal tomorrow than he has been at previous- sittings; otherwise, the debate on the amendment that we move together will be very brief.
  Mr. French: I have much to say about the amendment, but it would be out of order for me to put tonight the arguments that I intend to put tomorrow. I want the Local Government Commission to consider the position of historic cities, in which the hon. Member for Carlisle has an interest.
  Mr. David Clelland: The hon. Gentleman said that he has a lot to say on part II but criticised my hon. Friends for having a lot to say on part I. Why does he think that he has a right to say a lot on part II but that my hon. Friends should be excluded from saying a lot on part I?
  Mr. French: It is a matter of relativity. What I describe as "a lot to say" is tiny compared with the interpretation of Labour Members. My interpretation would be a concise and relevant speech of about 10 minutes and no more. I think that I can put my arguments on historic cities in no more than 10 minutes. If I have an opportunity tomorrow, I shall do so.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) has not had the same opportunity as we have to listen to all these interesting speeches. He plainly does not understand that the difference between a long speech and a speech full of content is quite stark. If he takes the opportunity to read the long speeches, he will not find any content.
  Mr. French: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. Committee Chairmen are long-suffering and do their best in a difficult job, but I believe that they should be more robust in ruling material out of order.
  Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise the Chairmen of a Committee in that way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) should not do so. I hope that he will withdraw those comments.
  Mr. French: I withdraw that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  If members of Committees ensured that their comments were relevant, it would solve much of the problem, because their speeches would not be unduly long, and we could debate more of the Bill.
  Mr. Clelland: I thought that I heard the Leader of the House criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), yet, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Minister congratulated him on the content of his speech.
  Mr. French: That is because the Minister is courteous. It would be natural for him to express congratulations, but that does not mean that every part of the speech that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made was strictly relevant to the clause that he was addressing.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Labour Members may have missed the point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was making in congratulating the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I think that my hon. Friend was congratulating the hon. Gentleman on making a boring speech lasting only 50 minutes, rather than his usual boring speech of one hour and 40 minutes.
  Mr. French: I am inclined to agree with the sentiments that my hon. Friend expresses.
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) had spoken with his customary force and conviction. If the hon. Member for Makerfield was pleased with that comment, he must lack a sense of irony.
  Mr. French: The Minister makes the point very well indeed.
  I wish to conclude my remarks, because I should not wish to be open to the same criticism as I am making of Labour Members. I have made my point about the conduct of Committees and about the Labour party's deliberate attempts to prevent us from reaching part II of the Bill, which is so important.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: The motion is against the best interests of local government. If we are to have meaningful local government legislation, Bills such as this should be allowed to proceed with the fullest possible discussion of their clauses.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) may think that part I is not important, but Conservative and Labour councillors are concerned about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering under clause 8. In fact, we were told that PA Consultants advised the Government that not all the proposals for the further extension of compulsory competitive tendering were in the best interests of the people who depend on the services. We

  89
  dwelt on housing at some length, and questions were raised as to how consultation and compulsory competitive tendering would apply to it.
  Primary legislation gives tenants' associations and co-operatives the right to consultation before any changes are made in the management or administration of their housing estates. When we asked for clarification and for the issues to be explained and qualified, we were told that the Minister for Housing and Planning would issue a consultation document in due course. That document should have been published in January, but it has not yet appeared. Therefore, the Committee had to discuss an issue without the evidence necessary for Members to make a decision on the very important issue of changing the management of local authority housing and how that will affect the tenants who depend on such housing for their welfare and quality of life.
  Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Gloucester had no comment to make on the important issue of local authority housing departments. I and many of my colleagues considered it to be a significant matter which should have been discussed in detail in Committee, but we were told that our questions could not be answered because the necessary information was not available. How can Conservative hon. Members expect the Opposition to accept such a situation when discussing clause 8?
  If the Leader of the House had any respect for local government, he would join me and my colleagues in saying that the information required for us to make a judgment on clause 8 should have been put before the Committee. I want to register our deepest concern about the fact that the Government are steamrolling through legislation that is against the best interest of the people who depend on local government services.
  I again put to the Leader of the House and to Ministers this question: will the tenants' associations and co-operatives have a say in the way in which compulsory competitive tendering will apply to the management of local authority housing services as laid down in primary legislation? Will they be given the opportunity to say whether they are satisfied with the present arrangements?
  We have been told that, before the tenants were subject to a change of housing management, a vote should be taken among the tenants and the people who depend on local authority housing services and that, if a majority were against the change, it should not be implemented. Will that apply in the case of compulsory competitive tendering? If the majority of tenants do not want the current arrangements for housing management changed —those arrangements include letting and the reporting and repairs service—will their views be taken into consideration and accepted as laid down under current legislation?
  The Leader of the House, who moved the guillotine motion, should be able to answer the simple questions being put by councillors—Labour and Tory—about how the extension of compulsory competitive tendering will apply to managerial services. The hon. Member for Gloucester is fully aware that similar questions were asked about police services but they were not answered. The same was true of questions on architectural services and on the provision and future of library services, so we had to keep pressing Minsters on those important matters under clause 8.
  I remind members of the Committee that, when we were requesting information, some Conservative hon. Members
  90
  intervened on me and my colleagues because of the importance of the points raised. We had no objection to the interventions. There was an exchange of views across the Committee. That is no reason for the Leader of the House to say that such exchanges should not take place on part II, which is what will happen if the guillotine motion is passed in its present form. There were lengthy discussions on clause 8, because it deals with compulsory competitive tendering and we wanted to ensure that there was clarification so that members of local authorities could read the report of the deliberations and be aware that we had not received information about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.
  When will we receive the response from the Minister for Housing and Planning about the provision of future housing management services for local authority housing departments. When may we have that report? It is clearly important, but we are being denied the information that is necessary to make a balanced judgment on the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.
  Another issue which was raised by Labour members of the Committee should be taken into consideration. Consultative documents were issued to local authorities and other interested organisations for them to comment on, but the closing date of the consultation was 31 January 1992 and the Bill was in Committee before that date. As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, members of local authorities have commented on the White Papers and their comments have been submitted to the Department of the Environment, but the Committee has not had the opportunity to consider the results of the consultation. In the interests of democracy, how can Conservative Members say that there should be no time to discuss the Bill further when we are waiting to know exactly what people think about the proposed legislation?
  We also mentioned voluntary organisations, which have expressed concern about clauses 8 and 9. Members of the Committee know the views of those organisations and their concern about how compulsory competitive tendering will apply to the services in which they are involved. Will provision be made in the contracts for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to ensure that the support that voluntary organisations get from local authority departments will continue if private contractors take over the services?
  We have raised the issue of the concern expressed by parish and town councils. Although it was promised in the White Paper that there would be provision for discussion on the involvement of parish and town councils, we have been denied that opportunity. Everyone has received letters from organisations, including parish and town councils, expressing disappointment about the fact that the Government have not fulfilled the promise made in the White Paper. We have reasons to question Ministers arid to keep pressing for those questions to be answered.
  We also asked why quality and cost should be separate and why there should be double enveloping. There has been no response to the points raised by Labour members of the Committee on those important issues. We are told tonight that, because we pressed those issues so vehemently in the debate on part I and because we took time to ensure that all those matters were put on record, we shall not have the opportunity to do so on part II. That shows the disgraceful way in which the Government are handling the Bill.

  91
  I accept that all parts of the Bill, not just part II, are important to local government, and we must have the opportunity to discuss the Bill in full. Democracy as it should operate in this country is being denied to hon. Members tonight. All parties have an interest in local government, but it seems that the interest of Conservative Members is based on the guillotine motion. I do not want such a discussion of local government. The sooner that we allow more involvement for local government and more discussion on the provision of local government services, the better. That will come about on 9 April when there is a general election and a change of Government. We shall then allow people to discuss the important issues which affect the destinies and standard of living of many people. I ask the House to reject the motion.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: It is difficult not to believe that the opposition by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members to the timetable motion is synthetic. As hon. Members who were present at the start of the debate will know, the comments of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) seemed wholly sympathetic to the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman seemed to feel that the House should increasingly consider the sensible timetabling of Bills such as the Local Government Bill. The Labour party claims, although its claim may be synthetic, that it wants most of the Bill to be on the statute book. Given the agendas of both main Opposition parties, their opposition to the Bill's twin sister, the Local Government Finance Bill which dealt with the abolition of the poll tax, was just about understandable. However, the substance of their objections—especially Labour's—to that Bill and its twin sister, the Local Government Bill, has never been truly clear.
  What Labour wants to replace the poll tax with, other than the catchy but wholly meaningless phrase "fair rates", has never been clear or spelt out. After four or five years of internal wrangling within the Labour party, it is not clear what "fair rates" would mean. It has never been understood inside the House and it is certainly not understood outside the House. On the Local Government Bill, we have had opposition for its own sake. The time taken so far to examine the clauses makes it clear that Labour and the Liberal Democrats have wished to ensure that, given the time left to this Parliament, the Bill will fall.
  We are addressing two main issues: first, the citizens charter with its related competitive tender and, secondly, the structural and boundary reforms which, it is said, we all want.
  Mr. Gould: Did you write this?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes, as a matter of fact, I did.
  Mr. Gould: It is very good.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: That is most kind.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Give him a signed copy.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I will.
  The Labour party has argued, for outside consumption, that it is against not competitive tendering, but
  92
  compulsory competitive tendering. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am grateful for the sedentary confirmation of that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said on Second Reading, replying to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), if it is just competitive tendering, the Labour party will not do it, but if it is compulsory competitive tendering, it will have to do it. That is the substance of the debate.
  Mr. Clelland: The hon. Gentleman must know that, throughout the years, local government, under the control of whichever political party, has been involved in competitive tendering. It is the compulsory element to which we object. The hon. Gentleman refers to part I. Does he agree that it is part I that is contentious? Does he also agree that we should spend time debating the contentious issue? The Government are not immune to making mistakes on local government legislation, so it should be debated in depth. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it curious that the Government want to rush through the contentious issues to get to the provisions which are not contentious—and on which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) wants to spend a lot of time?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is perfectly true that competitive tendering has been available to local authorities for many years—that is not in dispute—but the Bill seeks to ensure that all people, under whichever local authority they live, have the benefit of competitive tendering. The only way to ensure that is to make it the law that such tendering is compulsory. There are exceptions—the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has always defended his local authority, perhaps rightly—but the vast majority of Labour authorities simply will not carry out competitive tendering.
  To give an example, in the run-up to one of our recent local elections, the Labour party in Nottingham feared that it would lose. In a panic, it quickly did a deal with the cleansing department which saved our local authority no less than £400,000. The only reason why it made the effort to save that money was that it feared that the Conservatives would win the local election and that we might go out to some form of tendering. I submit that that is proof positive that Labour councils do the right thing only when we force them to do so. Compulsory competitive tendering is one of the mechanisms that we must have on the statute book to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal from their local authority.
  Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman must have been resting during our long debate in Committee. Did not my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) point out that more than 3,000 tenders had gone out and that there were only 30 at most—1 per cent.—to which the Government had any objection? The legislation is already in place for CCT. The Bill merely tightens the screw, and it is nonsense to pretend otherwise.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not sure quite what point he is making.
  The Bill provides that, no matter where they live, local ratepayers or local taxpayers—whatever the means by which the finance is raised—have the benefit of compulsory competitive tendering arrangements, which will ensure that they get a fair deal. It must surely be the duty of the House to ensure that.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to take the opportunity to welcome one of the part-time members of the Committee, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) to the debate.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is returning to his place.
  Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has made outrageous remarks about the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). The hon. Gentleman is not a member of my party, but I feel that it is vital that remarks made in the House should not denigrate or give a false impression of an hon. Member's conduct in this place. Only a moment ago, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) accused the hon. Member for Eastbourne of being involved in a filibuster. Now the hon. Member for Harrow, East accuses him of being a part-time member of the Committee. Yet he was neither. Conservative Members are simply engaging in party political activities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not aware of any matter arising from that that is a matter for the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: You will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the length of that so-called point of order, precisely why Conservative Members have complained about filibustering in Committee. I confess to an admiration for the way in which the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) can pour out a torrent of words for hours on end—for what purpose, I know not. If a medal were to be awarded, it would certainly go to the hon. Member for Makerfield, who has taken over the mantle of an hon. Member who retired from the House a few years ago and who was a genius when it came to filibustering. That accolade now passes to the hon. Member for Makerfield. I merely add that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) is perfectly capable of defending himself, and will no doubt do so when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There ought not to be any argument about the fact that the public are entitled to have, and be seen to have, value for their money—and that means compulsory competitive tendering. The long-winded case against CCT has been nothing more than rearguard action to ensure that many —though not all—local authorities can go on in their own sweet way, measuring need and the delivery of service by the old Labour party yardstick of the amount of money that they spend. That seems to be the only yardstick that the Opposition have ever had: if one spends more, it must be a better service—if one spends less, one is cost-cutting. They have never understood value for money.
  Let me give an example to which I have referred previously. Our own Labour authority in Nottinghamshire, working from desktops on unchecked and untendered for building work needed in our old people's homes, would rather announce their closure—as it disgracefully did—than obtain outside quotations and find out what it would cost to do the work required. [Interruption.] I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for Makerfield if he wishes me to—he has spent an entire paragraph of my speech rabbiting from the Back Bench.
  Mr. McCartney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of filibustering. He rarely speaks in the
  94
  House and even when he does, he never speaks up for Nottingham. He always denigrates it and finds excuses to attack Labour councillors. Come 9 April, the people of Nottinghamshire will sort him out.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not know whether to laugh or cry. If there is one hon. Member who speaks up for his city, I am he. My one criticism and my one sadness is that the queen of the midlands is oppressed by Labour-controlled city and county councils, and I cannot wait for the day when we get rid of both of them.
  A few Labour Members at county hall—there are some honourable men among our Labour councillors, although not the Labour county councillor who is the prospective parliamentary candidate for my constituency—
  Mr. Clelland: We did not think that you would like him.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not.
  Some members at county hall had their consciences pricked over the possible closure of our old people's homes and joined my Conservative colleagues on the county council to vote that outrageous proposal down. Had there been compulsory competitive tendering, that situation might never have arisen. It will certainly not arise in future, because I know from the outside quotations that we have had for the work on the old people's homes that it would come comfortably within the budget that the authority already has available to it. Even the Labour councillors are beginning to feel ashamed at the dreadful pressures that they put on all the residents of those 12 homes while the matter was being debated at county hall in Nottinghamshire.
  The Bill began in the other place and was considered in considerable detail there. The Opposition can hardly say, therefore, that they have not had a chance to examine its substance and properly to air their grievances and table amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) said, with the time that they have taken so far, they have denied us the opportunity properly to consider part II.
  My hon. Friend might well have referred in his excellent speech to the fact that part II refers to the Audit Commission which, strangely, the Labour party wishes to abolish the Audit Commission, although it is one of the greatest protections that the public have. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of that, but that is another good reason why the Bill must not be allowed to fall through lack of time left in this Parliament.
  The main purpose of part II of the Bill is to give us the means by which we can restore or create single-tier unitary authorities wherever it is found appropriate. That is a process that we cannot afford to delay. My constituents, living in one of the finest cities in the country—I say that again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Makerfield—and in the urban areas around our city, which constitutes the real capital of the east midlands, want to throw off the shackles of county hall. They simply do not understand or want councillors from Worksop, Mansfield and Retford making decisions that are rightly for the people of Nottingham—or south Nottinghamshire— whatever the ultimate decision may be.
  Of course those northern councillors want to do the best that they can for their towns—that is right and proper —but I submit that they should no longer have the power to make those decisions at the expense of my constituents living within the city of Nottingham. The sooner the Bill

  95
  reaches the statute book, the happier my constituents will be, and I believe that that view is held throughout south Nottinghamshire.
  Blocking the Bill will cost the Labour party dear. Labour will not get away with the publicity in my locality and bogus amendments to put teeth into the citizens charter. We all know that Labour opposes the charter.
  Labour Members will not get away with claiming that they support single-tier authorities. The controlling Labour group at county hall provided funds for county hall to produce self-congratulatory pamphlets with the express purpose of trying to preserve the county's existence. Labour cannot have it both ways. A Labour authority cannot spend public money to maintain its existence while Labour Members of Parliament state in the House that they want single-tier authorities.
  Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman must recall that it was a Conservative Government who, in 1972 and 1973, proposed the local government reorganisation that is now being altered. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept any responsibility for that?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes, we got it wrong. Many Conservative Members and Conservatives around the country believed that local government should be reorganised in the early 1970s, but we did not believe that there should be the same solution throughout the country. That is exactly what the present Government have recognised. We cannot claim that everywhere must have precisely the same solution. That is precisely what part II of the Bill addresses. Some areas may continue to have two-tier authorities, if that is right and proper for them and if that is what the local people want, but there is no doubt that a two-tier structure is not the answer in Nottinghamshire. It was wrongly imposed in the early 1970s. The Conservative party has at least had the courage to say that it was wrong, we must put it right and we must not delay further.
  Mr. Clelland: If the hon. Gentleman is big enough to admit that the Conservative Government were wrong in 1972 and that they were wrong in respect of the poll tax —another piece of infamous local government legislation —is it not a little unwise of the Government to rush through yet another measure which is also wrong?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No, there is no logic in that view. One of the great tragedies in this House is that so few of us have run businesses. When one runs a business, one is aware that one makes mistakes, but one does not dwell on them. If one makes a wrong decision, one simply says, "Stop—cut your losses and move on to something new." I wish that we in politics were more able to admit that something we did a few years ago was wrong and that we should put it right as quickly as we can. There is no shame in that.
  One of the problems in politics is that it takes so long for us to admit that we got something wrong. We were wrong to impose a similar structure throughout the country in the 1970s. The Government recognise that, and we are establishing a system which will ensure that we get it right this time.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: Is not one of the attractions of the Bill the fact that, by creating the Local
  96
  Government Commission, we provide an opportunity for freedom of choice in local areas so that people in different parts of the country can choose different solutions? It is a question not of rushing through a single prescription, but of creating a framework in which choice can be exercised.
  While I have the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo)—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly, please.
  Mr. Coombs: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I wish to raise a point which arises from our discussions. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has referred to a mistake which he alleges that the Conservative party made in 1972. We have learnt from our mistakes, but the Labour party refuses to learn from its mistakes. Labour is still determined to have regional government and to impose another tier upon it, which will be—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. Let us return to the motion before the House.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). His intervention stands freely and requires no comment from me. I do not disagree with him at all.
  The Bill must make progress. I therefore support the timetable motion without reservation.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: There seems to be a sense of deja vu on the Conservative Benches. This must be about the 60th motion to curtail debate on a Bill in the past five years, and most of those motions have related to local government matters. On each occasion, the motion has been dictated by political considerations on the Government Benches.
  The Government's arrogance in Committee is clear. When hon. Members attempt to debate issues, they are met with silence or with occasional sedentary interventions in the form of caustic remarks from Conservative Members. If, in Committee, Opposition Members did not participate in a debate, the Minister tried to curtail the debate, causing the Committee to progress to the next clause. Opposition Members could not win no matter what happened. If Opposition Members did not wish to participate in a debate, the Government would not initiate one.
  That is precisely what happened on 11 February. Without consultation, and of their own volition, the Government decided that the debate would continue not till 10 pm—as had previously been agreed—or to 11 pm, midnight or I am, but until 5 am. However, there was a tacit and clear policy, in that Back-Bench Conservative Members did not participate in the discussions. Therefore, Back-Bench Opposition Members had to shoulder the responsibility of examining the Bill.
  When it comes to considering amendments in Committee, Conservative Members are gutless. They have failed to scrutinise the Bill. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has admitted that mistakes were made. That was big of him, but such mistakes would not have been made if amendments had been considered properly in Committee and if Conservative Members had shown any desire to participate in the debates to scrutinise the Bill.

  97
  From the Government's point of view, we have an elected dictatorship. Whatever the Secretary of State says goes. If the Government cannot get their legislation through quickly, they can always introduce a guillotine. That is why Conservative Members cannot make a case tonight. So far, we have simply heard a litany of personal attacks on Opposition Members. My hon. Friends and I take it as a badge of pride when Conservative Members try to denigrate our contributions in this place and in Committee. I believe that that shows that we are on the right course.
  I do not intend to apologise for referring to safety in the fire service. Why should I apologise for referring to men and women who daily try to save lives? They save the lives of about 700 people a year, and they save another 10,000 people from serious injury. I have been personally attacked in this House for trying to ensure that, when compulsory competitive tendering is introduced in the fire service, it protects equipment and the maintenance of equipment which saves the lives of firefighters and those who are unfortunately involved in fires. If it is being boring to attack the principle by which the Committee operates, then I plead guilty.
  We must also consider CCT in the police service and the fact that that service believes that the Government are wrong to force the police service into areas of CCT which will affect security. If it were not for Opposition Members, the professional advice that the Government have received from the fire service and the police service would never have seen the light of day. Conservative Members object to Opposition Members being able to place on the public record the advice that the Government have received from their professional advisers who say that the Government are wrong. If it were not for Opposition Members, that advice would not have come to light.
  Why have the Government failed in Committee to give any public commitment to publish consultants' reports in respect of the legislation? The reason is that the consultants have made it clear to the Government that the way in which they are proceeding with the Bill is a mistake and a serious error in administrative, financial and political terms.
  Their arrogance is such, after 13 years in power, that the Government will listen to no one. They will take advice from no one—they will certainly not take advice from Opposition Members. When advice becomes politically embarrassing, they close the debate. That has happened in Committee.
  As the debate unfolds, the Government become more and more embarrassed. We are able to produce evidence of the disasters of compulsory competitive tendering in councils, irrespective of political control or region, or whether they are county councils, non-metropolitan councils or metropolitan councils. There have been disasters in terms of the quality of service, the wages and conditions of those who are trapped in compulsory competitive tendering and the pressures being placed on local authorities even when they win a tender. Tenders are won at the cost of the delivery of service. The Government hate the fact that public scrutiny is taking place and they want to close the debate.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) made an interesting assertion. He believes that there is a need for Committee procedures to be changed, that this is an intellectual debate and that he is very sorry that it had to take place. The Government have had 13 years to change
  98
  procedures and to come up with proposals to ensure the proper consideration of legislation and to protect the rights of Back-Bench Members, of minority groups and of the official Opposition, but they have failed to do so—because it is not in their interests to do so.
  The Government are not prepared to have open government or open debate in Committee. They want to protect the system as long as it protects their position. The hon. Member for Gloucester cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain to hon. Members that he will not have sufficient time to take part in the debate on part II of the Bill when he himself has connived, and will connive tonight, at ensuring that there is no proper consideration of it.
  What is at stake in the first part of the Bill are two major clauses—clauses 8 and 9—which are at the heart of the proposals. That is why Opposition Members are insisting on a proper debate on those clauses. Unlike the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), I have read the legislation. I am surprised that, as a Conservative Member, he did not realise that this is an extension of a piece of legislation that has been in operation since 1988.
  Compulsory competitive tendering has been in operation since 1988. The legislation is about extending the scope of services and the way in which the Government through the Secretary of State control tendering procedures. That is what we objected to in Committee. Much of clause 8 is enabling legislation. Let us have more information in it. Each time we have asked questions, the relevant Minister has said, "We are still in consultation; we will bring forward statutory instruments on that."
  By that sleight of hand—that casual brushing aside of the political debate—in one week the Government protect themselves from proper scrutiny of the legislation. As we saw with the poll tax, with statutory instruments they forced through, without any debate, fundamental changes in the structure of local government. That leads to complete disaster—not only political disaster, but, more important, disaster in the fair operation of local government as an institution and a deliverer of services.
  Mr. Clelland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enlightening the House on what has been going on in Committee as opposed to the filibustering that we now hear from Conservative Members. Does my hon. Friend agree that it may be a good policy on our part to send copies of the Committee's proceedings to fire authorities, police authorities and local councils in areas represented by Conservative Members who serve on the Committee? Those authorities and perhaps the local press in those areas will see the contributions that have been made by my hon. Friends and compare them with those by Conservative Members, which I suspect would not fill one sheet of A4 paper.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend has a good idea, but I can put his mind at rest: that is already happening. In my postbag, I have received contributions from people in the Strangers Gallery stating that, if it were not for Opposition Members, their views about the legislation would never have been put.
  Professional associations representing architects wrote the Government a detailed paper about the way in which the Government were seriously undermining architects' departments in local authorities. Did the Minister publish

  99
  that document? Did the Minister refer to it either on Second Reading or in our debate on clause 8 in Committee? Not a bit of it. It was left to Opposition Members to set out the position of architects and professional advice to the Government.
  The same applies to the fire service, the police and local authority associations. On every occasion, the Government failed to take account in proper debate of the views of people outside. That is despite the fact that the Government are introducing legislation which changes large sectors of local authority delivery of services, and the consultation procedure has not been completed.
  The Government are passing legislation without asking local authority associations, fire services, police services, voluntary organisations, local authorities, parish councils, or town councils their view on the legislation. The Bill will be law before their views have had an opportunity to be expressed properly unless Opposition Members are given that opportunity during the passage of the Bill.
  Have hon. Members ever heard of such a situation? The offer of open government through the citizens charter and the procedure for public comment has ended after the Bill becomes law. That is a sham. The Government have already decided the principles of the Bill. They have no intention of allowing a proper debate on the consequences of it. This is only a bit of window dressing in the run-up to the election. That is what this pernicious guillotine motion is about: the Government are desperately clearing the decks for a general election.
  The Government have no advantage in containing the debate upstairs, because each day more and more embarrassing information comes out about their proposals. For example, last Thursday, the Government sought to change clause 9 to allow a calumny about local authorities which, to some extent, was continued by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South: that, over the past three years, local authorities had been cheating in some way in their operation of compulsory competitive tendering and we therefore need a change in the law. They said that they had to do something to get rid of those local authorities' anti-competitive practices, yet in the debate that Conservative Members did not want, the truth was that of more than 3,000 tendering procedures that were investigated, only 30—about 1 per cent.—required any action or proposed action by the Government.
  That was the excuse for dramatically changing, without consultation, major sectors of local government services such as housing, architectural services and a host of legal and administrative services—a change of the law based on an outright misrepresentation of the facts. That is why Conservative Members do not like the debate: because we find out the truth. We find out that the Government have nothing more than blind ideology when it comes to the continuation of this piece of legislation.
  I now refer to what will happen from tomorrow onwards. Much has been said about the way in which we shall proceed. It would take much to convince me and other hon. Members that the Government are serious about a fundamental review of local goverment other than for political reasons, in the light of the way in which 13 years of Tory attacks on local government have undermined the concept of public service in the United Kingdom.
  100
  The Tories' record is not good. When they lost control of metropolitan authorities, they abolished them. When they lost control of Greater London local authorities, they abolished them. The legislation is not about a commission to improve local government services. For Conservative Members, it is a short-term, ideological set-up whereby they will examine county councils in non-metropolitan areas that are controlled by Labour. They are already fingering some local authorities not because they do not provide proper services but because they are controlled by Labour. If the Government cannot win in the ballot box, they abandon the ballot box.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: I give way to the hon. Member for MI5.
  Mr. Allason: How does the hon. Gentleman square that slightly paranoid view of the reconstruction of local government with the position in counties such as Devon, where a substantial proportion of the local authorities are Conservative-controlled at both district and county level? In Devon, we feel that there is great duplication, especially in the control and supply of services. All we are after is one sensible unitary authority. Surely that is nothing to do with politics but is the desire to provide our constituents and people in individual wards with a sensible, proper service, combined with a sensible, proper system of accountability.
  Mr. McCartney: In the light of some of the hon. Gentleman's writings, he is the last one to accuse anyone in the House of being paranoid.
  Mr. Allason: I have read the hon. Gentleman's file, and it is all right.
  Mr. McCartney: If one were to believe what the Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and other Conservative Members on the Committee believe, it would be a pretty boring file.
  Mr. Allason: There was an interesting telephone conversation two years ago.
  Mr. McCartney: I had an even more interesting one last night, but we will deal with that in a moment.
  I would go along with the hon. Gentleman if his record and that of his hon. Friend was one that we could trust. I am sure that, in his time, the hon. Gentleman has deliberately voted with the Government for the abolition of many local authorities. The Opposition want to get rid of the Government's political inclination to tamper only with Labour-controlled local authorities.
  I believe in a root-and-branch review of local government services. I believe in unitary authorities. I believe in bringing services down to as local a level as possible to take account of the need to have a financial base and a land base on which to implement strategic policy decisions. So I have no argument with the hon. Gentleman about the concept in principle, but I worry about the political ideology behind the Government's position.
  For example, at present the Bill makes no provision for local communities to appeal against decisions by the commission. That is fundamental if one is serious about local decision-making. The commission will be able to

  101
  make fundamental changes to a council, abolish it or amend it. Local people will have no procedure by which to appeal against that decision. At least with the present Local Government Boundary Commission there is a procedure for appealing against its decisions. If the Government are serious about local government and consideration by local people, why have not they provided a proper procedure to appeal against a decision to abolish an authority?
  Mr. Clelland: Does my hon. Friend also agree that we are right to be worried about the impartiality of the commission because the Secretary of State for the Environment has already pre-empted the commission's decisions by expressing the view that Cleveland and Humberside will be abolished under its recommendations? He said that even before the commission was set up.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. Irrespective of one's position and whether a decision is right, it is no job of the Secretary of State, in advance of setting up the commission, to set down as its first term of reference the political abolition of certain local authorities. That is why Opposition Members want to ensure proper scrutiny and create safeguards.
  We want to prevent the Government—this Government or any future Government, and whatever their political complexion—from interfering in any way for political considerations in decisions to amend local government boundaries and the local communities served by local units of administration. That is vital. Otherwise, we are going into the business of gerrymandering of local authority communities. Let us be frank: that is what happened to the metropolitan counties, and in my area, we had to live with the consequences.
  I represented a metropolitan council area. Our democratic authority was abolished forthwith. Out of it, a series of quangos has been set up. They are unelected, but they have the resources and powers to determine basic services—whether fire, police, transport or waste disposal services. Not a single vote is cast in respect of the decisions of those bodies. They spend millions and millions of pounds. That is the Government's record in reorganisation of local government. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gloucester does not want to say that that record will continue with the local government commission.
  One of the Government's serious proposals is that, in making wholesale amendments to unitary authorities, it will be necessary to have many former county facilities controlled by the districts. I want to ensure that, when several district councils are involved in delivering a countywide service, there is some democratic accountability in the provision of services and the development of policy, and that the local community has some say in the way in which money is spent on that service.
  So Opposition Members need make no apology for the way in which we have scrutinised the Bill so far.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Is he aware that one of the strongest wills in my area to see the abolition of the county authority and the establishment of a unitary authority is that of the Labour-controlled South Derbyshire district council? It has had enough of decisions being taken on its behalf by idiots a long way away, be they of its party or not.
  Mr. McCartney: I have no objection to that. I do not know what the hon. Lady is complaining about. All we are saying is that we want the structure of the commission, its membership and democratic control, the style of membership, and its knowledge of local government to be correct. More important, when the commission comes to decisions, we want local Conservative associations, Liberal and Labour parties, community groups, tenants' groups and so on to have an opportunity to challenge the commission's views or to put alternative views to it.
  With all due respect, the 35 wisest men and women in Britain will be on that commission, but they do not know everything about every local community in Britain. Why should they? If South Derbyshire want a unitary authority, I am happy with that. All I am saying is that, when the commission makes its proposals for the area, the people of South Derbyshire should have an opportunity to say whether the proposals are right and fair.
  I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will come into the Lobby with us tonight against the guillotine motion. If it is accepted, the consideration of the Bill that she and I want will never take place. I hope that she will take that into account, and I am sure she will. I am sure that she is not just a hackette for the Government.
  I wish to give an example of the value of debate—this is not only my view but that of the Minister. He and I took part in a debate for perhaps 30 minutes at about 3 o'clock in the morning on the de minimis rule, which excludes services up to a value of £100,000 from compulsory competitive tendering. That rule was introduced by the Government in 1988 to protect small district councils. At the end of the debate, the Minister of State said that the only reason that we had been able to sort out a serious problem was the debate that we had had. That is what Opposition Members are about. We want to engage the Government in an appropriate debate about the major issues before the Committee.
  Compulsory competitive tendering is not only a contentious issue: it goes to the heart of the principle of delivery of public services in Britain. Unless the delivery of services is subject to proper public scrutiny, even if the Government force the Bill through, the Bill will not be worth a row of beans if in practice it undermines the ability of local authorities to provide services. Is not that the fundamental test when it comes down to it? Irrespective of political ideology, when legislation leaves the House, the test is whether in practice it is better than the legislation that preceded it—whether it will ensure better services, better scrutiny of services and better value for money. The way in which the Government are proceeding means that the Bill will fail on all three counts.
  The Government will lose politically, but more importantly, local government will lose. The public who believe in and require the services will be the biggest losers, because the scrutiny in the House does not do justice to the major changes that the Government seek to force on the British public.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. James Paice: Conservative Members have come to recognise the regular hollow protests by the Opposition at the use of the guillotine. What we have seen in this debate, what we saw last week, and what we may see again—I do not know, and

  103
  my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know better than I—is the recognition by the Labour party of what will happen on 9 April, 7 May, or whenever. If there were to be a Labour Government after the general election, they would wish to use guillotines. Their fervent opposition to guillotine motions shows their recognition that they will not, in a few short weeks, be on the Government Benches and able to demand their own guillotines.
  Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Paice: Not for a minute—I have only just started.
  What also proves the hollowness of arguments against guillotine motions is that often the debate on the motion takes time from the debate on amendments. Although that is not the case with this debate, it has often happened with other timetable motions.
  Like those of my hon. Friends who have spoken today, I welcome this timetable motion. I believe that every Bill should be timetabled from day 1. That would be far better than introducing a timetable halfway through a Bill. However, the motion had to be introduced tonight, for all the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House outlined when he detailed the waste of time that we have already had.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) urged the Government to come clean and say that this is all part of a campaign to clear the decks before a general election. We are led to believe that the Labour party is looking forward to the general election. The Leader of the Opposition keeps encouraging the Prime Minister to call a general election. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If they want a general election and believe that the Bill should become law—they are in favour of the part that the Committee has not reached—they should acknowledge that there is no option other than to timetable the remaining stages. The agreement made through the usual channels has come asunder, but what the timetable motion proposes is in line with that agreement—with the one exception that the original agreement did not envisage the Committee sitting until 5 o'clock one morning.
  Mr. McCartney: That was the Government's decision.
  Mr. Paice: That may be so, but it was still extra time on top of the original agreement about the proceedings of the Bill.
  Mr. Don Dixon: What agreement?
  Mr. Paice: If the timetable that was agreed through the usual channels—the two Whips Offices—was wrong, why was it agreed in the first place?
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is on record as saying that he is no longer a Whip but only a Back Bencher, so there is no point in giving way to him while I am speaking about the usual channels.
  Only on Thursday last did we finish the part of the Bill dealing with competitive tendering, and we have not yet reached the part dealing with the Local Government Commission. Many people would gain if they could stand the boredom of the tedious and long-winded speeches to
  104
  which the Committee has listened and which are recorded in Hansard. The Opposition have spent vast amounts of time detailing local government services and experiences of contracts that have gone wrong. They have detailed the odd examples where the service has been below standard or the contract has broke down, and have blamed that on compulsory competitive tendering, but that is not the truth of the matter. The fault lies with the contract that is up for tender. If the documents are properly drawn up, one is able to enforce higher standards and to deal with the problems that may arise.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the motion before the House. I hope that he will quickly get back to it.
  Mr. Paice: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take your remonstrations.
  The Committee has spent a considerable amount of time-wasting on matters not directly related to the Bill.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is wasting time.
  Mr. Paice: I am sure that if I am wasting time you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will call me to order. If we cannot talk about what has gone on in relation to the Bill so far as justification for a timetable motion, I wonder—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that many speeches in the Committee did not deal with matters arising from the Bill and then hope to be able to reiterate those debates when the House is considering the guillotine motion.
  Mr. Paice: I am not suggesting that they did not arise from the Bill. I am saying that they are examples of the way in which, while debating amendments, Labour Members spent far too long on minor details rather than addressing the issues. They could have said what they wanted in a much shorter time.
  We have not yet reached the part of the Bill dealing with the Local Government Commission. Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) have expressed support in principle for this, and he expressed concern about certain aspects of its structure and accountability. I do not think that there will be much dissent across the Floor of the Committee when we get to this tomorrow because most hon. Members welcome that part of the Bill.
  Already, the chief executive of my local authority has phoned me saying, "For goodness sake, you have to get this Bill through before the general election. The Local Government Commission must be set up to look at unitary authorities." I believe that unitary authorities will be the primary means of providing local services, although they will not necessarily be the perfect solution for every part of the country.
  Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the Local Government Commission that is important and urgent, but the compulsory competitive tendering provisions in the first part of the Bill? A small unitary authority will in the future be able to succeed because of CCT. It will not have to be a provider of services because it will be able to use CCT to ensure that it gets high-quality services and good value for money simply by buying in whatever appears to it to be necessary.
  Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right. There is no need for any local authority to have any service provision within its systems. It should simply be an agency buying in provision from whatever source it thinks best. I see no need for a local authority to have vast, wasted bureaucracies sorting out the provision of services when it should be ensuring that it obtains for the people whom it is elected to serve the most cost-effective way to deliver services and the best value for money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) says, if that means a small authority with only a small nucleus of officials buying in and doing the job, so be it.
  Mr. Allason: How does my hon. Friend think that the enabling authorities would be able to cope with providing a service the importance of which was highlighted on last night's Independent Television News? In Birmingham, a local authority is providing a phone-in service enabling people who cannot remember a tune and are annoyed by it to telephone from all over the world. A team of nine NALGO members is permanently available to find out what the tune is.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have got the point.
  Mr. Paice: No doubt my hon. Friend is asking me a rhetorical question. As he well knows, it should not be the function of any publicly elected body to provide such a service. He has put his finger on another critical aspect of the Bill. He referred to nine NALGO members—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] It may not be enough—perhaps the demand for the service is so great that 10 or 12 should have been provided. In the event of a return to the trade union laws of the 1970s, however, those nine members could themselves demand another half-dozen, or even 20.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made it clear that hon. Members must speak about the motion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now address himself to it.
  Mr. Paice: I will return to the subject of the Local Government Commission and unitary authorities.
  Hon. Members should not fool themselves. They should not assume that the House has been misled into believing that the Local Government Commission legislation could be pushed through in no time. Much of the debate has already taken place in the other place, whose primary function is to act as a scrutinising body. We know that it could not reject the principle—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It is unelected."] It may be unelected, but it contains a cross-section of people of considerable ability, experience and knowledge. Members of the other place possessing those attributes have already been through the Bill, and have examined many of the concerns that have been expressed about the structure of the Local Government Commission.
  The timetable motion was inevitable. It probably became inevitable on the occasion of the Committee's second sitting, when it was clear that we would make very slow progress. If the Bill—and, in particular, the part which involves the Local Government Commission—is to become law before the general election, whenever that takes place, it is essential that the motion be passed today.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, although I am very sad that we shall not be given an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill properly.
  I do not believe that Conservative Members are carrying out the job that they were elected to do. If doing the job properly means having to stay up throughout the night to scrutinise legislation, I am prepared to do that, but Conservative Members appear to tire very easily. Perhaps they are worried about getting back to their constituencies.
  If I have to stay up for a long time to debate the living standards of working people—for instance, when the Government are trying to introduce compulsory competitive tendering—I am prepared to do that. I am prepared to argue for as long as it takes that people's wages and holidays should not be cut, and that sick pay and pensions should not be taken away from them. That is what much of our earlier debate was about. There was no filibuster as such; we had a lengthy debate, in which great concern was expressed for working people.
  Such concern seems to be expressed only by Opposition Members. Conservative Members do not seem to give a tinker's cuss. They are not bothered about whether their constituents have to take a cut in wages, as long as they can be seen to be going out to the private sector. I could reel off numerous examples, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you would rule me out of order if I did, because a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall content myself with saying that to suggest that debate should be curtailed because Opposition Members have not taken the Bill seriously is to present a travesty of the truth: we were debating the subjects that matter.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) seems happy to leave matters to the other place, as long as he can get to bed early enough. I am not sure that that is what democracy is about. I was elected to debate, even if the hon. Gentleman was not, and I feel sorry for his constituents. He has never made any comment that suggested that he cared very much, and I fear that those constituents have a part-time Member.
  Mr. David Bellotti: There are several.
  Mr. Martlew: That may be true, but I should be ruled out of order if I said anything else about that.
  I was surprised at the way in which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) admitted that the Government were wrong in 1974 when they reorganised local government. On Second Reading, I tackled the Secretary of State for the Environment about that and I asked him to apologise to the House for the mistakes made as a result of that reorganisation. The right hon. Gentleman merely attacked the Labour party and said that the Conservatives had nothing for which to apologise. However, three Conservative Back Benchers have got up today to admit that mistakes were made.
  We want to ensure that such mistakes are not repeated with the next local government reorganisation, which represents an important change. I happen to believe that local government is as important to our democracy as the Chamber. We have a dual role, and the way in which hon. Members denigrate the work of county councils in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire is hard to take.
  The local authorities were established by the Conservative Government and they have had to struggle

  107
  with the system as best they can. I served on a county council, after its reorganisation, for 18 years and I have nothing but praise for its Conservative and Labour members for the way in which they struggled to tackle the problems with which they were faced. It was not their fault that the structure was wrong, and it does not become Members of this Chamber to criticise people who have merely attempted to do their best with a flawed system —a system introduced by a Conservative Government.
  I am worried about the timetable motion because I understand that tomorrow will mark the end of the Committee stage. There are many important matters that still need to be discussed. I had hoped to move an amendment on annual elections—the Government seem to run away from elections. I had hoped that the Minister would say that the Government were in favour of annual elections to the new authorities.
  Mr. Portillo indicated dissent.
  Mr. Martlew: I must assume that the Government are not in favour of annual elections to local authorities.
  I am not talking about a unitary authority. The district council in Carlisle has annual elections and on the fourth year the county council holds elections. Therefore within any four years of office there are annual elections as well as European elections and, perhaps, a general election. I am a great believer in democracy and I believe that annual elections keep local authorities on their toes. They ensure that the promises made at election time are kept. I have no doubt that the better authorities are those that are prepared to face their electorate every year.
  When the Government introduced the poll tax, they argued that it would make local councils more accountable to their electorate. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Government will not give the electors of certain local authorities the opportunity to go to the polls annually.
  I know that such elections are expensive for the political parties and I know that the Conservative party has money problems now because the captains of industry are not making a lot of money.
  Mr. McCartney: It is true that the Conservative party is having problems with its fund-raising activities and that is why it has switched its attention to the far east and places such as Hong Kong for donations.
  Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend is right, but I should be ruled out of Order were I to take up that issue. Unlike the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, I would not seek to disagree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I accept that financial problems may be caused by having annual elections. I should like to discuss them with the Minister tomorrow, but I fear that that will not be possible. However, we have already had the Minister's answer to my proposal, so perhaps we shall not need to debate the matter tomorrow.
  I am also worried that we may not have an opportunity to discuss historic cities. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who is no longer in his place, referred briefly to that subject. The problem is that we may not have time to debate the matter fully and I am looking for a positive response from the Minister. If we are to have unitary authorities—I do not advocate that—special attention must be paid to areas that have had a tradition for
  108
  centuries of ruling themselves. They have often ruled themselves, having been cut off from central Government. Often, historic cities such as Carlisle were in a state of siege with no possibility of knowing what was being said in Westminster. On one famous occasion, Parliamentarians surrounded the city of Carlisle for many months and there was no option but for the city to govern itself. It even created its own coinage at that time. Carlisle is not unique, and those traditions were followed well before 1974. Many cities have proud traditions as county boroughs.
  I hope that there will be time tomorrow to debate that subject. Indeed, I hope that it will not be necessary to debate the matter tomorrow. The Minister must be aware that time will be limited because of the Government's motion. If he is prepared tonight to say that the special place for historic cities should be recognised, it may not be necessary to debate the matter tomorrow. We shall then have an opportunity to debate other important parts of the Bill.
  I understand that the Government are making a concession to continue the debate until midnight. Perhaps the Minister will turn into a pumpkin if we continue after midnight. Such a timetable is unsatisfactory. The Government want more but are not listening to elected representatives. As a Member of Parliament, I was sent here to scrutinise legislation and, as an Opposition Member, I am meant to oppose it. That is what democracy is about. It is my job to represent my constituents and scrutinise Government legislation. Because Opposition Members have been doing their job well, the Government can take it no longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has obviously got under their skin and they are curtailing the debate, not because there is a problem with time but because they are not prepared to put up constructive arguments against our opposition to the Bill.
  I hope that the motion will be defeated tonight, but I fear that it will not be. In that case, will the Minister responsible enter the debate tomorrow with a genuine desire to listen and accept the pertinent amendments? So far, the Minister has not accepted a single Opposition amendment—or even an amendment tabled by a Conservative Member. If we are to have a curtailed debate, I hope that it will be genuine on the Government's part and that they will accept the practical amendments. I hope that they will make some concessions on annual elections and historic cities.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has spoken bravely about his relish for sitting through the night, but his speech reminded me of the first part of those Shredded Wheat advertisements. He spoke bravely and beat his chest, saying that he wanted to stay to debate the matter, but when it was suggested that we might sit through the night, I have never heard such whingeing. As I said in an earlier intervention, some hon. Members did not even want to stay through the night—
  Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Official Report, he will see that at no time was I whingeing.
  Mr. Hughes: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman was stupid. He did his whingeing outside the Committee, but we all heard it.
  I shall be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not wish to exclude them from the debate. As I listened to the debate and sat through hour upon of repetitious Opposition speeches in Committee, it became clear that Labour had singled out the Bill as the one that they wanted to force the Government to drop if the Government opted for an early election.
  Labour did not concentrate on the Bill for several reasons. First, it did not do so because of the Bill's effect on local government. Labour Members say that they welcome the opportunity of allowing local government to opt for a unitary structure. However, that does not fit their stated policy. The debate on clause 8 revealed everything. A raft of almost identical amendments was tabled and it was clear that Labour, which is primarily producer-driven, sought to reward its paymasters. That is what the amendments were all about.
  Labour sees the prospect of forming a Government retreating with every day. But if a Labour Government were elected, they would stop compulsory competitive tendering and the producers, the people who demand money from the Labour party and who rely on it for their jobs, the unions, would simply carry on in their old way. There would be no improvements in services.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall finish the point and then give way just once more.
  Compulsory competitive tendering applies to the national health service as well as to local government, and in the NHS it saves £50 million a year. That is the cost of two local hospitals, but Labour would sweep that aside.
  Mr. McKay: It appears that the hon. Gentleman is either misinformed, unintelligent or naive. I shall choose naive rather than either of the other two. In all the time that I have been here, I have known only one Bill that the Government wanted that failed to go through. That was a transport Bill. Any Government who want a Bill to become law can use the timetable. Therefore, there is no question of us filibustering to kill the Bill.
  Mr. Hughes: In his last few weeks in Parliament, the hon. Gentleman has learnt a lot. I am grateful to him for accepting the logic of my argument. The Opposition could have talked the Bill out but we shall not give them the opportunity.
  The second reason for Labour's opposition to the Bill is that it encompasses part of the citizens charter. Labour does not want its rotten local government record exposed in league tables. Labour is at the bottom of the tables for empty properties and for uncollected rents and rates, and the latest figures show that Labour authorities have failed to collect much of the community charge.
  The third reason is that a Labour Government would want to emasculate the Audit Commission. The Labour party has made that clear. It does not want information to be published because it knows that that information will embarrass them. Without the Audit Commission, how would we have known that in seven months the direct service organisation in Liverpool has had 8,930 default notices for ground maintenance? Who would have discovered that seven Labour councils had not closed their
  110
  books by the statutory deadline three years in a row, that Hackney's legal department had lamentable failures and that that council was owed £67 million in rent, rates and other debts? How would we have known that Lambeth operates in an ethos of crisis management rather than one of forward planning? That is what the Labour party wants to cover up; that is why it wants the Bill to fail. But the Bill will not fail; we will get it through with proper debate tomorrow and then on to the statute book, ready for it to help us to win the general election.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. David Bellotti: I am sorry that I could not be here to hear the opening speeches, but I was sitting outside Balham station in a train with a broken rail in front of it. I apologise for that, and I will refrain from commenting on the lack of investment in the railways, because that subject is not on the agenda tonight.
  What is on the agenda is the proper consideration of this Bill. The Hansard report of our Committee makes interesting reading. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) spoke in tonight's debate, but in nine Committee sittings he managed to amass only one intervention. The Government want to guillotine this Bill, saying that there is not enough time to consider it in Committee, yet the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made seven interventions in 20 minutes during the first 65 minutes of consideration of the Bill in Committee. It is contributions such as those which have led us to this.
  The record shows that, on behalf of my party, I tabled a small number of amendments and spoke reasonably briefly to each of them. Those amendments dealt with important matters, yet now, as we move towards part II, we are to be denied the opportunity of sensibly advancing alternatives to the clauses in part II.
  Three of the major issues in part I with which my amendments dealt were: facilities for local government to provide annual reports and tendering information in braille and on tape so that people with disabilities can read the record of their local authority; measures to allow local people to give their views on the standard of services delivered by companies that tender for services, before those companies are given a further contract; and a measure to turn compulsory competitive tendering into the more constructive voluntary approach which has worked well in many local authorities. All these and others were constructive ways of trying to improve the Bill in Committee. There was no hint on my part of trying to delay the Committee's proceedings.
  I am worried because, as we approach part II, really the most important part of the Bill, we will not have the chance to look at it in the detail that is required. Why did the Government need to bring in the items in part I in the same Bill? Why were not the two matters kept separate, given that the second part of the Bill was so important? Part II commands some support in all parts of the House; it could have proceeded well and been improved in Committee. Part I seems to have been necessary only to implement the Government's policy of making everything compulsory.
  We also need to provide our local communities with reassurance. Those of us who support unitary authorities —I include myself in this—do not intend to steamroller people into accepting structures with which they do not

  111
  feel happy. Mistakes were made in the 1974 reorganisation, and we must not repeat them. People throughout the country need reassuring that they will not be reassigned to other local authority areas by someone sitting in Whitehall, and that they will not have someone arriving from London telling them what their natural community is.
  It is important that from the work of the Local Government Commission should come a consensus with which people feel happy and under which they can enjoy their local services. The people in Polegate and Willingdon in my constituency are worried that they may be plonked in Eastbourne. They certainly should not be. People in such communities throughout the country want to remain with the authority with which they have been happy and which they feel is their natural community. The work of the Local Government Commission should enable them to stay where they feel happy, and I for one will do all I can to help them to do so.
  Many people claim that providing an education service demands a particular size of authority, but that is just not true. Gillian Peele, fellow in politics at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, and Andrew Adonis, fellow in modern British government at Nuffield college, Oxford, have concluded after much research that few existing districts would finish up with fewer than 35 primary and five secondary schools. That would constitute a set-up that was viable to run education. The canard about size needs to be laid to rest.
  Some services provided by county councils would give cause for concern if the authorities ended up small. I refer, for instance, to local archive services, which deserve a great deal of attention and which could be destroyed if very small authorities were made responsible for them. As for structure planning, in my county of East Sussex the basis of all planning has been that the strategic policy should divert growth to the south and east of our county, which in effect would protect the Sussex downs and the High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty. We must take on board the protection of those areas in any reorganisation of Sussex, as well as diverting economic planning for the future towards the areas where we want it to be. It is difficult to do that with single-tier local structures, yet that ought to be the way forward.
  During our deliberations on part I, various local authorities and national bodies, including the Royal Institute of British Architects, drew to our attention what could be the result of not examining carefully what we are doing. The RIBA said:
  "If cost, not quality, becomes the criterion for choosing an architect, all that will happen is that we shall have a generation of slum buildings being built."
  Many examples of that were drawn to our attention in Committee, to which we were able to give sufficient time.
  The time spent so far has been adequate for part I. The time that we have now been given to consider part II is nowhere near adequate. It detracts enormously from the importance of part II. Therefore, I intend to oppose the guillotine motion, which is totally inappropriate and does nothing to serve our local communities.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I am opposed in principle to all guillotine motions, but I feel very strongly about this Bill because many of my constituents are anxious to have a single-tier local authority. The reason is obvious. Few people understand the difference between the roles and responsibilities of district authorities and county councils. If the Bill were to die before the general election, the day of the return to unitary authorities would be delayed for several years. That would be a disaster.
  Torbay used to have the status of a county borough. That was regarded as highly successful. The reality is that the county councils have done themselves out of a job. Following the Griffiths report, there is to be much greater provision of care in the community at a much lower level; responsibility for it is to be devolved downwards. County councils will therefore be out of a job. The same applies to education: to local management of schools and to schools that opt for grant-maintained status. That will reduce the burden on the county council.
  As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) said, there may be an argument for having a strategic authority for planning, perhaps for education and certainly for transport. That might be to the advantage of a county area, but there is no need to elect a strategic authority. If power is devolved down to the districts, I see no reason why, if the districts wish to have a strategic authority, they should not delegate members from the district to the county.
  I am concerned about boundaries. My constituency does not cover the whole of the borough of Torbay. One particular ward does not form part of my parliamentary constituency; it forms part of the South Hams constituency. As an example of wasteful local government, this week the local authority conducted an absurdly expensive poll of the residents of Blatchcombe ward to determine whether they wished to remain in South Hams parliamentary constituency or to come within Torbay parliamentary constituency.
  That was a fruitless exercise, when one considers that the Torbay parliamentary constituency is already too large. The chance of there being a change will not be increased by the poll. In my view, it was an absurd waste of public money. Curiously enough, though, if the people who live in that ward felt strongly enough about the issue, they would have every right to make representations to the Boundary Commission.
  I am also concerned about some of the literature that was distributed in an apparently unbiased way to the people who live in that ward.
  Mr. McCartney: This is parliamentary stuff.
  Mr. Allason: It applies also to the local authority.
  The literature that was sent to this particular group of voters, who are all members of a particular ward within the borough, relates specifically to the local authority. My worry is that we shall lose the opportunity to introduce a single tier of local government. In my experience, competitive tendering has been extremely useful and has saved much money. If the Bill were lost because of the general election, I fear that our constituents would be much worse off.
  Unitary authorities are attractive to our constituents. I see no reason why any obstacles should be placed in the way of the Bill; it is important that it gets on to the statute

  113
  book. I understand that there is some contention about competitive tendering, but the crucial issue is in part II, which is why I urge the House to pass the timetable motion.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Bryan Gould: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has asked me to apologise for his absence as he has an unavoidable commitment in his constituency. His absence does not, however, deflect me from congratulating him and my other hon. Friends who have served on the Committee on the excellent and constructive way in which they have approached the Bill.
  For once, I think that there is a certain coherence about the Government's guillotine motion. The Government's lack of concern for the democratic process at Westminster in terms of proper debate of important legislation is matched by, and, indeed, entirely consistent with, their constant efforts to undermine democracy in local government. There is, in other words, a nice harmony—perhaps "nasty" is more accurate—between procedure and substance.
  The Government, who have introduced a record number of guillotine motions, have shown fewer and fewer scruples about doing so as the number has mounted. We heard a truly pathetic speech from the Leader of the House, who made only the most perfunctory attempt to defend what he was doing. He made no real case for proposing the motion on the basis of delay and of proceeding with the Bill. Indeed, how could he, since the arguments were so weak? How could it be argued that 12 clauses of a Bill should not have been debated for 30 hours in Committee, when clause 8 is a clause of the greatest contention which caused so much upheavel in another place as to warrant the Government's tabling an amendment to restore the position?
  It was scarcely possible for the Leader of the House to make that case, and he hardly tried. Instead, we have a shameless attempt to clear the decks for a possible general election. The Government's legislative programme is being prostituted to their election timetable. The irony is that the timetable now driving the Government is one that they dare not declare and probably will not even have t he guts to adopt. The chances are that we shall have forfeited the prospects of a properly debated Bill for the sake of a general election date which the Government simply duck when faced with the challenge.
  The truth is that the Government are still trembling in their tent, unwilling to take to the field of battle. The fact that they are now prepared to guillotine anything that moves shows only how far they now give absolute priority to saving their own skins rather than providing even a pretence of good government.
  That instinctive lack of sympathy for and understanding of democracy in local government is matched by the substance of the Bill. It is called—ironically, one cannot help but think—the Local Government Bill, but it is more accurately described as the anti-local-government Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out, it comes at the end of a long catalogue of legislation in the past 13 years—perhaps nearly 60 Bills—designed to undermine the morale, constrain the competence, restrict the resources and destroy the independence of local government.
  114
  There is at least a certain "fearful symmetry"—to use Blake's phrase in a different context—in the fact that this bleak decade or more for local government was ushered in by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who, perhaps wisely, cannot be present this evening—even he, perhaps, has a sense of shame—and is being brought to its overdue close by that self-same long-standing opponent of everything for which local government stands. The Bill reflects the same animus against local government which has marked both the right hon. Gentleman's stints at Marsham street and most of what has happened in between.
  It is a period which saw the centralisation of power in Whitehall, the imposition of rate capping—first as a limited brake on so-called irresponsibility, but now as a universal assertion by Whitehall of its control over every local authority budget. It is a decade or more which saw the privatisation of local government services, the unfair rigging of the grant system and, above all, the imposition not only on local government but on the whole country of the great blight of the poll tax—a blight which continues still and will eventually prove the undoing of the Government.
  The guillotining of the Bill in this undemocratic way takes its dishonourable place in a long history of crimes against local democracy. The whole thrust of the Bill is accusatory of local government. Local authorities are put, figuratively speaking, in the dock. Instead of trying to help local government to raise standards, as we propose through a quality commission which will establish and monitor proper standards, spread and encourage best practice and offer management help when needed, the Government are intent on publishing misleading league tables laying emphasis exclusively on cost, irrespective of the context and the level of service delivered.
  If the Government are really interested in performance league tables, why do they not consider the issues that really matter—home helps, meals on wheels, library services and nursery provision? We know why they do not want to consider those aspects of local government: because those league tables would show the best performers to be Labour local authorities.
  We are left with the inevitable suspicion that the Government consider the problems that they have created for local government merely as grist to their electoral mill. They have a vested interest in the difficulties that some local councils have faced. Rather than help with resources and management support, they prefer to leave those authorities to struggle with their problems so that they can be placed in the stocks and pelted with Heseltinian insults. Fortunately, the electorate are unimpressed by this pantomime.
  The same approach can be seen in the Bill's treatment of compulsory competitive tendering. We have always suspected the motives behind CCT. We have always seen it not only as an attempt to undermine local government and to make way for profit-taking by the private sector, but as an attempt to drive down wages and working conditions in one of the least favoured parts of the labour market—all in the hope that by doing so they would drag down the wage structure throughout the economy.
  The success of direct service organisations and direct labour organisations in winning perhaps more than 80 per cent. of the contracts put out to tender has been bought at a heavy price in terms of wages and working conditions —and all for very little gain. The only partial studies which

  115
  have so far been done suggest that the small improvement in costs which can be attributed to CCT has been outweighed by the increased administrative costs which have attended the process of tendering. In other words, there is literally no basis for concluding that CCT has been such a success that it should now be extended, as the Bill proposes, to a whole new range of services—to the white collar services, the professional, technical and financial services.
  The Bill is an expression of ideological prejudice which is unsupported by any evidence. Indeed, the evidence is very much to the contrary. The evidence shows that there is so little prospect of the private sector in those areas being able to match the efficiency of in-house services that the Government have had to introduce a quality threshold which they have always maintained was simply inappropriate elsewhere. The motivation here is so obvious that it is blatant. The double envelope procedure that the Minister described in Committee will apply, as he concedes, only if one of the competitors is a DSO or a DLO.
  The whole exercise came unstuck in another place, and it was not helped by the constitutional monstrosity of the Henry VIII clause in which the provision was drafted. True to form, the Government have refused to listen to local government, to independent experts and to their Lordships. The Bill is still disfigured by the same objectionable provisions, in terms both of substance and of constitutional propriety.
  Part II, an important part containing 18 clauses and three schedules, potentially affects the whole structure of local government. Part 11 is of tremendous importance to the way in which we govern ourselves. Yet the Leader of the House has the cheek to tell us from the Dispatch Box that a day's debate is sufficient for it. The right hon. Gentleman is simply not serious and cannot be taken seriously.
  It is welcome that the Government have recognised that the Tory reorganisation of 1974 simply has not worked. Local government is not accountable enough and it is far too complicated, so that people simply do not understand the system. We have never made any bones of the fact —indeed, we got there before the Tory party—that we want a unitary system, a simpler and more accountable system. We also agree that the right way to bring about that system is not to impose it from on high from Whitehall but to set up a Local Government Commission to undertake the task.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: I do not have time, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands.
  We made it clear in advance of the Bill that we would support the Local Government Commission, not least because it will greatly simplify our task by enabling us to pick up its work in government and therefore to shorten the timetable for reform. However, we have also made it clear that our support was conditional on the Local Government Commission being set up properly, on its not being gerrymandered and on its having the right terms of reference, objectives and timetable. The Secretary of State has thrown away the chance of all-party consensus
  116
  because he could not resist playing party politics—it is the predictable triumph of the party politician at the expense of the health of local government.
  In part II, the Secretary of State has provided himself with what is in effect an instrument of party political warfare. He has created a commission which will trundle around the country under his direction, and which will line up its sights Labour-controlled county authorities so that they can be blasted to smithereens while leaving many Tory-controlled authorities intact. The whole process will lumber on for many years with partial reforms being instituted piecemeal and with dire consequences in terms of chaos and confusion for already hard-pressed local authorities, which will never know whether at any time they are meant to be unitary authorities or dual authorities and whether they are still threatened with or are now exempt from the prospect of reform.
  The measure, and the guillotine needed to support it, are a fitting conclusion to a 13-year assault on local government by the Tory Government. We oppose the motion, as we have opposed every similar damaging attack on local democracy in the past 13 years. We may not have enough votes to ward off the assault today, but I am glad to say that the day is not far distant when we shall have the parliamentary votes to restore local government to its proper place in the government of this country.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I genuinely regret the unavoidable absence this evening of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), because the guillotine motion and what lies behind it add up to a story of personal tragedy for the hon. Gentleman. Having played second fiddle, poor fellow, to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on the Local Government Finance Bill Committee and having had to listen—as we all did—to very long speeches from the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Brightside was at last given his own show —his own Bill to take through the House and through Committee. He wanted to address the issues seriously and, on the first two clauses, he did just that. We were having good debates and there was every prospect of our concluding our proceedings on the Bill in an orderly way and by agreement between the two sides.
  Then something extraordinary happened. One morning progress ground to a halt. There had clearly been an intervention from on high—from a deus ex Dagenham. The hon. Member for Dagenham had clearly issued instructions that the Bill's progress was to be slowed down. We then saw a really very unhappy sight: the hon. Member for Brightside, wanting to do his job seriously and to address the issues, sat disconsolately on the Front Bench while one filibusterer after another on his Back Benches took the Floor and held forth at great length—presumably on the instructions of the hon. Member for Dagenham. What a collection they were—Rolls-Royce filibusterers filibustering at the very top of their pitch. My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) did well to pay tribute to filibustering of a very high order.
  First into the field was the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), dogged in his filibustering, never letting a point go but pursuing it to the nth degree. Then came the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr.

  117
  McCartney). I give him top prize; the real trophy goes to him. A man who can speak effortlessly—certainly with repetition but almost without hesitation—for one hour 40 minutes is a grandee—top of his class.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) was scarcely less able but could not quite produce that sort of filibuster all in one go. Having run out of steam in his first speech, he came back and made a second speech on the same amendment.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is very good indeed—so long as one does not give him anything to read, because he finds reading a little tricky and stumbles over words. As long as he is extemporising, he is okay too.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) is not in the top flight of filibusterers but, given that he is the Whip, the fact that he intervened at all was proof indeed that a serious operation of delay was under way.
  To be fair, that operation was balanced to some extent by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti), who compensated as we went along. There was one amendment that he was simply too miffed to move because he had not been told about the dinner break, and, on another occasion, because we went on rather late, he was not there to hear the winding-up speeches on one group of amendments or to move the next amendment. Fortunately, we saved a little on occasions when the hon. Member for Eastbourne might otherwise have intervened.
  Imagine the frustration of the hon. Member for Brightside, particularly when—I plead guilty to this—I proposed that the Question be put on one amendment. After all the rubbish that we had heard, the hon. Member for Brightside, who had intended to give the serious reply from the Labour party, was cut off. The look of frustration on that man's face was deeply moving—in particular because his frustration and anger were not, I think, with the person who moved the closure but with someone else. I fully believe that the hon. Member for Brightside is unavoidably detained tonight. I do not believe for a moment that he simply will not share the Opposition Front Bench with the hon. Member for Dagenham.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that we should avoid ineffectual legislation, but one does not avoid such legislation with ineffectual filibustering. If Labour had been serious, the speeches of the hon. Member for Makerfield would have been trimmed, the hon. Member for Carlisle would have been restricted to a single speech and the hon. Member for Brightside would have been allowed to have his say—but no, he was squeezed out of the debate.
  Concern has been expressed that there will not be time under the terms of the timetable motion to consider the remaining clauses. We have 10 hours in Committee to consider part II. That is the same amount of time that the other place spent on those matters. The hon. Member for Copeland said that what happened in the other place should not influence what we should do here. I do not know about that. Their Lordships usually take a very responsible and minute interest in constitutional issues. If part II, which is about a constitutional matter—the reform of the structure of local government—could be considered in another place in 10 hours, I see no reason why we should not consider it here in 10 hours, provided that we can agree between us a sensible allocation of time for the various amendments.
  118
  There are no amendments to most of the clauses that we have to discuss. Most of the clauses will be discussed, if at all, only in clause stand part debates. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) put his foot in it when he said that part I was the contentious part. He said that part II was not contentious; therefore, it can be considered quite happily in the 10 hours allocated under the timetable motion.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister referred to 10 hours of debate. There will not be 10 hours; there will be eight and a half hours of debate. The rest of the time will be taken up with dinner breaks and the like—unless we cut that out.
  I believe that part I is the contentious part. The contentious aspects of part II are who will comprise the commission and what will be its terms of reference. It would have been better to introduce two Bills—one in which we could debate competitive tendering and one in which we could debate the commission.
  Mr. Portillo: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brightside, who has already had to deal with two Bills, would agree that we should have had three Bills on local government. However, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone.
  Why was part I contentious? Why was it filibustered? Why was it necessary to talk that part of the Bill out? The answer is that is contained the citizens charter, which sets out to measure local authority performance objectively. The Labour party has told us that the citizens charter is ineffective and that Labour is not bothered about it. Why should the National Association of Local Government Officers spend £2 million of union money opposing the citizens charter? Why does its advertising show a lady burning a copy of the citizens charter in her grate if the charter is not something that bothers the Labour party intensely? It was necessary for Labour to talk out the part of the Bill that related to the citizens charter because Labour is aware that it spells electoral peril for that party.
  Part I also contained provisions enabling the Audit Commission to measure local authority output. The hon. Member for Brightside once fell foul of the Audit Commission when he was the leader of the Sheffield council. Since then, he has made a series of macho statements that he would sweep away the Audit Commission and that its days were numbered. In the fulness of time, those phrases had to be modified and it is now said only that the Audit Commission will be subsumed. "Subsumed" is a sinister socialist verb which means, broadly speaking, that its days are numbered and that it will be swept away. In its place there will be something less rigorous upon local authorities; their measurements will be self-determined.
  Mr. Gould: The Minister and some of his colleagues have repeated that canard so frequently that it is time at least to educate them if they are too ignorant to do their work properly. What we propose for the Audit Commission is that not a single part of its functions should be lost. Those functions should be incorporated in the wider functions of the quality commission which will carry out all the current functions of the Audit Commission but will also add to its range of responsibilities a responsibility to raise the quality of services delivered by local government.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman, who has shown what an iron fist he has, will doubtless discipline the hon. Member for Brightside for using phrases such as "sweeping away the Audit Commission" or "its days are numbered", which the hon. Gentleman must agree are at the very least bound to give a misleading impression of the Labour party's apparently benign intentions towards the Audit Commission.
  Why else has the Bill had to be filibustered? It has had to be filibustered because Opposition Members have a tremendous dislike of compulsory competitive tendering and must do all in their power to oppose it. Mr. Jack Dromey of the Transport and General Workers Union said:
  "The Council must include as many hurdles as it can in the tender specifications it sends to private contractors. It must try every possible way to prevent services being taken over by private firms."
  We know from the advertising campaign that is presently going on that the National Association of Local Government Officers is against compulsory competitive tendering. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) made.
  The union brothers' support now for the Labour party is conditional upon the brothers' policies being put into effect if the Labour party is elected to Government. That is why, with a click of the fingers, what the unions want in compulsory competitive tendering becomes the Labour party's policy on compulsory competitive tendering. That is why some of the slowest debates that we had in Committee were on the subject of compulsory competitive tendering.
  The Labour party's main hope in filibustering the Bill was that we should not get on to part II, which so concerns my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Mr. French) and for Nottingham, South, who are keen to get on with debating the issues. Part II places tremendous emphasis on local communities, whereas the Labour party wishes a prescription from Whitehall to be introduced overnight so that there is no local discretion about the form of local government—it will all be decided by the Government in Whitehall.
  Of course, the Labour party wants to establish regions with tax-raising powers. I say that it wants to establish regions with tax-raising powers—tax is certainly what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said. He was quoted in the Municipal Journal of 21 February. The hon. Member for Dagenham, recently on the Brian Walden programme, said:
  "no one is talking about tax-raising powers…for these regional assemblies."
  "No one" may be the description that the hon. Gentleman wishes to give the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, but I am bound to remind him that "no one" is unfortunately somebody in today's Labour party.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham appears to be very confused about whether we will have one tier or two tiers under Labour. On the Brian Walden programme, he said:
  "local government needs to be simplified so that it is simply one tier. So our regional proposals while they don't depend on that, I think that is nevertheless the answer to your question about yet another tier, there won't be another tier."
  So there are to be regions, but there is apparently not to be another tier.
  The Labour party is against the citizens charter. Its acolytes in NALGO and in the National Union of Public Employees have determined that there should be no
  120
  compulsory competitive tendering, and that is now the policy of the Labour party, so the Bill has been filibustered. The Labour part is against compulsory competitive tendering because the brothers want to be sure that their members can have the jobs no matter what the cost to the customer. Therefore, the Bill has been filibustered.
  The Labour party is against reform of local government structure because it wishes to impose new regions on the people of Britain, who do not want them. We will not allow the Bill to be lost for those reasons. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 203.

  Division No. 84]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Curry, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

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

  Alexander, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amos, Alan

  Dover, Den

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Dykes, Hugh

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Eggar, Tim

  Atkinson, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Evennett, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Farr, Sir John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Favell, Tony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bendall, Vivian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Benyon, W.

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Forman, Nigel

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Franks, Cecil

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gardiner, Sir George

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

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bright, Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

  Gorst, John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Gregory, Conal

  Butler, Chris

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Buttertill, John

  Grist, Ian

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Ground, Patrick

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hague, William

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Chope, Christopher

  Hannam, Sir John

  Churchill, Mr

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

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Harris, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayward, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cran, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  121

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Page, Richard

  Hill, James

  Paice, James

  Hind, Kenneth

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

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

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Price, Sir David

  Irvine, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Janman, Tim

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knox, David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Latham, Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Keith

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Speller, Tony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Squire, Robin

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Madel, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Mills, lain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thorne, Neil

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moate, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Tracey, Richard

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tredinnick, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Trippier, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mudd, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Viggers, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Norris, Steve

  Warren, Kenneth

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Watts, John

  122

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wilkinson, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Fraser, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Galloway, George

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  George, Bruce

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Barron, Kevin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Battle, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Beckett, Margaret

  Graham, Thomas

  Beith, A. J.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bell, Stuart

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bellotti, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

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

  Hain, Peter

  Benton, Joseph

  Hardy, Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boateng, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boyes, Roland

  Haynes, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Carl Me, Alex (Mont' g)

  Howells, Geraint

  Cartwright, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ingram, Adam

  Corbett, Robin

  Janner, Greville

  Cox, Tom

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Crowther, Stan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Mön)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Darling, Alistair

  Lambie, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lamond, James

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Leighton, Ron

  Dixon, Don

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Doran, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livsey, Richard

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Edwards, Huw

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Enright, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  McFall, John

  Fearn, Ronald

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKelvey, William

  Fisher, Mark

  McLeish, Henry

  Flannery, Martin

  McMaster, Gordon

  Flynn, Paul

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McWilliam, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Derek

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Foulkes, George

  Marek, Dr John

  123

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maxton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Short, Clare

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stephen, Nicol

  Murphy, Paul

  Strang, Gavin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, William

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Turner, Dennis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Vaz, Keith

  Patchett, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Pendry, Tom

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wray, Jimmy

  Reid, Dr John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Robertson, George

  Rogers, Allan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Rooney, Terence

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill [Lords]:—

  Committee
  1.—

  (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill has been allocated shall report the Bill to the House on 18th February.

  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on that day may continue until Midnight 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 19th February.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  3.—

  (1) 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.

  (2) On the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

  Order of proceeding
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in the Standing Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Dilatory motions
  5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made 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
  6. 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,
  124
  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
  7. 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 Bill 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 elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  8.—

  (1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Bill 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);

  (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 Motion is made by a member of the Government; and

  (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 the 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) 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
  9.—

  (1) The proceedings on any Motion made 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 those proceedings.

  (2) If on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before Ten o'clock, 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 the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the 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 are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  11.—

  (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 the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or

  125
  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.

  Business Committee and Business Sub-Committee
  12. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) shall not apply to this Order.

  Interpretation
  13. 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 Bill [Lords]

Association Agreements
10.14 pm
Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion on the Order Paper begins:
"That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum".
The middle of the motion refers to welcoming
"the principle of Association Agreements between the European Community and the reforming democracies of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia"
and it concludes by saying that the House
"looks forward to early ratification of the Agreements".
The House has been asked in this debate of a maximum of an hour and a half to consider the association agreements. They are substantial, lengthy documents, which are important to this House, the country and the European Community. The Foreign Office supplied six copies of the documents to the House for the use of hon. Members. I was able, late this evening, to obtain the final copy of those documents. It is not satisfactory for the House to consider such an important issue and to refer to documents at short notice when there are not sufficient copies of them for the hon. Members who need to refer to them, especially during the debate.
The unnumbered explanatory memorandum and the draft interim agreement on the association agreements should also be available, but they were made available from the Vote Office only at 4.30 pm last Thursday. The documents could not be released—not even the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation—until after the business statement had been made. Hon. Members are being asked to debate matters of crucial importance to our constituents on a Monday evening without having had the opportunity to get hold of the documents until late last Thursday evening.
The motion asks the House to look forward
"to early ratification of the Agreements."
Am I right in presuming that ratification happens automatically and that this hour-and-a-half debate will be our only opportunity to ratify those important agreements before they come into effect at the end of 1992?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister might like to answer those points. I take note of the hon. Member's remarks. The unnumbered explanatory memorandum, by long-standing practice, stands proxy for the House to consider such proposals in a fast-moving situation.
Of the other bulky documents, I understand that only six copies were available, so perhaps the Minister would like to explain.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I can help the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the House.
The association agreements, of course, require a separate ratification debate in the House under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. On the documents that were made available last Friday, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, will confirm that the Committee had sight of those working documents early in December. The latest versions of the documents were deposited in the House on Friday. They are working documents, as stated in the motion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We should get on with the motion now.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us spend much time discussing matters with our colleagues from the various eastern European countries and the debate is important to us. We were unable to receive or see those documents before we left the House last weekend. You will appreciate that weekends are very busy for many hon. Members. It is irresponsible and unreasonable for the House to be expected to debate documents which we have not had an opportunity to see.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot say much more about the matter. I understand that the documents were available on Thursday afternoon, which would have enabled Members to get hold of them before the weekend.
Mr. Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The documents were specifically held back. As you well know from your background, we have a good knowledge of what the business might be for the following week before Thursday at 3.30 pm. Indeed, Opposition spokesmen are nominated to answer debates and Government spokesmen are put up before that. As the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I requested a copy of those documents on Thursday and I was told that I could not have them because they could not be released from the Select Committee of the House to me until the Leader of the House had spoken at 3.30 pm.
I realise that such matters are catching you off guard, Mr. Speaker. They are being raised in this way because I found out about them only earlier this evening. The Minister's answer did not cover the association agreements. They are mentioned in the motion to be put forward by the Government this evening. Only six copies were available and hon. Members therefore had no opportunity to study them before this important debate.
Mr. Speaker: This is an hour and a half's debate and the House does not want to be kept up all night listening to points of order. I am not responsible for when documents are placed in the Vote Office, but I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has said. It is unsatisfactory if hon. Members do not have an opportunity to study documents that we are about to discuss, because it leads to inadequate debate.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the complexity of the documents involved, rather than allowing Parliament to continue without adequate information, would it not be better to suspend the House for 10 minutes to allow the usual channels to arrange a different time to ensure that hon. Members have an adequate opportunity to consult the documents? Surely that would be fair.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot do that. The explanatory memorandum was available.
10.23 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 29th November 1991,
128
relating to Association Agreements between the Community and its Member States and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and European Community Document No. 10561/91, relating to interim agreements between the Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia: welcomes the principle of Association Agreements between the European Community and the reforming democracies of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia; recognises that these Agreements will offer them substantial benefits by encouraging trade with the Community, enhancing political co-operation, and strengthening links with the European Community to which these countries have expressed a wish to accede; and looks forward to early ratification of the Agreements.
The three association agreements—one each with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland—are mixed agreements. There are elements which fall under Community competence and others that are intergovernmental. We hope that the main agreements will come fully into force before the end of the year. Those main agreements to which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred will require a separate ratification debate in the House under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. The whole process of ratification in all 12 Member States is likely to take some months.
For that reason, and to avoid delay, the Community has decided to bring forward the implementation of those elements—mostly trade liberalisation measures—which fall entirely under Community competence. They are to be formally adopted on 25 February for imlementation on 1 March.
We are scrutinising both main and interim sets of agreements this evening. The Select Committee on European Legislation has rightly identified these agreements as politically important and worthy of debate. The House will be notified in due course of the Government's plans for ratification of the main agreements under section 1(3). A proper debate on that matter will take place in the House.
Help for central and eastern Europe falls under five broad headings. The association agreements are tailored to dovetail into existing help in all five areas. To be effective and to give the sort of substantial help that we wish to give, the association agreements must open the Community's markets to goods from Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. The first and perhaps the most important element is trade liberalisation.
The agreements allow for the asymmetric lowering of trade barriers. The EC has agreed to reduce its barriers to imports more quickly than Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland reduce theirs. That is only right. The EC is a very large market. If the associate countries are to restructure their economies successfully, it will be vital for them to have full access to the EC's markets as quickly as possible.
The agreements also provide for a substantial measure of trade liberalisation in agriculture because agriculture is the area in which the three countries are most likely to become competitive. After only three years, import charges on their agricultural exports to the EC will be reduced to 40 per cent. of the present level, and the volume of their exports eligible for those preferential terms will grow by 50 per cent. over five years. Further progress towards free trade in agriculture will be made during the second five-year period of the agreements.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Has an assessment of any sort been made of the likely increase in CAP expenditure and in surpluses as a consequence of this superb trade rationalisation? Does not the Minister think

129
that it would be sensible to make some move towards reducing the cost of the CAP before inviting a further flood of trade which will simply add to the mountains of surpluses and to the cost of the CAP?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who will be winding up the debate on behalf of the Ministry, will wish to answer my hon. Friend's detailed points. I am glad and not at all surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) welcomes agreements on agricultural free trade. One of the advantages of the agreements is that they will be beneficial to consumers in this country.
Sir Teddy Taylor: How will they help consumers? The Minister has made a specific statement that consumers will be helped. They are suffering hugely at present. If the expenditure and the mountains increase, how will the consumer be helped in any way? Will the Minister please tell us?
Mr. Garel-Jones: The consumer will be helped by the increased competition that the arrival of high-quality food at low prices from eastern European countries will bring to our markets.
Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I should like to make some more progress and then I shall give way.
Secondly, there is economic co-operation. That covers a wide range of sectors from industry and investment protection to energy, education and the environment. The aim is to help the three associate countries to build up the political and economic structures of a modern state, to compile reliable statistics and to enable them to help small and medium-sized companies and to counter the activities of money launderers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On education and the environment, may I ask the question of which I gave the Foreign and Commonwealth Office notice—can anything be done to prevent the sale across frontiers of the beautiful wooden carvings that the all-party heritage group saw throughout northern Bohemia? Churches in remote areas are being robbed and vandalised. Would it not be ironic if with the end of communism there were an absolute collapse of any protection for Czechoslovak art? That is happening as a result of western European greed.
Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to express concern about that. He has already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about it. As he knows, these matters are ultimately for the police in Czechoslovakia, but he will be pleased to learn that some of the assistance that we are giving that country, through the know-how fund, is aimed at helping the police force there to pursue criminals of this sort. I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's concern.
Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister take note of the fact that, at various meetings in those countries, one of which I recall attending in the Budapest Parliament, members of his party—I exclude the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who has played a distinguished role in all this—repeatedly and vigorously urged these countries to sweep away all regulations and to
130
leave their countries free for entrepreneurs from western Europe, who would then help them? Because such regulations were swept away, this sort of scandal is bound to occur, and is bound to be repeated, until more sensible advice comes from western Europe.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I recognise that there is a certain nostalgia among Labour Members for at least some of the repressions and controls that used to be exercised on the other side of the iron curtain. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to try to attribute the rise in crime in some of those countries to the freedoms and liberal market economies being built up in them. That will not wash. The hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends still find the idea of a free market offensive, but that is the very concept that these associations agreements are designed to bolster.
The third aspect deals with approximation of laws. In anticipation of successful applications for Community membership the three will take steps to bring basic commercial and financial legislation into line with Community legislation. That will be working with the grain, because market forces will encourage them to base their laws on Community texts. We are ready to help with the drafting of laws, under our programme of technical assistance, when we are asked to do so. British advisers are already at the centre of the privatisation programmes in Czechoslavakia, Hungary and Poland.
Fourthly, I refer to the political dimension. The growing political dialogue with these three countries is not an EC monopoly. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the North Atlantic Co-operation Council and the Council of Europe, whose president, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) I see in his place, are all closely involved too. But the EC is the club to which the central and east Europeans most want to belong. To help that long-term ambition, to prepare the way and to give a foretaste of what membership involves, the association agreements will set up association councils which will meet once a year at ministerial level to review and build on the agreements.
A committee of officials will assist the council. There will be a political dialogue with the Twelve's machinery for foreign policy co-operation. Already these countries are being influenced by decisions taken by the Twelve.
Fifthly, I must deal with financial arrangements. The agreements do not directly cover financial help, but the record of Community members is good. The Community set up the special PHARE programme of technical assistance, initially for Poland and Hungary but now covering all of eastern Europe. So far, the Community has committed £877 million to these programmes. The agreements promise to continue technical assistance beyond the end of this year.
For these three countries, association agreements bring to an end that chapter of European history which began with the collapse of the Berlin wall. That collapse demonstrated that command economies of the kind favoured by socialists do not work and that the more extreme attempts to make socialism work through communist dictatorship resulted in the cruel and immoral denial of human rights. Secondly, it gave the lie to the fashionable internationalism of the last 40 years that sought to deny that patriotism and the sense of belonging to a nation could—indeed, should—be subsumed under some sort of all-enveloping socialist morality. In the end,

131
it was that sense of belonging that gave Poles, Czechoslovaks and Hungarians the courage to come out into the streets against communism.
Those of us in the west who have consistently advocated free market economies underpinned by democracy—[Interruption.] I recognise that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is not one of them—therefore had a moral duty to move to support these new democracies. That is why it was the British Government who first proposed association agreements in the European Council in Strasbourg in December 1989, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister moved to speed up the negotiations last summer.
These agreements begin to substantiate the euphoria with which we all greeted the arrival of Poland, Czechosolvakia and Hungary into the family of democratic nations. They provide the tools for consolidating democracy and creating a liberal market-oriented economy. [Interruption.] I recognise that the hon. Member for West Derby does not like that sort of economy, but that is the kind of economy we seek, however painful it may be to the hon. Gentleman to hear that.
Britain's leadership in this area, in setting up the association agreements in the first place and pushing for them within the Community, is widely recognised and much appreciated in those countries. We now have to build on the agreements and make them work. We hope to be able to hold the first association councils during our presidency and we hope that the agreements that in the their preamble
"recognise that Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia's ultimate objective is to accede to the Community"
will indeed help them to achieve that objective. In that spirit, I commend the motion to the House.
10.36 pm
Mr. George Robertson: I hesitate to return to the point of order which was made before the debate started, but it is essential to drive, home to the Minister that the way in which we deal with European Community business is wrong and inefficient and should not be tolerated. The Minister underlined the importance of the subject throughout his speech. The way in which the House has been treated is therefore a classic illustration of how the House should not deal with business of such importance.
It is not appropriate that we should receive copies of the documents late on a Thursday afternoon when they are to be debated in the House of Commons on the following Monday. It is intolerable that documents of such consequence as the association agreements, which were signed by the Government on 16 December 1991, are still unavailable to the House of Commons in the middle of February 1992.
It should come as no surprise to the Minister that the Opposition welcome the agreements between the European Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, from what we have been able to read of them up to now. We believe that it is in the interests of those countries and of Europe as a whole that full
132
European Community membership should be seen as the aim of the exercise. We therefore warmly applaud the inclusion in the preamble of the words
"bearing in mind the ultimate objective of the three countries is to become full Community members … this agreement will help to reach this."
We believe that the political stability of the central European new democracies will be secured only by, first, the achievement of economic strength and, secondly, the adaptation of their political, legal and social institutions to the standards that we take for granted in the west of the continent.
These association agreements, or European agreements as they are now called, have to be seen as a first step by us in the still wealthy and politically secure and stable west of the continent to enrol our central European partners in our far from exclusive club. We shall have to go well beyond the measures in the agreements to ensure that full membership is attainable and possible. Much can be done to make that happen, but much still needs to be done.
I should like to share with the House my feelings of last weekend. On Saturday afternoon, I walked for about a mile with my daughter, Rachael, who is 11. There was nothing particularly spectacular or remarkable in that, even for a politician seven weeks away from a general election, but our walk was slightly out of the ordinary. We walked from the Reichstag in Berlin, the future home of the Parliament of the unified Germany, through the Brandenburg gate up the Unter den Linden to the Volkskammer, the defunct Parliament of the now defunct German Democratic Republic.
In a hastily written peroration, the Minister referred to the Berlin wall and its demolition in 1969. I first saw the Berlin wall in 1981 when I visited the city with Brynmor John and other members of Labour's defence team. I could not disguise my revulsion and shock at what the wall looked like and what it represented—a lethal concrete partition down the centre of Europe. It was a division not only between east and west Berlin but between two systems —one corrupt and venal, prostituting the word "socialism" and denying real and vital freedoms, and the other system, which perhaps is imperfect and fickle but which allows its citizens a choice of opinions, goods and futures. We shall exercise that choice in only a few weeks, time.
Like so many other hon. Members, I saw the wall and checkpoint Charlie again and again over the years, and it never ceased to be an obscenity. In 1983, I asked Richard von Weizsacker, then governing mayor of west Berlin and now the first president of the united Germany, whether he thought that I would be able to walk through the Brandenburg gate with my daughter in the year 2001, when she will attain the age of 21. He and I, and I am sure every other Member of the House, thought that that was an impossible dream, but last Saturday my daughter and I did what so many have done since that famous night on 22 December 1989 when the most famous closed road in Europe was opened. It was a moving moment that I will never forget.
I drew two lessons from that walk. First, if we in the west had been able calmly and rationally to choose whether to admit the citizens who lived beyond the Brandenburg gate into the European Community, would we have done so so quickly? Given the basket-case nature of the economy of the German Democratic Republic, would not it have been put a long way down the queue for

133
membership of the Community? The reality is that we had no choice. The GDR united with the Federal Republic of Germany, and had it not done so its citizens would have decamped into the territory of West Germany. Like it or not, they are now full members of the European Community, and the Community has not trembled as a consequence.
The second lesson of our collective sweet relief that the 28-year-old Berlin wall had come down was that we dare not rest on our celebrations. There is a danger—a real and live danger—that one wall will come down and another one, an economic wall, will go up between the club members and failed applicants, between the rich west and the poor unstable countries in the east and between those who enjoy the taste of freedom of movement and those who will be told that we have no room for them and 'will they kindly keep out.' Speaking personally but with some passion, I hope, having experienced that liberating feeling last Saturday in Berlin, I have no intention of letting my daughter grow up in a world in which she will have to fight to get the gates—new economic gates as they may well be —open once again in 20 years' time. In the short term—
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman explain this liberalisation for the people of eastern Europe? According to my reading of the agreements, they state that freer trade and the ability to increase our food mountains depend on those countries first agreeing to the progressive harmonisation of their laws with ours. How does it create liberality in Europe if they have to adopt EC laws so that they can dump their food and add to our dumping?
Mr. Robertson: I shall let the hon. Gentleman continue his private war with members of his Front Bench because he finds that much more enjoyable, and so do they.
Inevitably, we and the people of eastern Europe want to see a harmonisation of their laws with those of the European Community. They are not obliged to do that, but that harmonisation is their target, their wish and their desire. They are willing to work towards that target which they believe will build a strong democracy for them in the future. Perhaps at some distant point in that future—and especially under a Labour Government—some sanity will be brought to the common agricultural policy. We are committed to that, and it is something that the Conservatives have signally failed to achieve in the past 13 years.
In the short term, it is not our aid or our technical assistance that will make the difference to the economic convergence, although it will have a major role to play but trade between west and east. That is the real importance of the European agreements. They will start the process of allowing the central European states to build export markets. Only by selling their goods will they provide jobs and guarantee prosperity for their people. If we close off markets, we risk their economic experiments and our own security. If this fails, we can confidently—
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: No, I shall not. There is a shortage of time. Oh, I shall give way briefly.
Mr. Oppenheim: If time is that short, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have spent less of it talking about his nice stroll through Berlin.
134
He rightly said that it was crucial for eastern Europe that we open our markets to it, but surely if he reads the documents he will find that we are not opening up our markets to eastern Europe—we are keeping them closed for a further five to 10 years. At the very time when those countries are desperately struggling to convert their economies to market economies, we are not practising what we preach, because we are keeping our markets closed to their goods.
Mr. Robertson: These are minimum periods. Yes, perhaps they are too conservative. Perhaps the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports at the moment took too conservative a view, but these agreements for progressive liberalisation of the markets were reached by both sides. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should concentrate his attention on the members of the Government Front Bench rather than on me.
There is a serious danger that if we fail, especially on the issue of trade, we can confidently expect the pressures of immigration to intensify. To expect the possibility of a return to a new and perhaps even more ruthless authoritarianism is certainly not scaremongering.
The director of research for the general agreement on tariffs and trade, Mr. Richard Blackhurst, recently calculated the threat from central and eastern European trade. He pointed out—these are interesting statistics—that in 1988 Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary had a combined share of world trade below that of Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan back in 1970. Since 1970, the Asian four tigers, as they are called, quadrupled their share of world trade, yet it has not had a dramatic impact on western Europe.
To be more specific, in western Europe in 1988, only 1·3 per cent. of all manufactured imports came from the countries of eastern Europe—hardly a real danger to our economic survival. Britain's trade with central Europe lags well behind that of Germany, France and Italy. Those countries see a long-term potential in the new markets in eastern Europe, whereas in Britain a combination of short-term conservative business attitudes and a privatised Export Credits Guarantee Department means that yet again we shall lose.
Aid and assistance is vital if we are all to benefit from the experiment in central Europe. Much has to be done. Fair enough, four fifths of all foreign aid committed to eastern and central Europe has come through the European Community and the PHARE programme has done much, but alongside help from the Group of 24 and the Group of Seven there has been tied aid and guarantees which have not been taken up. Our belated bilateral programme, good as it is in quality and excellent as it is in delivery, is nothing like enough to make a lasting impression.
Next year, our know-how funds for all five countries in central and eastern Europe—I pay tribute to the success of the funds—will amount to the grand total of £30 million. That is the sum to be spent in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania. That is a ludicrously miserable sum when our exports of banking, accounting, management and English language training skills are so popular and so much in demand and there is such a valuable pay-back in the long term.
Mr. Garel-Jones: By how much would Labour propose to increase the know-how fund? Has the hon. Gentleman had clearance from the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. Robertson: We have already made the commitment that there will be an increase in the know-how funds. The precise amount cannot be stated now. The Foreign Office is in no position to give guarantees. We are told that miserable sums will have a deep and lasting impact, yet the Government are not in a position to say how much more will be spent. Outstanding work is being undertaken by the British Council, by our embassy personnel, by organisations such as Voluntary Service Overseas and by other countries, and it should be backed by real money. The United Kingdom could give that money and the countries that we are discussing could use it.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: No, I shall not give way. I am conscious of the limited time that is available for the debate.
Britain is one of the few countries in the European Community still to insist on a rigorous and highly unpopular visa requirement for Poles coming to this country. Can the Minister justify that policy, bearing in mind the fact that Britain stands alone? What will happen to the policy when the agreements take effect?
In the words of the chief negotiator of the Commission, Mr. Pablo Benarides, the agreements are not "an entrance ticket" to the EC. He referred to them as a "kind of trial run". We see them as the start of a process that involves genuine political will to make these countries become members, to help them with the convergence that will be necessary and to ensure that economic and political barriers have no more place in the Europe of tomorrow than they have at present in the heart of Britain.
10.54 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I should like to raise the sights of the House somewhat. The motion mentions the fact that the three nations in question wish to accede to the Community. To do that, they must satisfy a major test, which is to be quite certain that their laws on human rights and elections meet the high standards of the Council of Europe, which has now been recognised by the European Community as the bridge over which the nations can cross to it in the years ahead.
We had to find a way of bringing the nations into association with us. That we did by offering them guest membership of the Council, which gave them the opportunity to participate in our democratic debates, to take part in our committees and to see—after four decades and more—how a democracy worked. I had the great privilege of formulating the rules under which the countries were able to enter the Council of Europe. I did so with the assistance of the hon. Member for Wakefield who, in other circumstances, is my hon. Friend—
Mr. Hardy: Wentworth.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Yes, Wentworth, where there is that ghastly American mess of chemicals which should never have been there.
Between us, the hon. Gentleman and I managed to formulate the arrangements. That has resulted in the full membership of Poland, the Czechoslovak Federal Republic and Hungary, which is far more important than the quibbling over detail that I have heard at least twice tonight.
We must look much wider. I received Lech Walesa in my office in Strasbourg last week—we had about 40 minutes' worth of conversation together—and the major problem that he put to me—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend the Minister allow me? Lech Walesa said that the major problem was that, although the west had paid enormous tributes to Poland for being a pioneer in breaking free, the words had not been matched by deeds, and he was having immense problems in finding a way of converting the Polish economy to the sort of methods that were needed to turn Poland round.
I had also met him four months earlier, when I led the election observer team. On that occasion, the worry was whether Poland would produce a Government that could command a majority in the Sejm. They could not command a majority, and democracy was multi-party.
We now have the opportunity to show the three nations in question that the west is willing to find a way of encouraging their trade. Mr. Walesa told me, "You have been very generous in exporting your goods to our countries so that we spend our money on buying imported goods. We wish that you would give us an opportunity to produce more goods in our country that you would buy." That is what is needed, and I believe that the proposals in the document are a first step.
There is a very real danger that, before too long, if things do not work out properly, we may have a Czech republic and a Slovak republic and there will no longer be a federal republic of the two. That would be a tragedy. If the citizens of the countries can see that democracy pays them dividends—if they have goods to buy at prices that they can afford—we stand a chance of success. If we do not show them that, there is a real risk—as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and my right hon. Friend
138
the Minister said—that the democracies will fail. If they do fail, we in the west will have to take much of the blame for being too protectionist, too little Englander and too unwilling to live up to the reputation that we ought to have —that we aid democracy.
10.58 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) referred to me a moment ago. It is only right that the House should be aware of the considerable contribution that he has made over the past two or three years—not least in being very active in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg during a period of change.
I am very worried indeed about the likely consequence to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Only a week or so ago in Strasbourg, I asked the Chairman of the Council of Ministers whether he was fully aware that, two or three years ago, we were talking about a Europe of 15, and within the next 18 months there is likely to be a Europe of 45.
As Europe has widened, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland have become full members of the Council of Europe, which, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, is a staging post to full membership of the Community of Europe. However, if a mess is made of the development of those three states, the rest of the emerging republics of eastern Europe will face a colossal crisis.
Although I am not critical of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, I am perhaps critical of all other Conservative Members. I believe that Britain and the rest of the Community have made mistake after mistake. It is all very well to say, "Open your countries to democracy and trade." About 18 months ago, I attended an important debate in the Hungarian Parliament, in which advice was offered by people from the right of European and British politics—and perhaps one or two Conservative Members, such as the hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who play such distinguished roles there and who devote a great deal of time to the Council of Europe, were present; I cannot remember.
However, the Polish Prime Minister and the Polish Foreign Secretary and the Czech Prime Minister and Czech Chancellor of the Exchequer were also present. They were advised to copy the philosophy that has dominated our Government: they were told to privatise. They were even given the specific example of the need to sell off their council houses so that the capital receipts would, as in Britain, stimulate their building industries. I had to point out that those capital receipts in Britain were largely frozen, and that that advantage did not apply here.
That may be a petty example, but the fact remains that we have told them that we can offer them a great deal, but they have gained remarkably little advantage. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate said that Lech Walesa had told him that we must deliver what we appear to have promised. We are not doing that. Poland is likely to face a greater economic crisis than it faced before.
The Minister seems to be making the mistake of assuming that Europe will open its doors to agricultural exports. We might; the Danes might and the Dutch might. Even the Germans might. However, does the Minister seriously believe that the French, Spanish or Greeks will be happy to allow the agricultural exports from

139
Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Poland to enter their countries? Would there be no protests from French farmers as Czechoslovakian, Hungarian and Polish agricultural products sought to enter their markets? We are in danger of leading the newly emergent countries of eastern Europe into believing that the west will be as co-operative as the west appears to promise.
As I have said, within two years there will be a Europe of 45. It is possible to list the various republics that will comprise that number. It is less than two years since Finland became the 23rd member state of the Council of Europe when we celebrated its 40th anniversary. One can only marvel at the pace of change politically in Europe. That change embraces the concept of extensions of human rights which are politically highly desirable. Unless the political change is matched by an economic wisdom that none of us has yet perceived and which is scarcely discernible, given the appalling way in which the House is kept informed of changes in Europe—
Mr. Garel-Jones indicated dissent.
Mr. Hardy: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. How much opportunity has the House had to consider properly the dramatic changes that have taken place in Europe? Leaving aside the contribution of Opposition Members, how much of an opportunity has the House had to consider the contribution made by the Government in pursuit of those changes?
We are having a late-night debate when the House is scarcely given a proper opportunity to see documents or to consider the facts. Specious promises are offered in a document that seems to present much but actually offers little. It is time that, in Britain and in the rest of western Europe, we saw much more vision and common sense. The serious political changes that are now taking place are not being matched by anything like mature economic consideration.
One cannot say that the debate takes us any further, except of course, that it gives one the opportunity to pay tribute to some Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, who has become the President of the Council of Europe and who deserves rather more consideration than he has been given by some of his hon. Friends.
11.4 pm
Mr. David Howell: There surely can be no doubt that the draft interim agreements are a modest but most definite step in the direction that we all want to see, which is the creation throughout Europe of a great confederation of free republics and monarchies—free democracies—operating free markets and achieving market prosperity. That is the aim for which the previous generation fought the second world war. At the end, those people were cheated and they found that half of Europe had been cut off and denied the democracy, free enterprise and markets that brought great prosperity to western Europe.
This is clearly the right step forward. It is not, of course, anything near the certain road to full membership, which I should like to see. The small print of the draft agreements shows that although the parties seeking to associate themselves—the troika of Poland, the Czech and Slovak
140
federal republic and Hungary—believe that by signing them the objective of membership is recognised, that is a rather one-sided affair. It is only on their side that there is hope that they will achieve that objective. There is no guarantee provided by the signatories of the Community that it will lead to membership. The reality is that that prospect lies a considerable way away, whether we like it or not.
I agree with the eloquent words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who plays such a distinguished part in the Council of Europe, that if those countries fail, will be our failure. If they do not succeed, having thrown off tryanny and making it all the way to open and free societies, the cost for us will not merely be that we blame ourselves; there will be direct and ugly costs in terms of destabilisation, migrant movements and pressures which could be very unsettling. There would be a weakness in the whole economic flank of western Europe, and even darker forces could be unleashed to upset the tranquility of the previous 40 years in western Europe on which one will look back. The stakes are very high and they must, by all efforts, succeed. If, in the long run, we do not allow the goods to come into western Europe and, indeed, into the wider world, the people will. That will be an awful trade-off, and there will be very little that we can do to prevent it.
Those must be the long-run aims. They will be very long run, for obvious reasons. First, although the economies about which we are talking have begun to be transformed, they are still far from being anything like market economies and far from operating sensible price structures. There is no way in which, tomorrow morning, they could link into full-blown, treaty of Rome, Commission-negotiated membership of the classic Community.
Secondly, whether we like it or not—some hon. Members clearly do not like it at all, and I understand why —the agricultural interests of western Europe, already under seige and deeply protected, will not allow the vast agricultural output of those countries—for example, the huge arable output of the Danubian plain and the vast meat output of Poland—to come rolling into western Europe or, possibly, on to world markets. There is no question of full membership in that sense being permitted for many years to come—indeed, it is very hard to see at this stage how that could ever happen.
The third reason why there will be resistance to full membership is enlargement indigestion. Earlier this afternoon, we debated the arrival of the "Eftans" in the European economic area agreement. Five of them are rapidly lining up to become full members of the Community. Most of them want to do so by 1995. The bureaucrats of the Community look on that alone with great alarm. The prospect of the further three being full members, even by the year 2000, fills people with dismay, particularly those who believe passionately in the original tight-knit European Community structure as set out by the treaty of Rome.
Those of us who want a change of direction to a wider Europe believe that with enlargement, provided that the process is handled carefully, a European union better than the one that we have at present can be created. That is certainly my wish. But for those who operate the finer points of the negotiation inside the Commission, enlargement at this speed, involving not merely the five "Eftans" but the three which are the subject of the

141
association agreements and many other countries besides, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) suggested, is a dangerous prospect. It could dilute and fundamentally change the Community as we know it.
I wish to ask three questions about the scene that lies before us with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. First, to what extent will the draft association agreements fill part of the gap and meet any of the immediate need of the three new democracies? Of course they will help, but I am not sure that they are enough. The need of those countries is obviously not merely to get some trade going, to have know-how support, project aid and budget aid and to have their currencies finally stabilised; it is psychologically to feel that for certain they are part of the European community—community with a small "c", the community of the free Europe—and that they will not be sucked back into any form of militarism or fascism, particularly with the vortex of chaos developing on their eastern flank in the extremely shaky Commonwealth of Independent States.
These countries want firm links of a political nature that will begin to bind them into the freer and wider Europe that we all want to see. I hope that it will be the absolute priority of the British Government during our presidency to ensure that the association agreements are not only put in place fully—that must be so—but thickened and developed and that they offer more than merely signatures on bits of paper with officials then saying, "Goodbye, we are off to Brussels again, see you in a few years." That would not be good enough.
We need to think in terms of stronger political links now for the three countries, which are all in extreme danger. Living standards are falling in all of them. Even in Hungary, which we think of as successful, living standards are precarious. As a result, the democracies are precarious. The countries are living on a diet of hope and prayer and the belief that just round the corner a few years away there really will be a turnaround, or on a diet of overspill of deutschmarks from the vastly funded former East Germany which is their neighbour. But it is a precarious existence and it could collapse at any moment.
The three countries need support now and we have to think about how that can be given. Of course, the small print of the association agreements offers more than just the hope of some asymmetrical lowering of trade barriers and the distance promise of a little agricultural trade one day. The agreements offer a political consultation procedure and imply that Heads of Government and Ministers of the three countries and the leaders of western Europe will met regularly. That will help. Some network of closer links can be developed there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate spoke about the Council of Europe and he has personally given great leadership on that front. It clearly provides—"waiting room" is the wrong phrase—a place where the new democracies can stand shoulder to shoulder with, exchange views with and begin to understand the new world which they have joined and to which they are welcome.
On the security side, there is the famous North Atlantic Consultative Council, which is NATO's attempt, if not to extend its guarantees, to extend some shadow of security to eastern European countries. They need it. They need a security framework. That is on offer, but the NACC is a
142
large club. It includes all the successor states of the former Soviet Union and it may not be enough. The countries of eastern Europe will probably need something else.
We have to ask why we cannot link Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia now with other aspects of the new European union that we have just invented. At Maastricht we set up not a European Community—that is the past —but a European union, which includes the Community and the new pillars of foreign and security policy and other policies.
There is no reason why there should not be ministerial-level collaboration on a formal basis with those countries, so that, without facing the full rigours of the market or the full requirements of the negotiating procedures of the Commission, they can be involved, here and now, in a European entity. That could even be a political union, or the greater European union that many of us want to see and that will take us far beyond, and wider than, the old EC.
I welcome what has been done, but it is only a start. We are looking now, as we did in the earlier debate about the EFTA countries' membership of the European economic area, at the shape of the European union to come. It is not like the past. Maastricht was not a stepping stone to another bout of the same kind of Europe. Thanks not least to the vast skills that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary used in their negotiations, it was, as we shall see when we debate ratification, a change of direction for Europe. It was a move towards a union that will be a home for these new democracies. We fought a war to bring freedom to them and failed. Now, we have another chance.
11.15 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I wish first to associate myself most warmly with the remarks made by the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). Both struck exactly the right note, and put the debate in proportion. The election of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate as president of the Council of Europe following the resignation of Anders BjÖrck is well-deserved, and we can see why he deserved it from what he said.
I shall not repeat what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said about the debate, but I associate myself with it entirely. It makes a mockery of all this stuff about the pre-eminence of Parliament if we do not have the documents and are given a mere weekend's notice. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the documents were available on Friday, but everyone knows where Members of Parliament are on Friday—in their constituencies. Then we are given only an hour and a half for the debate. It is not very good, is it?
As hon. Members have said, what we are debating is of the greatest importance not only for Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, but for the former Soviet Union. The move to democracy in these three countries has coincided with the break-up of the Soviet union. Their position, as forward examples of the success of the free economy, is of the greatest importance.
The explanatory memorandum refers in its first paragraph to the association agreement being founded on a United Kingdom proposal. I am sure that this is correct, but I would be happier if we stopped boasting about our

143
role when the help that we give in trade and aid is noticeably less than that given by others. The increase in trade achieved by the three countries with the west has, to a small extent, offset the loss of commerce with the Soviet Union, but it has been with Germany, which is now the major trading partner of all these three countries. Germany has likewise been in the lead in providing aid. When I recall the remarks made in the Chamber after the unification of Germany, about the threat that it would represent—some of the more notable came from a right hon. Member who was at that time a Minister—I think that those who made them should hang their heads in shame.
As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, the political stability of central Europe is of the utmost importance, but equally the restructuring of economies there can be seen to be of enormous complexity and difficulty. Goodness knows, the Germans are finding this in what was East Germany, and the situation in these three countries is more difficult still because they do not have the resources that the Germans can provide or the expertise for the managerial takeover in which they are engaged.
At the end of last year, I was one of the Council of Europe observers at the Polish elections and spent a cold, snowy day in Poznan, which was the scene of terrible riots many years ago. It was very orderly and quiet—almost dull. The turnout was miserable—under 40 per cent.—and, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has already mentioned, representation was hugely fragmented.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said that if visible progress was not made in an acceptable period there would be the danger of a return to authoritarianism. That is certainly not impossible, for hunger drives out democracy very quickly. The hon. Gentleman was also right to point to the size of the know-how fund: £30 million is not insignificant, certainly, but it will not make all that much of an impression. The Minister may ask, "How much would you make it?" I am not in the business of doing that sort of thing; I am simply saying that I am tired of people being self-congratulatory about what they are not entitled to congratulate themselves about.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth and the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) were right to pay particular attention to the difficulties affecting agriculture. I am equally sure, however, that the idea of triangular trade—in other words, helping the countries to export to what was the Soviet Union—is the easiest solution, at least in the short term.
We are talking about transition from a communist economy to a free economy; we are talking, we hope, about a transition that willl lead to membership of the European Community—some years hence, but within a perceptible period. We are talking about how we can help in that process. The proposals are certainly a step forward, but I do not think that we should congratulate ourselves too much: a good deal more is needed.
11.21 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: Until the Maastricht summit, there was, in my view, a real danger that the iron curtain would be replaced by a silver curtain dividing the rich from the poor in Europe, and that the Community would commit itself to ever-greater union
144
without regard to the rest of the continent. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has just reminded us, it is thanks to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's insistence that the negotiations of last summer have led to the agreements that we are discussing.
Nevertheless, the agreements have not come before time, given that the democratic revolutions in the countries concerned took place over two years ago; nor do they reflect the enormous scale of the problems that those countries face as they attempt to move from central, planned economies to a free market, with the ending of subsidies, the inflation and unemployment that are inevitable in such transitions and the social and industrial unrest that is happening in all three countries to varying degrees.
We need only look at the defence industries of the three countries—we are debating this at the Western European Union in December—to see the extent of the devastation that their economies now face. Czechoslovakia's defence industry alone faces a decline of 80 per cent., and the lack of research and development is rendering the remaining 20 per cent. obsolete. Poland's huge over-capacity in the manufacture of arms and equipment offers little hope of conversion, while Hungary's defence industry is almost non-existent; what is left of it now faces bankruptcy.
We can and do provide help and technical assistance through the Community's PHARE programme, and through our own know-how fund. It is, however, the opportunity to trade—to sell to the rest of us in the Community, through a reduction in the number of barriers—that represents the most immediate and practical help that we can offer now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) said a few moments ago, the agreements provide for a transitional period of up to 10 years. That can be of no help when help is most wanted—now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) mentioned the private conversation that he had with President Walesa when he visited the Council of Europe two weeks ago. No wonder he reminded the parliamentary Assembly that it was his country that had cracked communism and freed the West from the cold war, which had, in turn, enabled us to reap the peace dividend. He felt that he was entitled to more help than that provided by the agreement. How right he is.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can assure the House that more opportunities to trade will soon be available to those three countries than those contained in the agreements. I hope that he can assure us that all the remaining COCOM restrictions against those countries will be lifted—none of them pose any threat to us now. I hope that he can confirm that the agreements will be extended to include the emerging democracies of eastern Europe, which will soon qualify for full membership of the Council of Europe. Bulgaria almost certainly qualifies, as it recently held elections. The Baltic states, Romania as well as Slovenia and Croatia, which we have now recognised, will also soon qualify for membership. Even Albania, which is in such desperate need of help now, will become eligible for membership.
Within the Balkans and other parts of central and eastern Europe there is growing, worrying evidence of a gradual but persistent return to old practices—hostility against minorities, conflict within states and friction, even conflict, between some of those states. It was the precise aim of the original European Community to ensure that

145
each member state had a vested interest in avoiding such conflicts. That principle must now apply throughout the continent, not just through the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, the CSCE, but through free trade. That is the only way in which democracy will succeed and human rights can be guaranteed.
The agreements are just the start. They must be extended as soon as possible.
11.26 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: There are many political and economic matters of overwhelming importance, but I do not apologise for returning to the issue of the architectural and artistic heritage of Bohemia.
I believe that I speak for the Minister's hon. Friends, the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), for Milton Keynes (Mr. I3enyon) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) as well as for Lord Craythorne and Lady David and others who had the good fortune to go on the all-party heritage group trip to Prague for three days.
The issue relates to thefts that are occurring in the present circumstances. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has written to me about this:
"It is indeed ironic that the coming of democracy has brought with it regrettable incidents of this kind."
The Foreign Office has confirmed that it too has evidence of thefts, particularly of wood carvings, The Minister also said:
"This is, of course, a matter for the Czechoslovak police, who will, no doubt, do their best to prevent thefts of this kind. But they are at present going through a major process of change."
We should help them in that process of change. The Minister says that we are providing such help, but what precise help has been given and how much are we giving through the know-how fund? Comparatively small sums could do a great deal to save much of that heritage.
The Minister also noted that a police advisory team had been sent to Czechoslovakia, and said:
"This has been very useful and we understand that the team's recommendations are being followed up. A more efficient police force, better able to deal with criminal activities, and more publicly accountable, should be the result of the changes."
Since that letter of January, has the Foreign Office monitored those changes? The Minister accepted in that letter:
"There are, of course, practical problems in preventing this particular kind of crime. As you say, many of the carvings are in run-down churches, often in remote areas. It would be virtually impossible for all to be protected sufficiently to prevent thefts."
I recall one moving incident in Czechoslovakia when we got off our bus, suddenly and unexpectedly, and the local people locked the British parliamentarians inside the church. We were a bit surprised at that, but, on reflection, it was all too obvious that they had been subject to such raids on their own shrines on previous occasions, which they had been unable to do much about. Understandably, they were suspicious of us.
The letter goes on:
"The final point of control within Czechoslovakia is, of course, at the border. While border controls have been relaxed since the revolution in 1989, Czechoslovak customs officers are, I am sure, on the look-out for items of this kind.
146
Given the economic circumstances of many of those customs officers, we should not be too surprised if there is often a nod and a wink. That is the point of my intervention. The Foreign Office has a moral obligation to talk seriously to the London art market—and to the art markets of Munich, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Vienna, as well as New York and San Fransisco. If we are serious about doing something, we must ensure that considerable sums of money are not to be made out of Czechoslovakia in the fruitful western art market. I hope that the Government will do something about that.
The group had a meeting of an hour and three quarters with Mr. Dubcek, and many other meetings with Czechs and Slovaks. As one who is immersed in the problems of minorities, I think that it would be tragic if, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said, a situation developed in which those two peoples drifted apart. No one can know the future, and the west has a moral obligation to do as much as possible to prevent that from happening.
11.31 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: First, I pay a speedy tribute to my Council of Europe colleagues on both sides of the House, including the Liberal spokesman on European affairs, for their contribution to such debates, which often take place in the Council of Europe's meeting place in Strasbourg and other places. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the meeting that took place in Hungary.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been reticent about suggesting how much money should be spent. I shall be courageous or stupid enough to suggest a figure. Three and a half years ago, I proposed to the Council of Europe the outlines of what was loosely labelled a "Strasbourg plan". The price ticket on it was £400 billion spread over four years. The figure was not simply scratched out of the sky but was an extrapolation of what the United States gave to western Europe in far easier circumstances after the second world war in support of the Marshall plan, and I have brought it up to today's prices.
It is worth mentioning that, if only to draw to the House's attention the fact that, however much we are doing—we can be proud of what the Government are doing in support of know-how and of what the European Community is doing through PHARE—it is so small compared to what we should be doing to ensure the development of democracies and free economies in those countries. They have the knowledge and desperate desire to succeed, yet they cannot do so—not for lack of trade opportunities, although those must be given, but for lack of know-how, investment and wherewithal.
11.34 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of some of the reservations that I have expressed about how the European Community develops, but I hope that he will not be surprised to hear me welcome the association agreements with these three countries. I regard this as an important widening of the European Community. There are jolly good and sound political and strategic reasons for accommodating these three countries. It is desirable to help them towards full

147
membership. They are historically and culturally part of Europe and they are industrious nations which are by inclination capitalist.
The Minister spoke about reducing trade barriers. It is important to encourage trade, because trade rather than aid will ultimately lead to the prosperity that we want these countries to enjoy. However, we are on the horns of a dilemma, because the last thing that western Europe needs at present is more food, in which it is in surplus. There is enormous potential in those eastern European countries, but given the profit motive, modern plant and machinery and access to western technology, they will produce much more food than Europe can consume.
I understand the case for facilitating trade in agricultural products. We have to start somewhere, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) said, some of the industrial products of those countries are no longer in demand. For example, there is no demand for armaments. Possibly the only feasible trade that we can encourage is in agricultural products. We must not encourage additional trade in those products without paying regard to its effect upon United Kingdom farmers; nor can we ignore the legitimate concern of consumers about the health and hygiene standards applied to agricultural products from eastern Europe. Hon. Members will know that no country in Europe has the equivalent of our food safety Acts.
Help to eastern Europe cannot extend to lowering or waiving the food standards that we regard as important for the protection of our consumers. United Kingdom farmers and consumers will want the Minister's assurance that there will be a level playing field, even though we want to do all that we can to encourage trade with these nations. I trust that the Minister will assure the House that there will be no compromise on food standards.
11.57 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: There has been some discussion about the non-availability of documents. However, the content of the documents and the drift of the negotiations have been widely reported for some time, and I understand that the documents were available to the Select Committee last month. To say that the documents were suddenly made available last week is not entirely accurate. It is worth reflecting on the difficulty that sometimes arises in the EC of getting documents finalised. I shall not dwell on the matter, because we are dealing with rather wider issues.
In many ways, the documents are deeply disappointing. Both Front-Bench speakers engaged in much high-sounding talk about the need for liberalisation and for trade. The documents are deeply protectionist. They show that, at the very time when eastern Europe needs to trade with us and when countries there are struggling to open their economies, to turn them into market economies and to wrench them away from the dead hand of central control and central planning, we are preaching the sort of free market policies that we are not prepared to put into practice.
We are saying that we will not open our markets to their goods for the next five to 10 years. At the end of that period, European industries and special interest groups which have pleaded so strongly for continuing trade
148
barriers will be back asking for more. Even within the limited agreements, it is not clear from the documents—but it is clear from secret agreements that have been leaked to the Financial Times—that even the goods that the eastern European countries will be allowed to sell to the European Community will be strictly limited by price support and price maintenance agreements. So those eastern European industries will not be able to undercut the industries of the EC. So much for free trade and free markets.
These documents maintain barriers against the very types of low added value, unsophisticated products that the eastern European countries could sell to western Europe: food, steel, textiles and coal. The EC, for all its benefits, has unfortunately become the prisoner of special interest groups and industrial lobbies which find access to the EC's decision-making processes far easier than do the mass of voters or those who represent wider consumer interests.
I do not blame the Government for these documents, because we had to negotiate at the EC and I know that the Government adopted a more liberal approach at the EC, but I wish that our Government had pushed a little harder. Our own Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took a slightly disreputable stance on some issues, especially raspberries. To protect a small group of farmers in this country, strict limits were placed on imports from countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary.
Mr. Ernie Ross: When I tell the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), he will be looking for you.
Mr. Oppenheim: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not carry out that threat.
It is small-minded of the EC to adopt this attitude. Ultimately, it will not help us; it will raise prices in western Europe and the EC. Protection and the lack of competition will not really help these industries—they never do. Indeed, it is in the long-term economic interests of the EC to move out of precisely this type of low added value, unsophisticated industry.
There has been a great deal of talk in recent months about aid for eastern Europe. What these countries need even more than aid is the ability to trade. Unfortunately, the documents do not give them as wide an ability to trade as they really need. If, over the next few years, the slow steps towards market economies and proper democracy falter in eastern Europe, a large measure of responsibility for that will rest with the European Community and the industries which have lobbied for these protectionist measures—because they have been too small-minded at such an important juncture in the history of Europe.
11.42 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I shall deal mainly with the agricultural issue, because that seems to preoccupy Members most. If I do not have a chance to reply to all the other issues that have been raised, I shall make sure that a reply is given later—[Interruption.] I refer, for instance, to Polish visas, about which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is muttering.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and to all hon. Members who serve on the Council of Europe for their

149
work with that body. I might be expected to sympathise with anyone who has the sense to meet in Strasbourg, given my past.
I want to address the issue head on. Agriculture is a sensitive issue. There is no point in pretending that it deals in products like any other. The Community is struggling under its heavy surpluses and heavy budgetary costs, as well as the heavy economic costs of agriculture. Member states are necessarily reticent about liberalising trade if that will have a displacement effect in increasing the costs of the policy.
The fact is that every country was involved in the agreement, one or two member states with slightly more reluctance than others. Once these products enter the Community, they circulate freely throughout it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) mentioned raspberries, which illustrate the dilemma. We have faced a long-running problem with imports of raspberries from the countries of eastern Europe. The fruit tends to go into the processing and jamming industry. It competes with the raspberries grown on Tayside in Scotland. As a result, the industry there has found itself in severe straits. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) would endorse the remark that Mr. MacSharry has promised a structural plan for the Tayside raspberry growers, but it has been a long time coming: we are now promised it for April.
Should we say that it is best to give processors the lowest-cost raw materials, and bring in raspberries, which are then treated with some sort of preservative—they are then eventually made into jam, with the assistance of dyes to restore their red colour—or should we decide to achieve a balance between those interests and the interests of the producers in the EC, given the cost structures under which they labour?
At the end of the day, does it benefit the people in the countries of eastern Europe if they put products on the European market at prices that cannot be sustained and that do not represent a fair economic return to them? It is a genuine dilemma. It is impossible to satisfy everybody. One has to devise a mean, and that is what we have tried to do. I hope that my hon. Friends do not think that we have been too disreputable in doing that, but it is an issue that has to be tackled.
Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were given reduced quotas for all the agricultural products for which they asked for concessions. The starting point was the current level. The tariff quota system means that, as the quantity rises, so the levy is reduced. The rise in quantity is 10 per cent. a year over five years—that is simple, not compound—giving a 50 per cent. improvement. The levy is reduced by 20 per cent. a year for three years, amounting to a 60 per cent. reduction.
The products most likely to be used for trading purposes are beef, sheepmeat—where there is already a voluntary restraint agreement—pigmeat, the only area where the quantities concerned start at a slightly higher level than is already being sent, poulty, where the United Kingdom already imposes fairly stringent animal health rules so that precious little poultry comes from eastern Europe at the moment, and cereals, where previously there were large exports to the German Democratic Republic. That was the magic market for products from eastern Europe, but the market has virtually disappeared.
Skimmed milk powder, butter, cheese and horticultural products are likely to reach the United Kingdom more
150
than others because of the ease of transport. The generalised scheme of preferences concessions already given to these countries cover mainly pigmeat, poultry and horticulture, and are consolidated in the agreement.
Some people ask why all this produce does not go to the former Soviet Union, since that would be by far the easiest solution. The answer is that the increase in the quota can be offset against what is called triangular trade. Some member states would like that to continue for as long as possible, because it keeps that produce away from the European marketplace.
France, Germany and the others have agreed to open their borders to agricultural produce. All the other member states have signed the association agreements. The Community is a single market. Imports crossing the frontiers can come to any member state. The Mediterranean countries are likely to have less difficulty over imports, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned, because their products compete less with the kind of products that come from eastern Europe.
It is difficult to estimate the costs of the common agricultural policy. There are many variables. There is uncertainty about how reform of the common agricultural policy will work out. There is also uncertainty about the outcome of the GATT negotiations, and therefore about the prospects for world markets and the unit costs of export refunds—one of the essential components in determining the costs of the CAP.
There is great uncertainty over the extent to which Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia can maintain their traditional links with the former Soviet Union, to which a great deal of their trade was geared. On my recent visit to east Germany, I went to the Treuhand, where an attempt is being made to privatise a whole raft of companies. The great problem is that the output of many of those companies is geared towards the market in the Soviet Union which virtually ceased to exist overnight.
Collectively, the three countries produce about the same volume, in output terms, as the old West Germany. If, therefore, a substantial proportion went to European Community markets and if the unit costs of surplus disposals were not reduced, there could be a significant increase in the budgetary cost of the common agricultural policy. But "you pays your money and you takes your choice". If one chooses to liberalise and says, rightly, that a certain commodity is the one that these countries have most readily to sell to the west, that it is our duty to help them and that therefore we must accept a certain level of imports, we cannot say at the same time, "We're awfully sorry, but we must pretend that no cost is involved in doing this." That must be part of the political decision-making process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is concerned about health standards. I recognise that farmers say, "We're quite willing to help. We understand that health standards are needed, but will it be a level playing field? Are we going to find that cheap, nasty or unhealthy products come on to the European market while pressure is put upon us to upgrade our standards, to observe the rules and to pay the costs of upgrading those standards?" The answer, when dealing with livestock products, is that they can be shipped only from abattoirs that meet standards that have been approved by the European Community. If a product does not meet animal health rules or if there is an animal health concern such as

151
Newcastle disease in poultry or offal from eastern Europe for the pet food industry, it does not enter the United Kingdom.
Under the Food Safety Act 1990, we can inspect products as they come in from third countries, and if they present a risk they can be returned. Documentary and identity checks are made—we look in the boxes that come from third countries. Where undertakings have been given about the quality and status of the product, we shall enforce those requirements. It does importers no good if they get a reputation for sending produce that is not up to standard, any more than it does the United Kingdom any good to accept products that pose a threat to health standards. The third countries know that they must address that genuine concern.
The hon. Member for Hamilton gave us his personal memories of the Berlin wall. We all recognise that such an emotional charge is legitimate—anyone who had not faced the events of the past few years with some emotion would be less than a normal human being—but we cannot sustain the east European countries on the basis of continuing emotion. We must offer practical help that we can sustain; we must be able to afford it, or we shall end up in conflict.
The agreement is the first step towards such sustained association, eventually leading to membership. The decisions were difficult, but it is a substantial form of help. It is the most practical help, and it is to be welcomed as the first stage in eventual greater union in the EC that will embrace those countries.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give an undertaking to approach the arts markets in relation to the Bohemian carvings?
Mr. Curry: If the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were to approach the arts markets, they would
152
regard it with a certain curiosity. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and no doubt he will wish to take his suggestion to heart.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 29th November 1991, relating to Association Agreements between the Community and its Member States and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and European Community Document No. 10561/91, relating to interim agreements between the Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia; welcomes the principle of Association Agreements between the European Community and the reforming democracies of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia; recognises that these Agreements will offer them substantial benefits by encouraging trade with the Community, enhancing political co-operation, and strengthening links with the European Community to which these countries have expressed a wish to accede; and looks forward to early ratification of the Agreements.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  COMMUNITY AIRPORTS (SLOTS)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees).
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4496/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 3rd February 1992, relating to the allocation of slots at Community airports; notes that the principle of efficient, neutral and transparent airport co-ordination is in line with the Government's aims; notes the strengths of the existing worldwide system of slot allocation; and endorses the Government's intention to respond to the draft Regulation on the premise that any change to the system should benefit users without creating practical difficulties for the civil aviation industry, and without substantially extending the role of governments in slot allocation.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.

Transport (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
11.52 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I welcome the opportunity to debate the transport difficulties that many Londoners experience. London has high unemployment, housing shortages and hospital and education needs, but the transport needs of the capital are high on the list of any London Member.
We can all make statements and give facts and figures on any issue, but after 12 years of Conservative Government one cannot see any major ongoing improvement in the transport services of London. Indeed, not only Members of Parliament but many outside organisations regard a strategic planning authority to co-ordinate all aspects of transport in London as a major issue. We are still waiting for such an authority, but its establishment will be one of the top priorities of the incoming Labour Government. It is common sense to introduce such a policy because, throughout the 32 London boroughs, one often finds that one borough has absolutely no idea of the road development plans or traffic policy of the adjoining borough.
Whenever one opens one's post, one can be certain that some letters will express concern about London's transport systems. One has only to sit in on Transport questions to hear the complaints. As I read the correspondence that I receive, I often wonder why we are in such a mess in London. Why is public transport so unattractive for so many people?
We have just had a debate involving members of the Council of Europe. I am also a member of the Council of Europe and I very often use public transport in European cities and towns. We have many meetings in Paris: when one compares the Paris metro with the London underground, one finds in Paris an efficient, clean and much cheaper service than that in London, and people use the system in Paris. The entire network has modern trains; stations are being modernised and there is a real commitment by Governments—irrespective of their political complexion—to public transport. If only the same thing had happened in this country, the criticism that hon. Members and I make would not be applicable.
I shall deal now with the underground services affecting my constituency. To his credit, about 18 months ago the Minister for Public Transport came to my constituency and travelled on the Northern line, so he knows the problems and complaints. However, it is still an utter disgrace that we expect thousands of people to travel on that line. The Northern line is not the only problem, but it goes through my constituency. There is a continuing problem of escalators that do not work. At Tooting Bec station, one escalator is out of action and I am told that it will remain so for a considerable time. That causes various problems for people who want to use that station.
Against that background, fares are increased year by year. Even so, the Minister is not able to say, "Yes, I agree that fares are high, but look at the quality of the service that the commuters get for paying high fares." The tragedy is that they do not get a good service.
It is the same story with buses.
Mr. Martin Redmond: I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that bus services in south Yorkshire were deregulated, and there is mention of bus deregulation in London. The public were told at the time that they would have a better service and cheaper fares. We have had a worse service, complaints from all over Doncaster—indeed, from all over South Yorkshire—fewer passengers and higher fares, and the public can no longer afford to use the effective transport service that we used to have. I warn my hon. Friend to beware of Government promises about deregulation. The Minister might want to comment on that.
Mr. Cox: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I was going to mention deregulation briefly because it is obviously being mentioned more and more in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) specialises in this subject and I know that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will want to contribute to the debate.
What is the Government's vision for buses and road policy in general? A few years ago, the London assessment studies were carried out and vast sums of money were going to be spent on supposed road improvements. The area that I represent was to get the western environmental route improvement scheme. But once the general public became aware of what the scheme would do to the community, they rebelled, with the result that the proposed system was conveniently dropped. When schemes of that sort were under discussion, vast sums were to be allocated. Many of us would like to know where the money has gone that was set aside for road development schemes in many areas of London. Has it been used to fund other improvements in the transport system?
The Minister may say that red routes are part of the Government's policy. I can only say that they constitute a scheme that has not caught the imagination of the community in Islington. By and large, it has seen no improvements as a result of the introduction of the red route. Indeed, traders have faced additional obstacles during a difficult trading period.
In January, the Freight Transport Association published a document entitled "Transport Dilemma". Among other things, it called for better-quality public transport that would be supported financially by government, with pump-priming investment subsidies. Are we to hear from the Minister that there is a real commitment? Whatever has been invested by the Government over recent years, it has not developed the transport system. Investment has ensured only that the service continues to run while attempts have been made to improve existing services. The services that so many of us believe are needed urgently have not been developed.
What has Government funding amounted to when set against the moneys that have been sought by London Transport over a three-year period? What Government assistance was London Transport seeking and what did the Government give it to enable improvements to be made? It will do no good for the Minister to say that there are difficulties, that the country faces problems and that there must be restraint. London Members and London commuters say that there have been no good years. There have been no years during which those who run the buses or the underground service in London have been able to

155
say, "How well the Government have responded to us." Year by year, that which was sought has not been approved.
It cannot be said that Britain is a poor country. The North sea has brought us enormous wealth. Whatever we may think of privatisation, enormous sums have come into the country as a result of it. The two sources have produced astronomical figures. How much of that money has been used to introduce improvements, especially in education? I shall bring my remarks to an end because I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
In a few weeks' time, we shall be facing a general election. Whatever the smears and abuses—sadly, the start of the campaign has introduced them already—there will be real issues, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said, the general public in London and the rest of the United Kingdom will want to know where the parties stand. In my view, no issue will be of greater interest than where the parties stand on public transport.
We have seen what the Government have done in the past 12 years. We have had neither improvements nor the Government commitment that there should have been. I am sure that the public will welcome the opportunity when the election comes to pass judgment on the Government's record and decide what they believe an incoming Labour Government can do. That will be the real test, and many of us will welcome the opportunity for the people to judge the Government's record and to decide on the basis of that record.
12.5 am
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for having raised this matter tonight, and to the Minister for attending the debate at short notice.
One party—the Prime Minister, no less—has made his position clear, certainly on the matter of buses. On deregulation elsewhere, the right hon. Gentleman's citizens charter says:
"Deregulation has produced an expansion of both long-distance coach and local bus services and … passengers now enjoy a far wider variety of operation and services than before … We now intend to extend the benefits of a deregulated bus industry to London".
Of course, it will be privatised, too.
I was very surprised at the news, and wrote to the Prime Minister because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) pointed out, in other metropolitan areas of Britain, the reverse is happening. In my hon. Friend's part of the world—South Yorkshire—passenger mileage fell by 21 per cent. between 1986 and 1988. In Merseyside, it was 30 per cent.
I wrote to the Prime Minister and pointed that out. On 22 August, he replied—ironically, as it turns out tonight—
"The evidence from outside London shows clearly that deregulation has resulted in a more innovative approach to the provision of bus services, with an increase in the number of buses and in total bus mileage operated. If you wish to pursue this point further, I am sure Roger Freeman will be able to cite chapter and verse".
156
The right hon. Gentleman may be able to say that bus mileage has increased, but bus numbers fell by 3,000 in the metropolitan areas, as returns to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities showed.
It is ironic that, in answer to a parliamentary question on 22 July—during the very month in which the charter was published—the Secretary of State for Transport praised London Transport thus:
"London Transport … has done so much already to improve the quality of services provided by buses in London."
I would not altogether go along with that—especially as LT has had its subsidies from taxpayers and charge payers cut. Having praised London Transport, however, the Government intend to deregulate and privatise all at once, and take us back to the days of the private buses and transport chaos that existed in London before LT was created in 1933—with all-party agreement, I might add—and became a world model transport agency.
We have a degree of integration in transport. The travelcard, which is well advertised, is an example. In the answer that I quoted, the Secretary of State said:
"The Government will be working actively with operators in the coming months to encourage them to come up with their own proposals for such schemes after deregulation."
That refers to the travelcard. The Secretary of State's reply continued:
"It was therefore decided that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to legislate to secure the future of the present Travelcard scheme or to ensure that a suitable successor scheme is devised."
So there is to be no legislation for that.
What about the rightly prized old-age pensioner's travelcard, brought in by the Greater London council, which was a boon to all London's pensioners? The Government rightly say that that will continue, but it is important to note that the answer to which I referred says:
"The London boroughs will have the same discretion as local authorities elsewhere to vary the terms of their concessionary arrangements. However, they will … be required to operate a Londonwide discretionary travel scheme."—[Official Report, 22 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 333–36.]
However, there is a choice to charge, and the boroughs do not charge at the moment.
Why was that included if not to allow some authorities, the political persuasions of which I can guess, the freedom to charge? We had a great battle in the early 1970s all over London because some Tory authorities were unwilling to contribute. We managed to get over that, but the parliamentary answer to which I referred clearly threatens to put the clock back.
As I said, London's transport became the envy of the world in the 1930s. It was an integrated system that was willed by the House and by the people of London. It was owned by the people of London. Long ago, we had our own tram services in East Ham and West Ham. They were later converted to trolley buses. We own the buses in London. Although they may not be perfect, they are subject to improvement. We can ask Ministers about them. They are the property of the people of London whom we represent.
The buses should not be sold off, particularly not to pirates from Hong Kong. That might sound a little far-fetched, but any busman will confirm that some of the operators who are hovering in the wings come from as far away as Hong Kong. We are all aware that the Government sell our assets to people from abroad.

157
We are not considering a citizens charter or a passengers charter for the people of London. If it ever comes to pass, it will become a citizens' nightmare.
12.10 am
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing this debate on the important Subject of improved transport in greater London. The hon. Gentleman's solution to the problems that he described was the creation of a strategic planning authority—the Greater London authority. Doubtless we shall argue the merits of that at the hustings.
The Government believe that that is the wrong way to approach transport provision and planning in London. The Department of Transport fulfils the major part of that remit and, within the Department, the London transportation unit has a specific responsibility for the co-ordination of planning information for the provision of public transport services in London and for road planning.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I regularly meet the LPAC—the London Planning Advisory Committee—and the Department of Transport sponsors several assessment studies which consider road and rail options in different parts of London, and the hon. Member for Tooting referred to several of those. If we consider the Government's record over the past 12 years on better quality public transport, the phrase used by the hon. Member for Tooting, the House will agree that there has been significant improvements. The record is good in relation to development.
The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in respect of London Underground for a level of funding for the existing underground of about £700 million per annum. That level will be reached in 1993. We accepted that recommendation, which means that a massive programme of improvements will be made to the Central line amounting to more than £700 million. In addition, individual stations will be refurbished. For example, the Angel will be refurbished at a cost of £70 million. Other stations will also be improved.
At the southern end of the Northern line, about which the hon. Member for Tooting is particularly concerned, the modernisation of stations at Tooting Broadway, Tooting Bec, Clapham South and Clapham North will proceed. However, the complete refurbishment of the Northern line cannot commence until the massively expensive Central line programme is complete. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is sensible to move from major programme to major programme on the underground.
The Government have consistently supported the construction of new underground lines, and I hope very much that the construction of the Jubilee line will commence shortly if Parliament approves the private Bill which is currently in another place. Thereafter, progress can be made on crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney line. I do not accept the criticism that, in our forward planning, we have neglected the needs of London Underground. The chairman has described his aspiration for what he describes as a decently modern metro. He and London Regional Transport are going to get just that.
Commuters come in from significant distances compared with other great European cities—indeed,
158
76 per cent. of all commuters coming into greater London come by rail or underground, compared with only 14 per cent. by car. As for British Rail, there is a major programme within Network SouthEast—more than £350 million last year, and I hope that a similar amount will be spent on investment purposes in this financial year. That includes re-equipping the Chiltern line and commencing the major work of re-equipping the inner Kent suburban commuter lines.
This morning, I visited Liverpool Street station and saw for myself the tremendous improvements and the resignalling project which has brought great benefits to the number of trains which can enter that rather constricted space.
The hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to buses, as did the hon. Member for Tooting. However, I could deal briefly with South Yorkshire. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Don Valley about falling patronage. When I was in Sheffield quite recently, I inquired about the reasons for the fall over the past 12 months—about 10 per cent., which is very disappointing, but it was in a period well past deregulation and when fares had not risen substantially. One of the main reasons for that is the marked preference of the people of South Yorkshire to own their own motor cars.
Mr. Redmond: I do not mislead the Minister. The public of South Yorkshire, in particular Doncaster, are highly dissatisfied following the deregulation of buses. There are multiple fares within Doncaster chasing a diminishing number of passengers. Because the companies want the most profitable routes, other areas invariably have to suffer. For weeks, a group of old-age pensioners in my patch of Edlington were without a bus service because the private bus company would not operate it and, due to the financial restrictions placed on South Yorkshire Passenger Transport, it obviously did not want it. Thankfully, South Yorkshire Passengers are coming to rectify the situation, but unless positive action is taken, there will be further deterioration—more cars and more polution.
Mr. Freeman: It is a perfectly fair point that the price of competition is, in some cases, not necessarily disruption of services but change in services. Competition can mean the concentration of private sector companies on routes that they believe to be the most profitable. That is why it is important that local authorities, and in London the London Bus Executive, should subsidise routes that are socially necessary and are not provided by the operators. In Greater London, when we introduce our Bill in the next Parliament, we shall make provision for significant subsidies by the taxpayer, not the community charge payer, for socially necessary routes.
I was saying that, in South Yorkshire one of the main reasons for the recent fall in patronage has been the desire of local people to own their own motor cars, which is one reason why the Government have strongly supported supertram, which is another way of trying to capture people away from the motor car and back on to public transport.
The hon. Member for Newham, South referred to travelcards. I assure the hon. Gentleman that travelcard and similar schemes are extremely valuable, not only in London but in other great metropolitan areas such as Newcastle, the west midlands, and Greater Manchester,

159
where I recently talked to the passenger transport authority about how to preserve, upon a sale of its municipally owned bus company, an all-bus operator card. There is no evidence that a travelcard will not thrive in London following deregulation. We shall strive to ensure that it does so. There is no evidence that the hon. Gentleman can cite from anywhere outside London of the death of such all-bus operator or multi-mode travelcards.
We have no intention of jeopardising the concessionary fares scheme. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Newham, South will know, we propose to legislate for the automatic roll-over of a scheme that applied in the previous year into a year when there is no agreement between all the London boroughs on a particular scheme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to ensure that such a scheme is pan-London, applying to all the boroughs. That is because many bus routes operate through several boroughs. It is important not to fragment the operation of the concessionary fares scheme within London.
Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman: I have only one minute left, so I wish to conclude.
The hon. Member for Newham, South also mentioned subsidies. I have already repeated the Government's
160
assurance that subsidies for socially necessary routes will continue in a deregulated environment in greater London. The reason for deregulation is simple. It is to enable other bus companies to introduce additional services in greater London—initially, we believe, in the outer suburbs. We think that that will be of advantage to Londoners, because they will have more bus services to choose from. Although there might be some initial disruption of services, I do not accept that in the long run it will mean fewer buses operating.
Our policy on roads is clear. We have introduced up to 300 miles of new red routes in London to speed the flow of buses. The House will know that I recently announced Government assistance for bus priority measures not only in greater London but throughout the country. I hope that we shall have further announcements to make in the coming months. For greater London, we shall also study the applicability of road pricing.
The hon. Member for Tooting suggests an authority for Greater London, but no money. His colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench can offer not a penny more for public transport in London. We have a good development record, and we believe in a co-ordinated transport policy and priority for public transport.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parkhurst Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the reasons for not implementing Judge Stephen Tumim's recommendations to install low-voltage electricity points in the cells of A and D wings at Parkhurst prison during refurbishment last August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Work on the refurbishment of A and D wings at HM prison Parkhurst began in August 1990, ten months before Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons made its visit, and too late to incorporate changes in the contract. I regret that, due to an oversight, my response to the report implied that the work began in August 1991. The inspectorate's recommendation will be implemented in future refurbishment work at the prison.

  Data Protection Act 1984
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many certificates have been issued under section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I am aware of none so far as the Home Office is concerned.

  Mr. Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now instruct the Metropolitan police to withdraw protection from Mr. Salman Rushdie.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not for the Home Secretary to instruct the police on an operational policing matter.

  Elections
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are issued to town and parish councils about the use of polling cards supplied by borough councils in elections and by-elections.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We issue no such guidelines to town and parish councils.

  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to require parish or town councils to display prominently, in more than one place, the notification of a by-election.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We see no need to amend the existing requirements.

  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much the expenses permitted to parliamentary candidates will rise for the 1992 general election over the amounts permitted at the general election of 1987.
  2
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend hopes to lay proposals on this matter before Parliament shortly.

  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to require parish and town councils to advertise an election or a by-election by issuing poll cards to each voter, where such poll cards are offered without a charge to the parish or town council concerned.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is for the parish council to decide whether it wishes to issue poll cards for an election or by-election when the poll is not combined with the poll at another election. We can see no reason for any change.

  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued for town and parish councils on the publication of notices concerning by-elections.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We issue no such guidelines. The requirements for giving public notice of a casual vacancy on a town or parish council and for giving notice of a by-election are set out in sections 87(2) and 232 of the Local Government Act 1972 and in the Representation of the People Local Elections (Parishes and Communities) Rules 1986.

  Children (Section 11 Funding)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to extend section 11 funding to cover children from other than new Commonwealth countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We accept the need to bring forward legislation on this point when there is a suitable opportunity.

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations the Charity Commission is undertaking into the sale by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf of equipment available free on the NHS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Charity Commission is not undertaking any investigation into the alleged sale by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf of equipment provided by the national health service. The commission knows of nothing to suggest that the institute has carried out any such practice. The Charity Commission has received representations about the institute's subsidiary company Sound Advantage, which is not a charity, and the commission is considering the institute's investment in that company.

  Tadley Town Council
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the conduct of the recent by-election of Tadley town council, near Basingstoke.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

  Credit Reference Agencies
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will launch an investigation into the use being made of credit reference agencies for purposes other than verification by a commercial organisation from which credit has been sought.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy to introduce tighter controls over the access to information held by credit reference agencies.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to increase penalties(a) for misuse of credit reference agencies and (b) for release of information by such agencies other than after strict verification of the identity and purpose of any inquirer.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Conference on the Human Dimension
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests have been made by countries involved in the CSCE process to initiate the involvement of independent experts as agreed at the Moscow conference on the human dimension; and if he will list the subject matter of the problem and the outcome.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. The mechanism evolved at the Moscow conference on the human dimension has not yet come into operation.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions when the United Kingdom has used the conference on the human dimension inquiry mechanisms agreed at the Vienna CSCE meeting in 1989, indicating the countries to which the inquiry was directed, the subject matter and the inquiry and the outcome.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom has made use of the CHD mechanism eight times. Prior to the fall of the communist regimes, the United Kingdom addressed the treatment of ethnic minorities in Bulgaria, the detention of human rights activists in Czechoslovakia—three times—and Romania—twice. The mechanism was also used to raise two family-reunion cases with the Soviet Union, which was subsequently resolved.

  Additionally, the United Kingdom has been associated with 14 uses of the mechanism by the member states of the European Community acting together.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reservations the United Kingdom entered concerning the independent expert procedure agreed at the Moscow meeting of the conference on the human dimension of the CSCE.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom made no reservations about the independent expert procedure, but 4
  did make an interpretative statement on the experts' access. A further interpretative statement on the use of this procedure was made jointly by Belgium, France, Spain and the United Kingdom. The text of both statements is attached to the copy of the concluding document of the Moscow conference, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the success or failure of the arms embargo on(a) Serbia and (b) Croatia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are widespread and disquieting press reports of breaches of the embargo. We do not so far have independent evidence to substantiate them.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 117, to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), whether he has had any success in establishing the identity and activities of the team in Yugoslavia which was reported in The Guardian on 17 January.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. There are various unsubstantiated reports but no clear evidence.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the criteria by which Her Majesty's Government decided to recognise the independence of Slovenia and Croatia and declined to recognise the independence of Macedonia and of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We and our EC partners recognised Croatia and Slovenia on the basis of the report of the arbitration commission attached to Lord Carrington's conference. As for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia, there remain important matters which require further discussion among EC partners before a similar step is taken.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position respecting the accreditation of representatives of Slovenia and Croatia to the United Kingdom; what is the position respecting United Kingdom representation in Ljubljana and Zagreb; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Governments of Slovenia and Croatia have made no approaches concerning the accreditation of diplomatic representatives. There is currently a British consulate in Zagreb, but no representation in Ljubljana.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had discussions with representatives from Yugoslavia about the proposed referendum in Bosnia-Herzegovina on 28 February in respect of that republic's independence; what Her Majesty's Government's policy is on the issue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We await the outcome of the referendum with interest and will discuss its implications with European Community partners before establishing a firm policy.

  Iran
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current human rights situation in Iran.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State told the House on 5 February, we remain very concerned about the human rights situation in Iran. The reports of the United Nations special representative, Mr. Galindo Pohl, following his visits to Iran in 1990, contain ample evidence to justify these concerns. A further report, following his visit last December, is due to be presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva later this week. We shall study this report carefully together with the response made by the Iranian Government to the allegations contained in Mr. Pohl's earlier reports before deciding on further action.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed Westminster Foundation for Democracy; and what funding is being made available by his Department.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have consulted the political parties represented in the House about establishing an independent foundation, to be known as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, to help strengthen political parties and other pluralist democratic institutions in emergent democracies. The proposal has been generally welcomed and the body will be established under prerogative powers once the parties have all nominated governors.

  The foundation will receive £200,000 for the remainder of the financial year 1991–92, and £1 million in 1992–93.

  Lebanon (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government permitted the restart of arms sales to the Lebanon.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Sale of military equipment to Lebanon, as to other countries not covered by a specific embargo, has always been assessed on a strict case by case basis. We do not at present sell arms to Lebanon.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration was given to the human rights situation in Kuwait, prior to completing the bilateral military agreement with Kuwait under the defence co-operation memorandum of understanding of 10 February.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We keep a close watch on human rights issues worldwide. They are important considerations in our bilateral relations with all countries and we discuss them with other Governments, including that of Kuwait, on a regular basis. There have recently been welcome improvements in Kuwait in this regard.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running costs limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 February 1992, c. 215]: With regard to changes to this Department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running costs limits for 1991–92, the details for the running costs limit decrease on vote 1 should be by £1,781,000 from £480,241,000 to £478,460,000.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Shareholders
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many shareholders there were in the United Kingdom in 1979; and what is his estimate of the equivalent figure today.

  Mr. Maples
  It is estimated that in 1979 fewer than 3 million adults in Great Britain owned shares. The latest Treasury-stock exchange survey showed that in 1991 share ownership had risen to more than 11 million adults in Great Britain. Information for the United Kingdom as a whole is not available.

  Home Income Plans
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what submissions he has received from the Building Societies Commission or building societies ombudsman on the subject of investment bond-related home income plans;

  (2) if he has any plans to review the regulation of lending by building societies for (a) investment bond-related home income plans or (b) other lending; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what action he proposes to take over the involvement of certain building societies in providing mortgage finance for investment bond-related home income plans.

  Mr. Maples
  The regulation of investment business, including investment bond-related home income plans, is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board and the relevant self-governing organisations. As regards the activities of building societies, the concern of the Building Societies Commission is to promote the protection of shareholders and depositors in societies. The prudential guidance to building societies on the subject of lending risks, and the corresponding capital adequacy requirements, were reviewed by the commission in consultation with the building societies during 1990 and set out in the prudential note on this subject in March 1991. Building societies have been required since March 1990 to provide additional capital to cover the risks associated with lending on a deferred interest basis, which is a feature of some equity release schemes. The commission has also recently required building societies to clarify and document their lending policies, which will assist in the maintenance of lending standards.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people over 60 years have been told they will not receive tax relief on private health insurance premiums because they have claimed for treatment which the Government do not consider would have been available on the national health service.

  Mr. Maude
  I regret that I have no figures on the incidence of individuals losing relief because of their having claimed for treatments not allowed by the regulations. It is my understanding that such instances should be very rare, because, in order to be certified as eligible for relief, a private medical insurance contract must only offer such allowable treatments.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax relief has been paid to the over-60s who have taken out private health insurance during each of the past two years.

  Mr. Maude
  The relief has not yet been running for two full years. In 1990–91 the relief cost £55 million and I anticipate the cost for 1991–92 to be £60 million.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the treatments which the over-60s cannot use without losing tax relief on their private health insurance premiums; and how many people, having claimed tax relief on their premiums, have had to repay those premiums.

  Mr. Maude
  Broadly speaking, no treatments are permitted unless they are already predominantly provided free under the NHS and are performed by a registered medical or dental practitioner in the United Kingdom to the insured as an in or out-patient of a private or NHS hospital. In addition general practitioner performed surgery is also permitted, as are various services such as physiotherapy or home nursing provided they form part of, or are consequent upon, an allowable treatment.

  I regret that I have no figures on the number of claimants who have received unapproved benefits and who, as a consequence, have paid higher premiums because of a withdrawal of tax relief.

  Government Shares
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list what shares the Government hold in private sector companies and their market valuation on(a) 1 January and (b) 1 February.

  Mr. Maude
  The table shows the ordinary shares held by the Government in private sector companies with the market valuation of such holdings at the close of business on 1 January 1992 and 31 January 1992.

  Government ordinary shareholdings in private sector companies

  Company

  Number of shares (millions)

  Market Valuation (£millions)

  1 January

  31 January

  BAA

  14·8

  78·7

  83·7

  British Airways

  3·2

  7·4

  7·8

  British Gas

  0·1

  0·2

  0·2

  British Petroleum

  101·2

  296·6

  290·5

  British Steel

  1

  1

  1

  BT

  1,256·7

  4,122·1

  4,134·6

  8

  Company

  Number of shares (millions)

  Market Valuation (£ millions)

  1 January

  31 January

  Cable and Wireless

  1

  0·1

  0·1

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

  12·4

  24·6

  24·1

  Anglian Water

  4·8

  15·9

  17·2

  Northumbrian Water

  0·7

  2·2

  2·5

  North West Water

  5·3

  17·7

  19·4

  Severn Trent Water

  6·7

  20·9

  23·2

  Southern Water

  2·7

  8·3

  8·9

  South West Water

  0·7

  2·2

  2·3

  Thames Water

  7·7

  25·2

  28·5

  Welsh Water

  2·1

  7·4

  7·9

  Wessex Water

  1·5

  5·6

  6·0

  Yorkshire Water

  3·1

  10·8

  11·6

  Eastern Electricity

  4·3

  13·4

  13·0

  East Midlands Electricity

  2·3

  7·9

  7·5

  London Electricity

  2·3

  7·4

  7·9

  Manweb

  1·9

  7·7

  7·4

  Midlands Electricity

  2·9

  10·1

  9·8

  Northern Electric

  1·9

  6·4

  6·5

  Norweb

  2·6

  9·7

  9·5

  Seeboard

  2·4

  8·1

  8·1

  Southern Electric

  3·2

  11·2

  10·6

  South Wales Electricity

  1·1

  4·2

  4·2

  South Western Electricity

  2·3

  7·5

  8·0

  Yorkshire Electricity

  2·5

  9·7

  9·7

  National Power

  500·4

  1,100·9

  1,136·0

  PowerGen

  317·4

  730·1

  755·5

  Scottish Hydro-ectric

  13·3

  32·5

  32·5

  Scottish Power

  29·4

  71·5

  71·5

  1 Negligible.

  Company Debts
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list debts over £100 million owed to the Government by United Kingdom private sector companies on I January 1992, not including debts arising from as yet unpaid tax bills.

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

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to meet representatives of the United Kingdom merchant fleet to discuss the effect of Her Majesty's Government's policies on the future prosperity of merchant shipowners registered in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  I will be meeting Michael Everard, president of the Chamber of Shipping, on 19 February.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing by what percentage the net take-home pay of a married man with two children on(a) half average earnings, (b) average earnings and (c) one and a half times average earnings has changed

  9
  (i) between 1974 and 1979, (ii) between 1979 and 1992, (iii) annually between 1974 and 1979 and (iv) annually between 1979 and 1992, giving (1) the average figure for each year between 1974 and 1979 and (2) the average figure for each year between 1979 and 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: The figures requested are shown in the table.

  Growth in real take home pay at multiples of average earnings, 1973–74 to 1991–92

  Married couple with two children

  Financial year

  Multiples of average earnings

  0·5 per cent.

  1·50 per cent.

  1·5 per cent.

  1973–74 to 1974–75

  1·4

  0·1

  0·50

  1974–75 to 1975–76

  -3·7

  -3·9

  -3·5

  1975–76 to 1976–77

  -1·2

  -1·6

  -2·9

  1976–77 to 1977–78

  0·1

  -1·0

  -1·7

  1977–78 to 1978–79

  7·9

  7·6

  7·5

  1973–74 to 1978–79

  Total growth

  4·3

  0·7

  -1·1

  Average annual growth rate

  0·8

  0·1

  -0·2

  1978–79 to 1979–80

  2·8

  4·1

  5·1

  1979–80 to 1980–81

  -0·3

  1·0

  1·6

  1980–81 to 1981–82

  -3·0

  -2·6

  -3·0

  1981–82 to 1982–83

  1·2

  0·4

  -0·1

  1982–83 to 1983–84

  5·0

  4·4

  4·3

  1983–84 to 1984–85

  3·9

  3·5

  3·5

  1984–85 to 1985–86

  1·3

  1·3

  1·5

  1985–86 to 1986–87

  3·6

  4·5

  5·0

  1986–87 to 1987–88

  4·0

  5·8

  7·1

  1987–88 to 1988–89

  2·8

  4·4

  5·6

  1988–89 to 1989–90

  1·1

  1·2

  1·4

  1989–90 to 1990–91

  -0·3

  -0·2

  -0·1

  1990–91 to 1991–92

  3·1

  3·0

  2·6

  1978–79 to 1991–92

  Total growth

  27·9

  35·0

  40·1

  Average annual growth rate

  1·9

  2·3

  2·6

CIVIL SERVICE

  Working Methods
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what new proposals he has for changes in working methods in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  Under the "next steps" initiative, chief executives are given personnel management and financial flexibilities to enable them to deliver targets set by Ministers. "Next steps" is providing benefits to customers, taxpayers and staff.

THE ARTS

  British Library
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will retain the reading rooms and storage space at the Bloomsbury site of the British Library for the next 10 years for use by the library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No; it is not the intention that the British Library should continue to use the round reading room or other storage space, at the Bloomsbury site after 1996. The British museum is considering options for the use of all the space to be vacated by the Library. The return of this is eagerly awaited and central to the museum's future plans.

  Library Authorities
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many library authorities he has visited(a) since his appointment, separately specifying those he has visited (b) in the past six months and (c) in 1992.

  Mr. Renton
  I have visited six library authorities since I took office. In January 1992, I visited two libraries in Wiltshire and I am planning to go to Berkshire, Newham and Buckinghamshire libraries next month.

  South West Regional Arts Board
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the total budget of the South West regional arts board in each of the last three years; and what percentage of the total budget was spent in the South Hams parliamentary constituency in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is as follows:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  South West Arts Total Budget

  £2,166,134

  £2,280,090

  £2,514,120

  Direct expenditure in South Hams as percentage of total

  1·63

  1·43

  1·44

PRIME MINISTER

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of the work force of the Cabinet Office are disabled.

  The Prime Minister
  The percentage of registered disabled persons employed by the Cabinet Office is 1–3 per cent. The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer, and continually seeks to encourage the employment of people with disabilities.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of the work force of the Prime Minister's office are disabled.

  The Prime Minister
  None. For recruitment purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office which is an equal opportunities employer.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Director of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. concerning the transportation of radioactive waste for re-processing at Sellafield in Cumbria.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Director of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. concerning the siting of the repository for radioactive and toxic waste at the Sellafield re-processing plant in Cumbria.

  The Prime Minister
  None. Proposals for developing a repository for intermediate and low-level radioactive
  11
  wastes are a matter for UK Nirex Limited. The Departments of Energy and of the Environment are in contact with Nirex from time to time.

  Pollution, Northern Ireland
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the directors of industry concerning environmental pollution during his recent visit to Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  The subject did not arise.

  Scotland
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to make another visit to Scotland in the near future.

HEALTH

  Hospital Eye Service
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had regarding the feasibility of collecting information about and monitoring trends in referrals to the hospital eye service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Other than two parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Dame Jill Knight), on 20 December 1991 at column 356, we have received no representations.

  The Department collects information on the hospital eye service through regular statistical returns. This includes data from district health authorities on the number of glasses, contact lenses and low vision aids prescribed and the number of patients attending the hospital eye service in connection with these services.

  Erythropoieten Treatment
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated number of patients who need erythropoieten treatment who have been refused on the ground of cost(a) nationally and (b) regionally.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the total number of people who have(a) been removed from national health service hospital waiting lists and (b) been placed on pending waiting lists prior to being added to waiting lists, in the last 12 months.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  If a hospital doctor decides that someone needs treatment they are either treated immediately or put on a waiting list for non-urgent treatment. In the 12 months to September 1991 nearly 2.8 million patients were admitted to hospitals from waiting lists. The names of a further 334,118 were removed from lists for other reasons, for example, because they had already been treated or no longer needed treatment.

  HIV (Blood Transfusions)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) how many non-haemophiliacs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who have contracted HIV as a result of contaminated national health service blood/tissue transfers(a) remain alive, (b) have developed AIDS and remain alive and (c) developed AIDS and have since died;

  (2) how many non-haemophiliacs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have contracted HIV infection as a result of national health service transfers of (a) blood, (b) blood products and (c) tissue; and how many of each of these groups became infected before the introduction of screening of donations in October 1985.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There have been 61 reports in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of HIV infection in people who received blood in the United Kingdom. All of these reports related to the period prior to October 1985. In addition, there has been one report of HIV infection in a patient who received a tissue transfer after October 1985 from a donor who was subsequently found to be HIV positive.

  The total number of infected people thought to be alive is 30.

  The number of people reported with AIDS is 29, of whom 23 are known to have died.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of people who received national health service transfusions of blood contaminated with the HIV virus; how many have subsequently been diagnosed HIV positive; and how many have died.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to the reply, 14 November 1991, c. 656]: I have decided that the special provision already made for those with haemophilia and HIV is to be extended to those who have been infected with HIV as a result of national health service blood transfusion or tissue transfer in the United Kingdom. The payments will also apply to any of their spouses partners and children to whom their infection may have been passed on. The rates of payments are shown in the table. Similar help will be available throughout the United Kingdom.

  The Government have never accepted the argument for a general scheme of no fault compensation for medical accidents, as such a scheme would be unworkable and unfair. That remains our position.

  We made special provision for those with haemophilia and HIV because of their very special circumstances. It has been argued that this special provision should be extended to include those who have become infected with HIV through blood or tissue transfer within the United Kingdom. I have considered very carefully all the circumstances and the arguments which have been put to us. I have concluded that it would be right to recognise that this group, who share the tragedy of those with haemophilia in becoming infected with HIV through medical treatment within the United Kingdom, is also a very special case.

  The circumstances of each infected transfusion or tissue recipient will need to be considered individually to establish that their treatment in the United Kingdom was the source of their infection.

  A small expert panel is being set up to consider cases where necessary. I am pleased that Mr. Benet Hytner QC

  13
  has agreed to chair this panel and I shall shortly appoint two medical assessors to assist in this work. Further detailed work needs to be done on the machinery for handling individual claims for these payments; but payments will be made as soon as possible.

  Parliamentary authority for making these payments will be sought through supply estimates and the confirming Appropriation Act. On the basis of the reported cases the estimated cost could be £12 million. However, I cannot be certain about the cost, as numbers of valid claims are not known.

  I share the great sympathy which is universally felt for the blood and tissue recipients who have tragically become infected through their treatment. Money cannot compen-sate for this, but I hope that the provision we are making will provide some measure of financial security for those affected and their families.

  Table

  The amounts of payments to be made to the HIV infected NHS blood and tissue transfer recipients are:

  £

  —Infant

  41,500 each

  —Single adult

  43,500 each

  —Married adult without dependant children

  52,000 each

  —Infected person with dependant children

  80,500 each

  and to the infected spouses and/or children of the above:

  Adult infected spouse or partner of the blood or tissue recipient

  23,500 each

  Infected child who is married

  23,500 each

  Unmarried infected child

  21,500 each

  These are the amounts paid to people with HIV and haemophilia.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total amount paid by his Department to campaign against the use of tobacco products in the past year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1991–92, the Health Education Authority, which is wholly funded for this purpose by the Department of Health, will have spent an estimated £6 million on smoking and health campaigns. In addition, health authorities mount local campaigns from within their own resources.

  NHS Executive Report
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of producing the national health service management executive report on the performance of the national health service in the first six months of its reform; how many copies of the report were printed; what was the cost associated therewith; who approved the cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Ministers are accountable to the House for all their Department's expenditure. The estimated cost of producing, distributing and launching 35,000 copies of the booklet "NHS Reforms—The First Six Months.' is £34,000.

  Clinical Priorities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account is taken of clinical priorities in respect of the treatment of individual patients in implementing(a) the waiting list initiative and (b) the patients charter.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for clinicians to decide when a patient should be admitted for treatment having regard to the individual's clinical priority. However, because we believe that no patient should wait excessively for any treatment, under the patients charter, we are introducing a two-year waiting time guarantee from 1 April. We are also investing an additional £39 million through the waiting list fund next year to ensure that everyone is treated within a reasonable time.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Companies (Trade Aid)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which 10 companies have been the leading indirect beneficiaries of spending within the aid trade provision since its inception in 1978; and what percentage of total aid and trade provision—ATP—spending each has attracted.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ATP commitments since 1978 total £1,374 million. The 10 largest aggregate commitments by lead contractor were as follows:

  Percentage of total commitments

  Balfour Beatty

  21·7

  GEC

  8·1

  Davy

  6·3

  Biwater

  4·5

  AMEC International

  4·3

  Snamprogetti UK

  3·4

  NEI

  3·3

  JBE

  3·2

  Phillips Radio Communication Systems

  2·5

  Marconi

  2·0

  Project

  £ million

  Balfour Beatty

  Cameroon NW Electrification

  1·795

  Malawi Power Transmission

  2·590

  China Yueyang Transmission Line

  3·072

  Malaysia Pergau Hydro-electric

  234·000

  Burma Bridge Project

  0·090

  Colombia Bridges

  0·301

  Colombia Bridges Extension

  0·152

  Indonesia Bukit Asam Railway Bridges

  0·152

  Indonesia Mrica Hydro Project

  12·075

  Jordan HV Transmission Line

  3·611

  Malaysia Shungei Ahning Dam

  2·344

  Paraguay Power Transmission Scheme

  1·350

  Paraguay Power Transmission Scheme

  2·870

  Peru Mini Hydro Project

  4·852

  Philippines Wood Burning Power Station

  1·967

  Philippines Dendro Power Station Adviser

  0·040

  Sri Lanka Samanalawewa Hydro Project

  16·570

  Thailand Mini Hydros Pilot Plant

  2·500

  China Beijing Subway

  7·070

  Tunisia Railway Equipment

  0·500

  Total

  297·901

  15

  Project

  £million

  Marconi

  Indonesia Shortwave Transmitters

  25·911

  Project

  £million

  Phillips Radio Communications Systems

  Indonesia Forestry Communications

  34·111

  Project

  £ million

  John Brown Engineering

  Burma Gas Turbines Project

  3·201

  Burma Gas Turbines Project

  2·213

  Kenya Kipevu Power Station

  1·959

  Vietnam Haiphong Power Station

  2·888

  Panama Gas Turbines Power Station

  6·727

  China Chongquing Power Station

  6·500

  Morocco Gas Turbines

  7·276

  Philippines Gas Turbines

  13·125

  Total

  43·889

  Project

  £ million

  NEI

  Malaysia Sandakan Power Station

  0·929

  Botswana Moruple Power Station Turbines

  4·418

  Malaysia Connaught Bridge

  23·485

  Cyprus Dhekelia B Power Station

  0·366

  India Super Thermal Power Plant

  17034

  Total

  46·232

  Project

  £ million

  Snamprogetti

  China Dushanzi Ethylene Project

  47·179

  Project

  £ million

  Amec International Construction

  Turkey natural gas conversion

  58·700

  Project

  £ million

  Biwater

  Malaysia rural water supply scheme

  59·460

  Sri Lanka hill country water

  2·129

  TOTAL

  61·589

  Project

  £ million

  Davy

  Egypt brake block foundry

  0·884

  Mexico Sicartsa steel works

  34·943

  China Bohai I

  8·802

  Morocco Nador roll mill

  13·505

  China Danyang aluminium plant

  3·532

  Indonesia Cigading/Serpong railway rehabilitation

  24·690

  TOTAL

  86·356

  Project

  £ million

  GEC

  China Yueyang power station

  51·414

  China Yueyang power station training

  3·864

  16

  Project

  £ million

  Turkey circuit breakers

  0·940

  Indonesia scattered diesels

  5·891

  Yueyang additional training

  0·450

  Bangladesh combined cycle gas power station

  4·680

  Bolivia mineral concentrator project

  0·027

  Egypt electrical switchgear

  2·000

  India Balco power station

  33·066

  Malawi telecommunications

  0·052

  Malawi telecommunications

  0·026

  Malaysia viewdata project

  0·851

  Zimbabwe railway electrification

  8·068

  TOTAL

  111·329

  Brazil
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, columns 149–50, what was the total proportion of each project budget for technical and scientific co-operation with Brazil earmarked for long-term consultancy inputs, including management charges, costs of technical co-operation officers and travel and subsistence costs for consultants.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Project

  Per cent.

  1 Anglo-Brazilian Climate Observation Study

  53

  2 Caxiuana Research Station

  12

  3 Forestry Development of Aromatic Plants and Essential Oils

  17

  4 Recife Environmental Control Project

  30

  5 Tocantins Forestry and Rural Development Project

  18

  Demini Yanomami Health Care Project

  nil

  7 Floodplain Forest Ecology and Management Project

  11

  8 Tapajos Forest Management Project

  16

  9 Central Amazonia Flora and Vegetation Project

  29

  1 Includes short-term consultancy fees.

  Projects 8 and 9 were approved since the answer given on 4 December.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Criminal Trials
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Attorney-General how many criminal cases were brought to trial in(a) the magistrates courts and (b) the Crown courts in each of the past five years; how many of them resulted in pleas of guilty; and how many which involved not guilty pleas resulted in acquittal.

  The Attorney-General
  Tables 1 to 3 give the information that is currently available. Table 1 shows the number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts from 1986 to 1990, the latest available. The figures for the number of pleas of guilty are not separately collected. Tables 2 and 3 give the information for cases and defendants dealt with at the Crown court in the years 1987 to 1991. The information provided comes from two different sources, each using different definitions and collection mechanisms. As a consequence, the figures in tables 2 and 3 are not directly comparable with those in table 1.
  17

  Table 1

  Defendants dealt with summarily at magistrates' courts in England and Wales1

  Thousands

  Summary offences

  Indictable offences triable either way

  2 Acquitted

  3 Convicted

  2 Acquitted

  3 Convicted

  Total

  1986

  183

  1,510

  54

  308

  2,052

  1987

  166

  1,168

  60

  300

  1,695

  1988

  175

  1,169

  65

  295

  1,705

  1989

  197

  1,192

  67

  256

  1,712

  19904

  222

  1,169

  74

  262

  1,727

  1 Source: Home Office.

  2 Charge withdrawn or dismissed (ie the court after hearing the evidence, decide the defendant is not guilty).

  3 Includes pleas of guilty.

  4 Provisional.

  Cases dealt with at the Crown court in England and Wales1

  Guilty plea

  Not guilty plea

  1Other

  Total

  1987

  59,218

  28,006

  8,973

  96,197

  1988

  68,389

  26,820

  9,564

  104,773

  1989

  64,570

  26,830

  9,832

  101,232

  1990

  63,588

  26,177

  10,240

  100,005

  31991

  62,319

  27,432

  11,632

  101,383

  Table 3

  Defendants dealt with at the Crown Court in England and Wales1

  Plea

  Not guilty to all counts

  Not guilty to some counts

  Guilty plea

  Acquitted2

  Convicted

  Acquitted2

  Convicted

  Other3

  Total

  1987

  86,555

  15,560

  15,475

  790

  2,233

  12,344

  132,957

  1988

  95,866

  17,542

  14,507

  792

  1,760

  13,004

  143,471

  1989

  89,361

  17,517

  13,827

  993

  2,202

  13,085

  136,985

  1990

  86,845

  17,241

  12,752

  1,012

  1,978

  13,862

  133,690

  41991

  82,305

  17,663

  12,701

  1,460

  2,595

  15,440

  132,164

  1 Source: Lord Chancellor's Department.

  2 Jury acquittals, descharges by the judge (not guilty to all those counts where not guilty plea entered only) and acquittals directed by the judge).

  3 Bench warrants issued, no plea recorded, indictment to lie on file, found unfit to plead and other results.

  4 Provisional and liable to revision in the future.

  Court of Appeal
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Attorney-General how many defendants in the Court of Appeal criminal division were(a) granted leave to appeal against conviction and (6) refused leave to appeal against conviction in each of the past five years; and how many cases where leave was granted resulted in the conviction being quashed.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of defendants granted leave to appeal against conviction in each of the past five years was:

  Number

  1987

  400

  1988

  429

  1989

  460

  1990

  561

  1991

  662

  These figures include a small number of referrals direct to the full court by a single judge.

  The numbers of defendants refused leave to appeal against conviction in each of the last five years were:

  Number

  1987

  964

  1988

  913

  1989

  960

  18

  1 Source: Lord Chancellor's Department.

  2 No plea recorded.

  3 Provisional and liable to revision in the future.

  Number

  1990

  891

  1991

  878

  The numbers of defendants granted leave and whose conviction was quashed were:

  Numbers

  1987

  192

  1988

  223

  1989,

  211

  1990

  256

  1991

  269

  Legal Services (Wales)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what further proposals he has to increase the provision of public legal services in Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has no specific proposals to increase the provision of public legal services in Wales.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General how many repossession orders were made at Barry county court in favour of building societies or other lending institutions between(a) 1979 and 1989 and (b)

  The Attorney-General
  The table gives the total number of mortgage possession actions entered and orders made in Barry county court for each year since 1987, the earliest year for which the information is available. These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts as not all of the orders made will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession. At this stage, the 1991 figures are provisional and, therefore, liable to revision in the future.

  Mortgage possession—actions entered and orders made in Barry county court

  Year

  Actions entered

  Orders made

  1987

  184

  127

  1988

  188

  147

  1989

  170

  94

  1990

  225

  144

  1991

  286

  225

  Gulf War
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the report, "Needless Deaths in the Gulf War", published by Middle East Watch last November.

  The Attorney-General
  No. Copies of the report are already held by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence.

  Immigration
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average period between a visitor visa application being refused in Dhaka and an appeal against refusal to grant a visitor visa being heard before an immigration appeals tribunal in the United Kingdom.

  The Attorney-General
  The appeal process does not start until an appeal is lodged with the entry clearance officer at the post overseas. This is the responsibility of the appellant and it is not therefore possible to give the average sought. However, it currently takes between nine and 15 months to process an average case from the date notice of appeal is lodged to the issuing of the immigration adjudicators' determination. This depends largely on the time taken for the parties to prepare for the hearing, over which the immigration appellate authorities have no control. If leave is granted, an appeal against an adjudicator's determination to the immigration appeal tribunal takes on average between four and six months, again depending on the length of time taken for the parties to get ready for the hearing.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each region, and for Great Britain as a whole, the latest results of the youth training 20
  leavers survey, showing for male and female trainees and for each separate ethnic group and for those with a disability (a) those in full time work with the same employer, (b) those in full time work with a different employer, (c) those in part time work, (d) those on a full time course at a college/training centre, (e) those on another YTS, (f) those doing something else, (g) those who were unemployed and (h) those who had obtained a vocational qualification together with (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (ii) the usable percentage response rate and (iii) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers.

  Mr. Jackson
  As the information requested is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) employees in employment and (b) self-employed in the Chelmsford constituency in June 1983, June 1987 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Jackson
  Latest available constituency data for the self-employed relates to the population census for 1981. Information available for employees in employment is from the periodic censuses of employment and is given in the table. No census was taken in 1983.

  Employees in employment in the Chelmsford constituency

  September of each year

  Number of employees

  1984

  42,600

  1987

  49,700

  19891

  53,200

  1 Latest available.

  Hexagon Community Ltd.
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will visit Hexagon Community Ltd. in Liverpool in the near future to discuss the funding of the adult training programme.

  Mr. Forth
  Contractual and financial arrangements for adult training provision with Hexagon Community Ltd. are entirely a matter for the Merseyside training and enterprise council.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) meet TEC chairmen on a regular basis to discuss the matters for which TECs are responsible.

  Training Contracts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to apply the White Paper, "Proposals for Training Contracts", to private education establishments; and if he will make it his policy to recover the costs of training teachers who have already left the state sector for private schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The effect of the change in the law that may be made, following the planned consultation on the clarification of the law relating to the enforceability of training contracts, will be determined in any particular case by the terms of the contracts of employment drawn up between the employers and employees concerned.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Price Waterhouse Reviews
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total cost of reviews of parts of his Department carried out by Price Waterhouse in the past year.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not readily available.

  British Telecom (Prices)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by how much British Telecom's regulated prices have changed in real terms since 1984.

  Mr. Redwood
  The prices of BT's main services, controlled by the "price cap" in its licence, have fallen by around 27 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. This control covers residential and business charges for domestic and international calls, exchange line rentals and directory enquiries, which represent over half of BT's turnover.

  Electricity Council Years ended 31 March HCA Convention

  £ millions

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Before tax1

  (592·6)

  1,444·9

  1,441·5

  1,1664

  2,117·9

  After tax1

  (592·6)

  1,444·9

  1,315·0

  810·2

  2,117·9

  Total borrowing as at 31 March1

  4,700·3

  4,208·2

  2,874·6

  1,597·3

  (181·5)

  Amershan International Years ended 31 March HCA Convention

  £ millions

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  Profit before tax2

  4·897

  6·656

  6·014

  4·011

  4·079

  Profit after tax2

  3·350

  4·562

  6·405

  2·777

  2·667

  Loans and investment grants1

  3·870

  3·918

  8·002

  8·935

  15·229

  British Gas Years ended 31 March HCA Convention

  £ millions

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Profit before tax3

  743

  1,106

  1,185

  992

  1,100

  Profit after tax3

  556

  875

  1,031

  804

  720

  Bank loans and short term borrowing— (increase)/decrease3

  (146)

  31

  (4)

  162

  (112)

  Britoil (incorporated 1 August 1982. Formerly part of the British National Oil Corporation) Years ended 31 March

  HCA Convention

  £ millions

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  Profit before tax4

  (43)

  (35)

  69

  256

  435

  Profit after tax4

  (31)

  (26)

  33

  67

  73

  Loans and deferred liabilities4

  18·1

  —

  55·6

  —

  —

  1 Information from published annual report and accounts

  2 Information from Amersham International plc Offer for Sale 1982

  3 Information from British Gas plc Offer for Sale 1986

  Industry Investment
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investment has been made in industry in the Greater London area over the past five years; what were the comparable figures in real and money terms for the five years to May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 February 1992]: Information on investment in industry for the Greater London area is not readily available. The CSO publication "Regional Trends", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library, gives details of investment in the south-east region.

ENERGY

  Privatisations
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give in respect of each privatisation since 1979(a) the loss or profit of each company in the five years prior to privatisation and (b) any grants or loans made over the same period.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is as follows:
  23
  4 Information from Britoil plc Offer for Sale 1982. Profit figures exclude amounts arising on the discharge of advance oil sale obligations. NB Loan figures are not necessarily on a comparable basis.

  Figures are not available for Enterprise Oil as this was not a distinct company in the years prior to privatisation.

  Radiation
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many people have made applications to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. for compensation in respect of illnesses associated with exposure to radiation from 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1991 and from 1 April 1991 to 31 December 1991; and, of these, how many have been successful.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for British Nuclears Fuels plc.

  Closed Coal Mines
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy who he proposes will carry the legal responsibilities for existing abandoned coal mine workings in his plans for the privatisation of British Coal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have made clear that no decisions on the form of the privatisation of British Coal, or on the timing, will be made until after the general election.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many abandonment plans for closed coal mines are held by his Department under the provisions of the Mining Act 1871; how many plans are missing; and how many have been obtained for coal mines closed prior to 1871.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under the provisions of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, plans, drawings and sections of abandoned mines are preserved by the Health and Safety Executive or by other persons under arrangements made or approved by it. The Health and Safety Executive has made arrangements for the British Coal Corporation to preserve such plans, drawings and sections in respect of coal mines. No plans are held by my Department.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list, for each of the past 10 years for which figures are available, recorded incidents of the leakage of methane gas from closed coal mines, giving the names of the abandoned coal mines from which the gas originated, the dates of closure of the mines and details of the nature of any buildings in which methane was entrapped.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will bring forward proposals to require the adequate ventilation of abandoned coal mines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have no proposals for such action.

  Electricity
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the market value of National Grid.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  At present, the market valuation of the National Grid Company could be of the order of £2 billion.
  24
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the number of shareholders in the 12 regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are currently nearly 3·2 million shareholder accounts in the 12 regional electricity companies. It is likely that the majority of these accounts are held by individuals who own shares in only one company; although information on the precise number of such individuals cannot be produced from the 12 separate company registers.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Stations", prepared by Fred Barker for the National Steering Committee of Nuclear Free Local Authorities published in January.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the Department will be receiving a copy of the report after its publication on 14 February.

  Domestic Gas Prices
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much gas prices of domestic customers have changed in real terms since 1986.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Gas prices to domestic customers are estimated to have fallen by 13 per cent. in real terms between 1986 and 1991.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  National Minimum Stipend
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if the Commissioners have any proposals to abolish the national minimum stipend.

  Mr. Allison
  No. It provides an important floor for stipend levels and also helps to determine pension levels.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government will consider using EC funds to provide pensions to farmers and farm workers who are affected by changes in the CAP.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC Commission has tabled proposals that require all member states to set up an early retirement scheme linked to the amalgamation of small farms. The Community would contribute to the cost of the pensions paid to farmers and farm workers under this scheme. The proposed scheme is not relevant to the United Kingdom conditions because it is primarily aimed at amalgamating the many very small farms prevalent on some other member states, and we are arguing that it should be optional.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the criteria on which funds are made available(a) for drainage of land and (b) for set-aside land; and whether land which is within an area with subsidised drainage can be eligible for set-aside funds.

  Mr. Curry
  The detailed rules and rates of payment of grant for replacement field drainage as part of an improvement plan under the farm and conservation grant scheme—F and CGS—and for set-aside schemes are set out in the relevent scheme literature, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House. Expenditure on grants for the replacement of field drainage under the F and CGS and on set-aside payments in England in 1991 was £49,187 and £19,207,338 respectively. Land which is within an area with subsidised drainage could be set-aside provided it met the conditions for entry to the set-aside scheme.

  Beam Trawling
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in favour of the introduction of a beam trawler licence in the North sea; and what action he proposes to take in response.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has received representations from one producer organisation and from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. We are considering what action to take.

  Agricultural Wages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which ILO convention is the basis for the establishment of the agricultural wages boards; when it expires; and if he will set out the conditions which govern the notice required to depart from the provisions of the convfention.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom is a signatory to two Conventions of the International Labour Organisation —(ILO)—the terms of which are satisfied by the existence of the Agricultural Wages Board—AWB. The ILO conventions do not give the AWB its powers which are provided under the provisions of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948. ILO convention 99 requires signatories to create or maintain adequate machinery whereby minimum rates of wages can be fixed for agricultural workers. This convention may be denounced only within a 12-month period of 'window' which occurs every 10 years. The next such window is open from 23 August 1993 to 22 August 1994. Convention 101 requires signatories to ensure workers employed in agriculture are granted annual holiday with pay. The window for denunciation for this convention is next open from 24 July 1994 to 23 July 1995. In both cases, ILO rules lay down that a denunciation would not take effect until one year after its registration with the ILO.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current and future role of the Agricultural Wages Board, with particular reference to its minimum wage setting functions.

  Mr. Curry
  The Agricultural Wages Board is set up under the provisions of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 26
  and is responsible for prescribing the minimum rates of pay and conditions of service within the agriculture industry. As with all similar bodies, the role of the AWB is reviewed from time to time. There are presently no plans to alter the status of the board or its minimum wage fixing responsibilities.

  South West Regional Centre
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the siting of the new south-west regional centre of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 14 February,Official Report, column 645.

  Farmers (Regulations and Licences)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish his list of every requirement that the Ministry or the European Community places on farmers.

  Mr. Gummer
  The list is a working document and not intended for official publication. I have arranged for a copy to be made available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations with which he is having discussions about the regulations and licences imposed on farmers by his Ministry or the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am currently having discussions with the National Farmers Union about the regulations and licences imposed on farmers by my Department or the European Community. I am also having discussions with national organisations representing agricultural producers who are subject to these legislative requirements.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle that have been confirmed with BSE until the end of January were born after July 1988.

  Mr. Gummer
  Up to the end of January, there have been 16 confirmed cases of BSE in cattle born after 18 July 1988 when the ban on feeding ruminant derived protein to ruminants was introduced. One of these, as previously announced, may have been a case of maternal transmission. Investigations are still continuing into some cases, while for others interpretation of data is incomplete, but it is already clear that most had probably received some ruminant protein largely by carry over of feed produced before the ban.

  MacSharry Proposals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the manpower and resource implications for his Ministry of the implementation of the MacSharry proposals in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  27
  Mr. Gummer
  The manpower and resource implications of reforming the CAP will depend on detailed decisions yet to be made. The Government are arguing for changes to CAP regimes that will minimise the administrative burden for both farmers and the Government.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his meeting with organic farmers on 5 February.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister met representatives of the Soil Association and British Organic Farmers/Organic Growers Association on 5 February. Support for organic farming was discussed in the context of proposals made within the agrienvironment part of the MacSharry proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend reiterated his view that environmental measures should be a central feature of CAP reform and that support for organic farming could make a useful contribution to the reduction of surpluses.

  However, he stressed that support for organic farming was only one of many issues to be discussed in the CAP negotiations and that the eventual outcome of those negotiations is, inevitably, uncertain.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Scottish Affairs Committee
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has for hon. Members representing constituencies in England, Wales or Northern Ireland to be appointed to the Scottish Affairs Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Since at present there is no such Committee the issue does not yet arise.

  Annunciators
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many annunciators there are in the House; what plans he has to add to this number; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The present annunciator system consists of about 1,500 black and white television monitors distributed throughout the parliamentary estate. In the phase 1 buildings—1 Parliament street and 1 Derby gate —modern television receivers provide both the annunciator service and a number of public service television channels, including teletext. It is expected that the existing annunciator sets in the remainder of the parliamentary estate will be replaced by early 1994, as part of the programme to instal a dual data and video network for Members, their staff and staff of the House.

  Procedure
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what comparative studies he has undertaken of parliamentary procedure in other legislatures.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My hon. Friend may know that during the last summer recess I paid an official visit to 28
  Australia and New Zealand where, amongst other engagements, I had discussions with the Speakers and other parliamentary leaders and officials from both the national and state legislatures.

  Office Security
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent discussions he has had in respect of improving security in Members' offices.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  Members' Allowances
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list(a) the different expenses and administrative allowances available to hon. Members and (b) the information he has on similar financial provisions in the parliamentary assemblies of (i) the United States of America, (ii) Germany, (iii) France, (iv) Spain and (v) the European Parliament, specifying the different cash amounts in pound sterling terms, on the latest available relevant statistics.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 29 January 1992]:Information on the allowances for Members of the Spanish Congress of Deputies is not available. The other information requested is as follows:

  ALLOWANCES

  UNITED KINGDOM

  MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Subsistence and Constituency Costs
  Additional Costs Allowance of up to £10,786 for those with constituencies outside London for cost of maintaining second home. Local allowance of £1,222 for those with constituencies in London.

  Travel
  Free travel to and from House on Parliamentary business in United Kingdom and/or motor mileage allowance of up to 20,000 miles at following rates (in pence per mile):

  further mileage

  1,300 cc

  28·8

  15·1

  1,301cc-2,300 cc

  43·4

  19·9

  2,30 1 cc+

  68·2

  34·1

  One free trip per year to EC institution—return Business Class airfare and two nights subsistence.

  Office Secretarial Assistance
  Office Costs Allowance of up to £28,986 (+ 10 per cent. for pension contributions of any staff employed).

  Postage
  Free inland postage.

  Telephone Charges
  Free inland telephone charges.

  Allowance

  UNITED STATES

  MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  Subsistence and Constituency Costs
  Covered by House Committee budgets.

  Travel
  Official Expenses Allowance covers domestic travel to and from constituency.

  29
  Travel on committee business is paid from committee budgets.

  Official and Secretarial Assistance
  Clerk Hire allowance of US $537,480 per annum (£295,725) to hire up to 18 permanent and 4 non-permanent staff.
  Base Official Expenses Allowances of US $122,500 (£67,400) but may be increased to reflect constituency distance from Washington. Covers district travel, district office lease, stationery, telecommunications, mass mailing, postage, computer services, and official expenses in general. Now incorporates up to US $35,000 (£19,257) for equipping district offices.
  An official Entertainment Allowance ranging between US $ 175,000 (£96,286) and US $275,000 (£151,307) is paid to most members.

  Postage
  Official Mail Allowance averaging US $175,000 (£96,286) per annum.

  Telephone Charges

  Allowance

  FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  MEMBER OF THE BUNDESTAG

  Subsistence and Constituency Costs
  Costs of maintaining a second home met from Office Allowance (see below).
  Hotel room bills paid when overnight stay is necessary —DM 39 (£14) per night basic.
  Accommodation and subsistence (variable depending on country visited) also paid on official trips abroad. Up to DM 334 (£116) maximum if bills are submitted.

  Travel
  Free first class season ticket for rail travel, including sleeper tickets.
  Free first class air travel for official internal flights.
  Free use of the Bundestag fleet of official cars for trips within 20 km around Bonn and to Bonn-Cologne airport.
  Free first class flight and local transport costs for official trips abroad.

  Office and Secretarial Assistance
  Secretarial and research costs of DM 12,296 (£4,284) per month for one secretary in Bonn, one in constituency and one researcher.
  Office equipment allowance provides DM 2,000 (£697) per year for running costs (DM 2,500 (£871) in first year for initial equipping of office).
  Free stationery.
  DM 5,765 (£2,009) per month, covering office costs, including constituency office.

  Postage
  Free postage from Bonn (constituency postage is met from constituency costs), 3 fax machines provided—up to DM 4,000 (£1,394) per year fax running costs.

  Telephone Charges
  Free telephone calls from Bonn (worldwide).

  ALLOWANCES

  FRANCE

  DEPUTY IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

  Subsistence and Constituency costs
  Between 3 and 10 percent of salary, depending upon distance of constituency from Paris. Current salary is FFr 29,113 (£2,977) per month.

  Travel
  Free railway pass for first class and sleeper Carriages.
  40 free internal return flights.
  All travel may be accompanied by spouse at half price.
  Toll charges between Paris and constituency are reimbursed but only on official business.

  Office and Secretarial costs
  Secretarial allowance of FFr 24,588 (£2,514) per month to
  30
  cover typist and other office expenses.
  Contribution towards cost of research assistants etc. FFr 24,788 (£2,535) per month.
  Free stationery.

  Postage
  Free postage. Subsidised fax for constituency.

  Telephone Charges
  Free inland calls from Assembly or constituency.

  Members' Allowances
    ALLOWANCE

      MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
      Subsistence and Constituency Costs
      Subsistence Allowance of ECU 180 (£128) per day for attending meetings within the EC territory plus cost of overnight accommodation etc. for attending meetings outside territory.
      Travel
      Flat rate travel allowance of ECU 0·70 (£0·50) per kilometre for the first 800km and ECU 0·35 (£0·25) for additional mileage for travel within the community to attend meetings.
      Reimbursement of the return air fare by the most direct route for travel outside EC territory to attend meetings.
      Travel Allowance of up to 2,500 (£1,779) per annum for travel in performance of duties other than to attend meetings.
      Office and Secretarial Assistance
      Secretarial Assistance Allowance of up to ECU 6,172 (£4,391) per month.
      General Expenditure Allowance of ECU 2,607 (£1,855) per month for office management costs, telephone, postage and travel within Member states.2
      Postage
      See General Expenditure Allowance.
      Telephone Charges
      See General Expenditure Allowance.
      Notes:
      1 The sterling figures were calculated using rates of exchange at the close of business on 6 February 1992.
      2 Halved in respect of Members who, for no valid reason, have failed to attend at least half the number of plenary sittings.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Elderly People (Benefits)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will launch a major and continuing publicity and information exercise aimed at the elderly to encourage them in the take-up of their rights and entitlements to benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans for a single campaign of the kind described, but we continue to consider the particular needs of elderly people.

  Recent initiatives include a new leaflet for older pensioners, linking benefits at significant life changes is being produced with the help of agencies.

  Advertising campaigns supported by leaflets and posters for cold weather payments are mounted whenever and wherever severe weather conditions occur.

  More general leaflets, for elderly people on low incomes and who are sick and disabled are distributed to post offices, including a leaflet on what to do when someone dies. We have also redesigned claim forms to benefit elderly people.
  31
  Agencies, such as citizens advice bureaux are kept informed through a mailing list. GPs, hospitals and clinics; day centres and homes, Age Concern; ministers of religion; chemists; libraries, also receive information.

  A new leaflet, "Caring for Someone?", FB31, was issued in November 1991 for long-term sick and disabled people.

  A new helpline—0253 858858—for war pensioners came into service last month, supported by a new leaflet to publicise the service.

  On 2 and 9 April 1992 special BBC/DSS programmes for the elderly will be screened by "Advice Shop".

  The BBC select—night-time service—will broadcast a 15-minute programme with information for carers of elderly people.

  The Department will continue to give specific attention to the ongoing information needs of elderly people.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Oldham, West of 17 January concerning high priority applications for community care grants to the Cambridge district office.

  Mr. Scott
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the answer of 13 December by the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 553, if he will give details of the examination which has taken place into the impact upon claimants in receipt of family credit and the new disability working allowance of increasing the taper for the proposed council tax rebates to 20 per cent.; and if he will show the results of that examination.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The proposed council tax benefit taper of 20 per cent. needs to be considered in the context of the introduction of 100 per cent. maximum rebates. There will be no minimum contribution to the council tax and income-related benefit levels will not be adjusted, despite the fact that people will no longer be expected to make a 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge.

  The effect of the higher taper on those people who receive family credit or disability working allowance, and housing benefit as well as council tax benefit, will be very small. Their marginal deduction rate will increase slightly from 96 to 97 per cent.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1987–88 family expenditure surveys at 1991–92 prices and estimated benefit levels.

  Single Mothers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received regarding officers of his Department threatening or actually cutting off income support from single mothers who refuse to name the father of their child, in advance of the operation of the Child Support Act 1991 in April.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received seven representations in which this allegation has been made. We take such allegations very seriously, and we have made clear at all times that, while our current policy is to encourage single mothers to co-operate with the Department in obtaining 32
  maintenance for their children, nothing must be said or done to suggest that income support can be reduced or not paid if they refuse to co-operate. Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, shares our concern that the current procedures must be followed in all cases and is happy to investigate any case referred through to him. Steps have been taken to ensure that the correct procedures are followed, and these include sending a bulletin to all offices which sets out again how officers should deal with these sensitive matters. While it is clearly wrong to give a misleading impression to single parents about the possible consequences of not providing information, nevertheless it is right to expect single mothers to co-operate in obtaining maintenance where there is no good reason not to do so, and liable relative officers are advised to proceed in that expectation.

  Pension Funds (Regulation)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will introduce regulations to place restrictions on the investment of the assets of occupational pension schemes in employer-related investments.

  Mr. Newton
  I have today laid before Parliament regulations under schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1990 which will restrict to 5 per cent. the proportion of their resources which occupational pension schemes may invest in the sponsoring company, or any other company associated or connected with it. The regulations will come into effect on 9 March 1992.

  The provision in the Act implemented a recommendation by the independent Occupational Pensions Board in its 1989 report entitled "Protecting Pensions" that self-investment should be restricted to 5 per cent.

  The regulations follow a period of consultation with the board and with industry about how this objective can be achieved without causing undue difficulties for companies whose schemes already involve significant self-investment. The regulations therefore include transitional provisions which will give schemes time to reduce any existing self-investment, but which will prohibit the acquisition of any new self-investment while the 5 per cent. limit is exceeded.

  Where self-investment exceeds 5 per cent. on 9 March 1992, transitional arrangements permit self-investment to continue to exceed 5 per cent., but only in the following restricted circumstances:—
  where a pension scheme has made a loan to the sponsoring employer which is current on 17 February 1992, the employer must repay the loan to the pension fund to reduce self-investment to 5 per cent. by 8 March 1994 or, if later, the earliest date on which repayment can be enforced;
  where a pension scheme has more than 5 per cent. of its assets invested in the sponsoring or associated company in the form of equity of that company listed on a recognised stock exchange, the scheme's holding must be reduced to 5 per cent. by 8 March 1994;
  where a pension scheme has more than 5 per cent. of its assets invested in the sponsoring or associated company in the form of equity traded on a second tier market of a recognised stock exchange, the scheme's holding must be reduced to 5 per cent. by 8 March 1997;
  a pension scheme may continue indefinitely to hold more than 5 per cent. of its assets in the sponsoring or associated company in the form of the equity of the company if a private company or in the form of property leased to the company. While however the self-investment exceeds 5 per cent. the pension scheme may not acquire any additional self-investment.
  33
  The self-investment restrictions do not apply to:—
  —the investments of small self-administered schemes where the number of members is fewer than 12, all the members are trustees and all the members have agreed in writing to the self-investment;
  —individual insurance arrangements where the member agrees in writing to the insurance company investing in the member's company;
  —employer-related investment held in bank or building society accounts;
  —employer-related investment derived from members' additional voluntary contributions.

  The regulations also impose an obligation on pension scheme trustees to disclose to scheme members, beneficiaries and trade union details of any self-investment, whether it exceeds 5 per cent., and whether, and if so how, they propose to reduce the percentage.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration is being given by his Department to any changes that may now be necessary to pension fund regulation; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 20 December 1991 at columns 374–75 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) today.

  Income Assessment
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now consider changing the assumed level of weekly income of £1 for every £250 in savings which is taken into consideration when assessing community charge rebates and other social benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 31 January 1992 at column 697.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  University College, Teesside
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many places will be available for students at the new University college in Teesside when it opens in September.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I understand from the university of Durham and Teesside polytechnic, the institutions managing the admissions to the college, that about 240 places will be available for students in the next academic year, increasing to 1,000 within five years.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what money has been allocated to local education authorities to enable them to fulfil their duty in relation to children who have a statemented need for speech therapy.

  Mr. Fallon
  The local authority grant settlement for English local education authorities for 1992–93 took account of the broad range of pressures facing them and the increase of 7·1 per cent. should enable them to meet all the duties placed upon them in respect of pupils whose statements of special educational needs specify speech therapy as special educational provision.

  Warwickshire
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he or his officials will meet senior education officers of Warwickshire to discuss the educational situation in that county.

  Mr. Fallon
  Officials at the Department are always ready to meet officers of Warwickshire education authority to discuss issues of concern to them.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the standard of education and the maintenance of school infrastructure in Warwickshire.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend does not make assessments of the quality of education, or of the standards of school maintenance, in any particular education authority area. Statistics on levels of achievement in public examinations in different local education authorities are, however, kept by the Department and are publicly available. Reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate on individual schools are also published. The Education (Schools) Bill currently before Parliament will ensure that all schools in Warwickshire are regularly inspected on a four-year cycle with published reports of each inspection.

  Special Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the amount allocated to each local education authority for expenditure on special educational needs provision for each year since 1985, at constant prices.

  Mr. Fallon
  The schools component of standard spending assessments—SSAs—does not separately identify an element for special educational needs. However it does include an allowance, equivalent to about 20 per cent. of standard spending for schools, for the additional cost of educating pupils in areas of relative deprivation which is distributed according to an index of additional educational needs. Authorities are not bound by SSAs, but are free to make their own decisions about total spending on education and the distribution of funding between the schools sectors. The amount of spending on special educational needs provision within mainstream schools with delegated budgets is a matter for the governors of those schools.

  Pupil Testing
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing for each local authority in England the proportion of its primary schools, and relevant age of pupils, which were included in its return to his Department and his aggregate results of the 1991 key stage 1 tests.

  Mr. Eggar
  A table showing for each local authority in England the proportion of primary schools used to compile the aggregate results of the 1991 key stage 1 tests, published on 19 December, was provided in a written answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 15 January,Official Report, columns 580–82.

  The following table shows what proportion of the total cohort of pupils eligible for testing in each LEA is

  35
  represented by the pupils tested in these schools. There is no information about the precise distribution of the ages of pupils tested in each LEA, although all pupils tested completed key stage 1 of the national curriculum in the core subjects in the 1990–91 school year.

  Proportion of 7 year old pupils from maintained schools processed for the purposes of publication of 19 December Report

  Percentage of pupils in KSI results

  Camden

  94

  Greenwich

  74

  Hackney

  100

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  100

  Islington

  62

  Kensington and Chelsea

  100

  Lewisham

  90

  Southwark

  55

  Wandsworth

  85

  Westminster

  96

  Barking and Dagenham

  100

  Barnet

  91

  Bexley

  100

  Brent

  91

  Bromley

  97

  Croydon

  100

  Ealing

  72

  Enfield

  100

  Haringey

  100

  Harrow

  92

  Havering

  100

  Hillingdon

  78

  Hounslow

  49

  Kingston upon Thames

  100

  Merton

  100

  Newham

  46

  Redbridge

  95

  Richmond upon Thames

  86

  Sutton

  100

  Waltham Forest

  94

  Birmingham

  72

  Coventry

  100

  Dudley

  98

  Sandwell

  93

  Solihull

  99

  Walsall

  100

  Wolverhampton

  96

  Knowsley

  91

  Liverpool

  67

  St. Helens

  94

  Sefton

  98

  Wirral

  97

  Bolton

  68

  Bury

  100

  Manchester

  97

  Oldham

  86

  Rochdale

  94

  Salford

  63

  Stockport

  100

  Tameside

  99

  Trafford

  94

  Wigan

  73

  Barnsley

  93

  Doncaster

  87

  Rotherham

  97

  Sheffield

  87

  Bradford

  99

  Calderdale

  100

  Kirklees

  59

  Leeds

  96

  Wakefield

  100

  Gateshead

  97

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  96

  North Tyneside

  74

  South Tyneside

  96

  Sunderland

  98

  Avon

  100

  36

  Percentage of pupils in KSI results

  Bedfordshire

  89

  Berkshire

  99

  Buckinghamshire

  56

  Cambridgeshire

  98

  Cheshire

  88

  Cleveland

  100

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  99

  Cumbria

  93

  Derbyshire

  88

  Devon

  99

  Dorset

  89

  Durham

  91

  East Sussex

  62

  Essex

  100

  Gloucestershire

  93

  Hampshire

  78

  Hereford and Worcester

  99

  Hertfordshire

  93

  Humberside

  98

  Isle of Wight

  84

  Kent

  94

  Lancashire

  90

  Leicestershire

  85

  Lincolnshire

  100

  Norfolk

  60

  North Yorkshire

  100

  Northamptonshire

  100

  Northumberland

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  89

  Oxfordshire

  72

  Shropshire

  96

  Somerset

  95

  Staffordshire

  93

  Suffolk

  96

  Surrey

  97

  Warwickshire

  97

  West Sussex

  99

  Wiltshire

  92

  Total England

  89

  Music
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he gave to the curriculum requirements for music in Wales and Scotland when drawing up his plans for England.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend based his draft order for music in the national curriculum for pupils aged five to 14 on the advice of the National Curriculum Council, the statutory body which advises him on curriculum matters in respect of schools in England. The music curriculum for schools in Wales and Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland in the light of advice from their respective curriculum councils.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the impact his proposed curriculum requirements for teaching music in England will have on the structure of the GCSE; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The draft order on the music curriculum which is currently out for consultation covers five to 14-year-olds only. The implications of the final order for GCSEs in music will be considered by the School Assessment and Examinations Council, in consultation
  37

  with the National Curriculum Council, when they come to revise the criteria for new GCSE syllabuses for first examination in 1996.

  Research Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current level of research expenditure for the Universities Funding Council; and what is the projected expenditure for the next three years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Universities Funding Council allocated £680 million on research-based criteria to universities in academic year 1991–92. This sum was not hypothecated for research. The council has allowed each institution to determine its own spending on teaching and research within the aggregate funds available to it from all sources. The level of funding is determined on an annual basis. The UFC's allocation for 1992–93 announced today represents an underlying increase of over 11 per cent. above the level for 1991–92.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the budget for

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  AFRC—cash

  29·5

  37·5

  42·0

  43·6

  45·8

  46·7

  52·7

  1992–93 prices

  71·7

  77·0

  78·6

  76·2

  76·5

  74·3

  79·5

  ESRC—cash

  16·8

  20·2

  20·7

  20·7

  22·9

  22·0

  23·6

  1992–93 prices

  40·8

  41·5

  38·8

  36·2

  38·3

  35·0

  35·6

  M RC-cash

  572

  72·9

  101·5

  107·5

  113·7

  117·2

  122·3

  1992–93 prices

  130·1

  149·7

  190·1

  187·9

  189·9

  186·5

  184·4

  NERC—cash

  36·6

  46·7

  54·3

  58·0

  61·6

  65·3

  67·9

  1992–93 prices

  88·9

  95·9

  101·7

  101·4

  102·9

  103·9

  102·4

  SERC—cash

  175·6

  201·4

  216·8

  234·4

  254·3

  278·8

  298·4

  1992–93 prices

  426·7

  413·5

  405·9

  409·7

  424·8

  443·6

  449·9

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  AFRC—cash

  57·1

  54·9

  61·1

  74·3

  88·4

  95·6

  101·6

  1992–93 prices

  83·4

  76·0

  78·9

  90·1

  98·9

  99·9

  101·6

  ESRC—cash

  23·8

  24·8

  27·0

  31·5

  36·6

  35·6

  40·7

  1992–93 prices

  34·7

  34·3

  34·9

  38·2

  40·9

  37·2

  40·7

  MRC—cash

  128·3

  139·8

  149·6

  176·3

  185·7

  202·9

  218·8

  1992–93 prices

  187·3

  193·5

  193·2

  213·9

  207·7

  212·0

  218·8

  NERC—cash

  70·3

  73·3

  91·9

  115·0

  135·2

  123·7

  126·8

  1992–93 prices

  102·6

  101·5

  118·7

  139·4

  151·2

  129·3

  126·8

  SERC—cash

  316·2

  357·5

  367·6

  406·2

  440·8

  456·4

  494·9

  1992–93 prices

  461·6

  494·9

  474·8

  492·7

  492·8

  477·0

  494·9

  Note:

  The 1992–93 figures were announced to the House on 16 December 1991 (Official Report, columns 33–35). They exclude the amounts in respect of dual support transfers totaling £48 million.

  In addition to the grant in aid from this Department, the councils also receive substantial income from other sources.
  38
  research of the Universities Funding Council and its predecessor body in real and constant price terms since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Neither the Universities Funding Council—UFC—nor its predecessor, the University Grants Committee—UGC—has hypothecated funding for research. Each institution has been free to determine its own spending on teaching and research within the aggregate funds available to it from all sources. Estimates of UFC-funded spending on research are set out in the "Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development", copies of which arc in the Library. Estimated spending on scientific research funded by the UGC and UFC respectively increased by 9 per cent in real terms between 1979–80 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the budget in real and constant price terms of each of the research councils since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Details of the grants in aid to the research councils since 1979–80 from this Department, in both cash terms and at 1992–93 prices are as follows.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how amny full-time undergraduates there were at British universities in each year since 1979.

  Alan Howarth
  The information is given in the table.
  39

  Great Britain-Full-time undergraduate students

  Number

  1979

  245,093

  1980

  251,154

  1981

  253,371

  1982

  250,024

  1983

  244,249

  1984

  241,688

  1985

  242,922

  1986

  246,430

  1987

  250,710

  1988

  260,684

  1989

  275,320

  1990

  289,069

  Source: Universities Statistical Record.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will state the allocation among local education authorities of the extra funding for teachers' pay which was recently announced;

  (2) what is the projected cost of the teachers' pay award in each local education authority; and what is the cost above the standard cost uplift implied by the revenue support grant settlement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Government's proposal to implement the recommendations of the school teachers review body will add an estimated 7·8 per cent. to the teachers' pay bill of local education authorities in England and Wales in 1992–93. The pay bill of LEAs in inner and outer London and some authorities in the south-east will go up by slightly more than the average because of the additional cost of the review body's recommendations on non-discretionary London allowances. In order to help local authorities to cover the cost of the award the Government propose to pay additional grant to authorities in England and Wales totalling £60 million. The £60 million broadly represents the difference between the cost of an award consistent with the overall uplift in education standard spending allowed in the 1992–93 RSG settlements for England and Wales—7·2 per cent.—and the actual cost of the award—7·8 per cent. England's share of the £60 million is £56.5 million. The Government propose that, subject to the House of Commons approval, the additional grant in England should be distributed to local education authorities on the basis of the schools elements of their standard spending assessments. Illustrative allocations to individual LEAs on this basis are set out in the following table. Distribution of the Welsh share of £3·5 million is a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Table showing the distribution of additional grant for each local education authority in England in £s

  Local authority

  Additional grant

  GREATER LONDON

  City of London

  734

  Camden

  191,824

  Greenwich

  340,194

  Hackney

  344,129

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  166,063

  Islington

  255,946

  Kensington and Chelsea

  106,766

  Lambeth

  400,767

  Lewisham

  344,808

  Southwark

  337,366

  Tower Hamlets

  388,635

  40

  Local authority

  Additional grant

  Wandsworth

  283,150

  Westminster

  152,476

  Barking and Dagenham

  196,396

  Barnet

  345,836

  Bexley

  275,540

  Brent

  394,356

  Bromley

  302,405

  Croydon

  383,654

  Ealing

  391,396

  Enfield

  350,949

  Haringey

  304,639

  Harrow

  227,177

  Havering

  279,549

  Hillingdon

  274,867

  Hounslow

  279,894

  Kingston upon Thames

  140,044

  Merton

  177,791

  Newham

  405,011

  Redbridge

  287,167

  Richmond upon Thames

  120,937

  Sutton

  192,471

  Waltham Forest

  321,977

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  332,815

  Bury

  187,135

  Manchester

  624,614

  Oldham

  297,607

  Rochdale

  265,175

  Salford

  267,431

  Stockport

  307,183

  Tameside

  263,627

  Trafford

  238,630

  Wigan

  351,479

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  243,683

  Liverpool

  667,301

  Sefton

  336,079

  St. Helens

  224,426

  Wirral

  428,119

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  241,839

  Doncaster

  380,746

  Rotherham

  320,063

  Sheffield

  527,881

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  230,089

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  309,228

  North Tyneside

  231,081

  South Tyneside

  178,571

  Sunderland

  360,732

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,519,457

  Coventry

  378,100

  Dudley

  324,641

  Sandwell

  379,363

  Solihull

  224,404

  Walsall

  336,406

  Wolverhampton

  340,690

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  716,003

  Calderdale

  242,797

  Kirklees

  486,771

  Leeds

  811,248

  Wakefield

  354,339

  All Purpose Authority

  Isles of Scilly

  4,169

  41

  Local authority

  Additional grant

  Shire Counties

  Avon

  974,079

  Bedfordshire

  703,722

  Berkshire

  886,505

  Buckinghamshire

  818,998

  Cambridgeshire

  755,620

  Cheshire

  1,113,732

  Cleveland

  792,026

  Cornwall

  530,969

  Cumbria

  547,589

  Derbyshire

  1,007,005

  Devon

  1,043,418

  Dorset

  610,464

  Durham

  698,966

  East Sussex

  670,182

  Essex

  1,821,532

  Gloucestershire

  568,408

  Hampshire

  1,707,874

  Hereford and Worcester

  745,915

  Hertfordshire

  1,155,985

  Humberside

  1,075,491

  Isle of Wight

  144,030

  Kent

  1,777,478

  Lancashire

  1,647,414

  Leicestershire

  1,089,525

  Lincolnshire

  679,359

  Norfolk

  807,025

  Northamptonshire

  703,169

  Northumberland

  363,015

  North Yorkshire

  746,045

  Nottinghamshire

  1,180,252

  Oxfordshire

  575,576

  Shropshire

  478,931

  Somerset

  473,021

  Staffordshire

  1,164,795

  Suffolk

  677,208

  Surrey

  994,128

  Warwickshire

  524,822

  West Sussex

  732,529

  Wiltshire

  614,368

  University Lectures
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many Universities Funding Council funded full-time lecturing staff there were in 1979; and how many there were at the most recent count.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Universities derive their funds from a variety of sources including the Universities Funding Council, and before it the University Grants Committee. The total number of wholly-university funded full-time academic staff with teaching and research duties in United Kingdom universities was 33,173 in 1979–80 and 30.644 in 1990–91. UGC and UFC funds respectively will have provided partial support for virtually all of these posts.

DEFENCE

  Employment (Scotland)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel are currently located in Scotland.
  42
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At 1 January 1992, there were a total of 19,845 regular armed forces personnel located in Scotland. These comprised 9,876 Royal Naval personnel, including sea service personnel in home waters with Scottish home ports, 2,978 Army personnel and 6,991 Royal Air Force personnel.

  Gulf Trust
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money the public has donated to the Gulf Trust.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand from the trustee of the Gulf Trust that almost £2,900,000 has been donated.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answers,Official Report, 23 January, column 336, on what date the Gulf Trust will be formally wound up; and if he will, then provide information, about the amount of money allocated to each of the service benevolent funds.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The deed of trust for the Gulf Trust provides for the winding-up of the trust on 12 February 1993, or such longer period as the trustee may determine after consultation with the Secretary of State for Defence. The amount of money allocated to each of the service benevolent funds donated to the Gulf Trust will be announced when the Gulf Trust is wound up.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number in the forces who, while in service in Northern Ireland, have been(a) killed, (b) injured, (c) so seriously injured as to become disabled, (d) have suffered acknowledged mental distress and (e) have been discharged from the forces on medical grounds, including both physical and mental causes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  From August 1969 until 31 December 1991, a total of 434 service men, excluding the Ulster Defence Regiment, were killed while on operations in Northern Ireland. Corresponding figures for injuries have been maintained centrally only from 1979. Since then, a total of 3,838 service men have been injured. Attributable figures for disablement, mental distress, and any consequential medical discharge are not available in the form requested.

  UN Conference, Rio de Janeiro
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making to Her Majesty's Government's preparations for the United Nations conference on environment and development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In common with other Government Departments, the Ministry of Defence is participating, as necessary, in the work required to develop and secure the Government's overall objectives for the UN conference on environment and development.

  Cold Weather Monitoring
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the minimum overnight temperatures recorded by the Meteorological Office in degrees
  43
  Fahrenheit for cold weather purposes for each of the nights of January 1991 and January 1992 at (a) Boulmer weather station and (b) Eskdalemuir weather station.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have asked the chief executive of the Meteorological Office to write to the hon. Member.

SCOTLAND

  Project 2000
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial allocation has been made to each health board in 1991–92 and is proposed for 1992–93 in respect of Project 2000.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Board

  1991–92 £million

  1992–93 £million

  Argyll and Clyde

  1·996

  2·235

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0·495

  0·535

  Borders

  0·534

  0·825

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·458

  0·495

  Fife

  0·699

  1·089

  Forth Valley

  0·700

  0·756

  Grampian

  1·691

  1·828

  Greater Glasgow

  3·039

  3·286

  Highland

  0·534

  0·578

  Lanarkshire

  1·068

  1·155

  Lothian

  2·124

  2·350

  Orkney

  0·060

  0·065

  Shetland

  0·075

  0·080

  Tayside

  1·627

  1·777

  Western Isles

  0·120

  0·130

  Total

  15·220

  17·184

  HIV and AIDS
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many non-haemophiliacs in Scotland have contracted HIV infection as a result of national health service transfers of(a) blood, (b) blood products and (c) tissue; and how many of each of these groups became infected before the introduction of screening of donations in October 1985.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to the reply that my hon. Friend gave on 6 November 1991,Official Report, at column 175. The total number of reported cases in Scotland as at 31 January was 12.

  I have announced today that the special financial help already made to those with haemophilia and HIV in Scotland is to be extended to those infected with HIV as a result of blood transfusion or tissue transfer in the United Kingdom.

  Fishing Boats (Repairs)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to ensure that in the application of the 135-day tie-up rule no account will be taken of trips by fishing boats to enable them to undergo repairs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I can confirm that where a vessel is tied up for repairs this period can count towards the 135 days. Of course, by definition time spent at sea in reaching a yard is not time in port in terms of EC Regulation 3882/91.

  Forestry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress achieved in development of United Kingdom forestry policy for the United Nations conference on environment and development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The United Nations conference on environment and development is expected to agree to a statement of principles for the sustainable management and development of forests, and to give a programme of action to conserve and to expand the world's forests. The Government fully support those initiatives.

  Sustainable, multi-purpose forestry is central to the Government's domestic forestry policy which I am sure will fully accord with the agreements that are signed at the United Nations conference.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cyclists have been(a) injured and (b) killed in road traffic accidents in each year since 1981.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: The information requested on pedal cycle casualties in Scotland is as follows:

  Number of pedal cycle casualties in Scotland

  Killed

  Injured (serious and slight)

  1981

  20

  1,458

  1982

  16

  1,440

  1983

  24

  1,647

  1984

  16

  1,834

  1985

  14

  1,567

  1986

  19

  1,443

  1987

  14

  1,534

  1988

  6

  1,401

  1989

  16

  1,534

  1990

  17

  1,407

  Traffic Cameras
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many automatic cameras have been installed at traffic-light-controlled junctions; and how many more are planned this year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: One automatic camera has been introduced in Strathclyde region, where it will be used at six traffic-light-controlled junctions. A further six sites have been identified in the region at which an unmanned camera could usefully be installed. It is expected that these sites will come into operation this year.

  It is a matter for each chief constable, in consultation with his roads authority, to decide where and to what extent cameras might with advantage be installed in his area.

  Police Traffic Operations
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest available annual figures of(a) police traffic officers and (b) civilian staff working in police traffic departments, in each year since 1981.
  45
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: Details are given in the table. Information on civilian staff, other than traffic wardens, in traffic divisions is available only from 1988.

  As at 31 December

  Police

  Traffic wardens

  Other civilians

  1981

  1,047

  617

  1

  1982

  1,040

  573

  1

  1983

  1,023

  559

  1

  1984

  900

  531

  1

  1985

  894

  523

  1

  1986

  891

  546

  1

  1987

  899

  536

  1

  1988

  898

  533

  182

  1989

  916

  511

  169

  1990

  907

  538

  169

  1 Information is not available for these years.

  Persons proceeded against in Scottish courts

  Reckless driving (i)

  Illegal use of bus-lanes (ii)

  Contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations (iii)

  Speeding (iv)

  Neglect of traffic directions (v)

  Drunk driving (vi)

  1981

  492

  N/a

  2,492

  27,296

  4,105

  11,460

  1982

  474

  N/a

  1,493

  20,466

  2,953

  10,666

  19831

  575

  N/a

  1,654

  22,210

  2,959

  11,767

  1984

  575

  N/a

  514

  5,692

  1,609

  12,500

  1985

  537

  N/a

  409

  5,519

  935

  12,514

  1986

  658

  N/a

  434

  6,976

  812

  12,019

  1987

  590

  N/a

  407

  9,803

  1,011

  11,438

  1988

  676

  N/a

  648

  11,218

  1,567

  10,664

  1989

  722

  N/a

  773

  13,957

  1,655

  8,818

  1990

  783

  N/a

  909

  18,197

  2,227

  8,830

  N/a—Not available.

  1 Since mid 1983 many motor vehicle offences have been dealt with by procurator fiscal fixed penalties rather than by prosecution in the courts.

  Persons with charge proved in Scottish courts

  Reckless driving (i)

  Illegal use of bus-lanes (ii)

  Contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations (iii)

  Speeding (iv)

  Neglect of traffic-directions (v)

  Drunk driving (vi)

  1981

  457

  N/a

  2,376

  26,467

  3,884

  11,244

  1982

  436

  N/a

  1,451

  20,305

  2,834

  10,429

  1983'

  540

  N/a

  1,620

  22,024

  2,857

  11,556

  1984

  528

  N/a

  483

  5,570

  1,493

  12,213

  1985

  501

  N/a

  392

  5,432

  865

  12,269

  1986

  609

  N/a

  414

  6,882

  732

  11,780

  1987

  554

  N/a

  390

  9,695

  942

  11,199

  1988

  633

  > N/a

  617

  11,057

  1,444

  10,416

  1989

  652

  N/a

  743

  13,806

  1,525

  8,650

  1990

  694

  N/a

  865

  17,945

  2,063

  8,583

  N/a—Not available.

  1 Since mid 1983 many motor vehicle offences have been dealt with by procurator fiscal fixed penalties rather than by prosecution in the courts

TRANSPORT

  A19, Elwick
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the estimated lane rental cost of the road repairs to the Al9 at Elwick, County Durham.

  Mr. Chope
  The A 1 9 works at Elwick in Cleveland included an improvement scheme and was not considered suitable for lane rental.

  Traffic Offences
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many motorists have been(a) charged with and (b) convicted of (i) reckless driving, (ii) illegal use of bus lanes, (iii) failure to accord precedence at zebra and pedestrian crossings, (iv) speeding (v) failure to stop at a red or amber traffic light and (vi) drunken driving, respectively, in each year since 1981.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: The available information is set out in the table.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the duration of road repairs to the A 19 at Elwick, County Durham.

  Mr. Chope
  There were two separate contracts for the Al9 improvement and resurfacing works between Elwick and Wolviston, in Cleveland. They were as follows:

  Elwick to Sheraton—12 October 1989 to 19 January 1990

  Wolviston to Elwick—14 January to 7 September 1991

  Both contracts were completed within the contract period.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what expenditure is taking place this financial year on the Thornaby and Middleton St. George bypasses.

  Mr. Chope
  These schemes are the responsibility of the local highway authorities Cleveland county council and Durham county council.

  Tees Viaduct
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of repairs to the A 1 9 Tees viaduct carried out during 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  The estimated cost of work on the Al9 Tees viaduct in 1991–92 is £2.6 million.

  Air Safety
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairmen of the Civil Aviation Authority and the airlines about the installation of water sprinklers in the cabins of civil aircraft; what testing of this equipment has taken place; and what assessment has been made of the merits of such equipment with respect to the effects of aircraft fires and the avoidance of long-term risks of physical damage to the passenger.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has kept in close touch on this matter with the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the statutory responsibility for matters of aviation safety. An extensive international programme of tests on water sprays has taken place with promising results so far. A further series of tests to study the effect of water sprays on passengers evacuating an aircraft will commence shortly; these will be conducted by the Cranfield Institute of Technology using the Fire Research Station's facility at Cardington and be sponsored by the CAA. The introduction into service of a water spray system would require international agreement and involve extensive consultation with the airline industry.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions are taking place with his European counterparts about introducing common air safety standards on all EC-based airlines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On 16 December 1991 the EC Council of Transport Ministers adopted Regulation (EEC) No. 3922–91 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation. This will ensure common safety and technical standards for EC aviation.

  The United Kingdom continues to play a significant part in the work of the European Joint Aviation Authorities which is drawing up further safety standards with a view to their being adopted by the EC under the harmonization regulation.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many residential properties not physically affected by the east London river crossing have so far been purchased by his Department on compassionate grounds.
  48
  Mr. Chope
  Four properties have been purchased by the Department on the ground that conditions would be intolerable during construction of the scheme. The Department has agreed to buy one further property on those grounds, but the purchase has not yet been completed. All these purchases were agreed before the Secretary of State's powers of purchase were extended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. I announced the new guidelines which will be applied to such purchases in an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on 21 November 1991,Official Report, column 237.

  M1/M62 Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department have had with Wakefield metropolitan district council and local parish or community councils within the Wakefield metropolitan distrtict with regard to the route of the proposed M 1/M62 link road.

  Mr. Chope
  No formal discussions have been held because the proposed scheme is at an early stage of development. We are about to consult representative bodies and the public about possible alternative routes.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the proposed route for the Ml/M62 motorway link.

  Mr. Chope
  Public consultation into the options for a proposed link between the M I south west of Wakefield and the M62 east of Huddersfield will start on 27 February 1992. It is only after the responses from the public and representative bodies are fully assessed that we will be able to make an announcement about a preferred route.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Official Secrets
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what level and within which public bodies in Northern Ireland members are required to comply with official secrets regulations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  An offence under the Official Secrets Act 1989 may be committed by any person coming into possession of information of a class covered by that Act.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as to what proportion of the clear-up rate for crime in his area in 1990–91 is accounted for by voluntary admissions by convicted criminals; how many detectives are employed to obtain these admissions; and when the practice ceased.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Crimes in Northern Ireland are considered statistically cleared only when a charge has been preferred or a summons issued in relation to a specific offence.

  Voluntary admissions by convicted criminals do not by themselves affect the clear up rate for crime. However, they are often received by detectives in the normal course of their investigations. No detectives are deployed solely to obtain such admissions.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were on the electoral registers published(a) in February 1983 and (b) February 1992 for each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Register published in February 1983

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number

  Belfast East

  74,031

  Belfast North

  61,826

  Belfast South

  66,326

  Belfast West

  57,145

  North Antrim

  106,131

  South Antrim

  133,544

  Armagh

  96,550

  North Down

  105,942

  South Down

  95,220

  Londonderry

  102,635

  Mid Ulster

  86,104

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  75,731

  TOTAL

  1,061,185

  Register published in February 1992

  Constituency

  Number

  Belfast East

  53,375

  Belfast North

  55,587

  Belfast South

  52,556

  Belfast West

  55,280

  East Antrim

  63,739

  East Londonderry

  76,912

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  71,472

  Foyle

  75,970

  Lagan Valley

  73,688

  Mid Ulster

  70,410

  Newry and Armagh

  68,716

  North Antrim

  70,217

  North Down

  69,604

  Strangford

  69,855

  South Antrim

  68,292

  South Down

  77,371

  Upper Bann

  68,422

  TOTAL

  1,141,466

  Note: The parliamentary constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order, 1982, altered the number, names and boundaries of Parliamentary Constituencies in Northern Ireland, and came into effect at the 1983 general election (June).

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current level of inward investment to date in 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  1991 was a record year with 183 projects promising over 17,000 new or safeguarded jobs and £860 million capital investment.

  Receivership
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of companies that went into receivership in Wales between 1979 and 1983, between 1983 and 1989 and in 1990 and 1991.
  50
  Mr. David Hunt
  None. There are no such records.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has concerning the number of mortgage repossessions in Wales during 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There was a significant and very welcome reduction in the number of repossession actions initiated in the last quarter of 1991. As the impact of the package of measures agreed with mortgage lenders in December begins to take effect, the level of repossessions will continue to fall.

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on tourism in Wales in 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Although complete figures are not yet available the Wales tourist board expect that, despite a difficult year, tourism in Wales in 1991 will have maintained the impressive levels reached in 1990. Well-targeted investment in the Welsh tourist industry has taken place through a variety of schemes and very careful attention has been give to good quality customer care. My right hon. Friend was very pleased to launch the welcome host training initiative being run by the Wales Tourist board in conjunction with the Welsh training and enterprise councils.

  I am confident that the tourist industry in Wales will go from strength to strength and in particular I look forward to the national garden festival which will be held at Ebbw Vale this year.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of(a) physiotherapists, (b) occupational therapists, (c) speech therapists and (d) community psychiatric nurses in Wales in 1979 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is as follows:

  Staff in post as at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents

  1979

  1991

  (a)Physiotherapists

  354

  650

  (b)Occupational therapists

  122

  352

  (c)Speech therapists

  65

  154

  (d)Community psychiatric nurses Complete information is not held centrally

  EC Regional Policies
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet EC Commissioner Millan to discuss the impact of EC regional policies on the economy of Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I hope to meet Commissioner Milian on 20 February when I visit Brussels to open the Wales European centre.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of local authorities in Wales to discuss local government finance.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend chaired a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council for Local Government Finance on 13 January to discuss the local government revenue settlement for 1992–93.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Powys county council concerning the rate support grant settlement for 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has not yet received any representations directly from Powys county council on the settlement for the coming year.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what number of persons are now registered unemployed in Wales; and what was the number registered as unemployed in Wales in February 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In January 1992, the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure for Wales was 123,600. The comparable figure for February 1979 was 70,500.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the number of male unemployed in Newport, Gwent and Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In January 1992, there were 5,712, 16,063 and 101,149 unemployed male claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales respectively.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to alter the standard spending assessment criteria for counties in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The distribution formulae on which county authority's SSAs for 1992–93 are based have been agreed with the Assembly of Welsh Counties and ratified by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. The formulae for 1993–94 will be determined in the same way.

  Hospitals (South Glamorgan)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority concerning hospital provision within the county.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

  Recession
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met local authority leaders in Wales to discuss the impact of the recession and job losses on their communities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I regularly meet local authority leaders and discuss a wide range of issues with them.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange to meet the chairman of Welsh Water plc to discuss the basis of water charging in Wales after the introduction of a new house value system for the purposes of the proposed council tax; and if he will consider in that context the need for changes in legislation to enable the water company to make rebates to single person households or those on low incomes.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No. Under section 142 of the Water Industry Act 1991 it is for the water undertaker to determine how charges are calculated. Water charges pay for the provision of a service. It is for the social security system to provide allowances for general living expenses to those in need.

  Music Targets
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales why he decided to adopt three attainment targets for music in the national curriculum for Wales as published on 3 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The proposals for music in the national curriculum, including the proposals for three attainment targets, were issued for consultation in August last year. The consultation period ended on 1 November. The Curriculum Council for Wales, which has statutory responsibility for advising the Secretary of State on curriculum matters, and the majority of respondents in Wales endorsed a structure which included three attainments targets. The order will also provide opportunities for pupils in Wales to benefit from the Welsh musical heritage as well as other sources.

  Deprivation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the basis on which resources of the rural capital projects initiative will be distributed within Wales; whether it will be geared to the indices of the Welsh deprivation table; and what consideration he will give in this allocation of these funds to those areas, identified as qualifying in terms of deprivation, which have, over recent years, not attracted significant investment under the urban aid programme.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The main objective of the rural initiative competition is to identify those projects likely to be of most benefit to rural communities. Each application is considered on its individual merits and careful account is taken of the views of local authorities and the relevant agencies. The allocation of funds is not based on the ward index of deprivation, which was constructed for a different purpose.

  This is a new initiative which, assuming that good quality projects are submitted, will benefit rural communities throughout the Principality.

  Animal Carcases
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the disposal of farm animal carcases; and if he will make a statement.
  53
  Mr. David Hunt
  Occasional correspondence on the subject of the disposal of farm animal carcases has been received.

  Intensive Poultry Units
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines are issued to local authority planning departments regarding the development of intensive poultry units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Advice on planning controls over livestock units its given in planning policy guidance note No. 7 "The Countryside and the Rural Economy"—annex B, paragraphs B 3–1 to B 3–6—issued in January this year.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what effect his Department estimates the present proposals for a GATT settlement will have upon the agricultural industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Council of the European Communities has instructed the Commission to negotiate improvements in the draft text prepared by the GATT director general, Mr. Dunkel. It has noted that a final assessment will be possible only after such negotiations have taken place.

  Central Government capital and current expenditure on trunk roads and motorways

  £'000 per mile

  Year

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  1981–82

  199

  85

  262

  38

  125

  28

  168

  139

  1982–83

  363

  63

  58

  113

  170

  21

  139

  175

  1983–84

  434

  86

  46

  111

  402

  21

  226

  136

  1984–85

  268

  56

  52

  71

  343

  20

  194

  71

  1985–86

  217

  54

  131

  76

  203

  22

  97

  93

  1986–87

  222

  86

  95

  129

  168

  20

  146

  73

  1987–88

  156

  72

  63

  303

  151

  17

  177

  123

  1988–89

  237

  36

  63

  386

  139

  20

  211

  260

  1989–90

  191

  73

  80

  306

  104

  35

  57

  132

  1990–91

  172

  97

  96

  349

  80

  52

  385

  659

  Note: 1981–82 is the earliest year and 1990–91 the latest year for which information is available.

  Road Improvements, Fishguard
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will hold a public inquiry into the proposed road improvement schemes to be carried out in Fishguard; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have yet to publish my proposals in the form of draft orders for the diversion at Lower Town and a route 6 western bypass of Fishguard. A decision to hold a public inquiry for either will be taken in the light of any objections received following publication of my proposals.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has for the cost of allowing businesses in Wales to remain eligible for transitional relief from the uniform business rate although they move premises in 1992–93; and what would be the additional cost of

  Dairy Producers
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dairy producers have left the industry in Wales during the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of milk producers in Wales in 1981 and 1991 was as follows:

  Milk Producers (a)

  Number

  (b) 1981

  7,566

  (c) 1991

  5,539

  (a) From the register maintained under the Milk and Dairies (General) Regulations 1959

  (b) Figures at December

  (c) Figures at September

  This takes account of both new entrants and producers leaving the dairy industry.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per mile on trunk roads in each of the Welsh counties during the last year for which figures are available; what were the corresponding figures for the previous 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  returning eligibility for transitional relief in 1992–93 to those businesses who moved premises in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Transitional relief does not attach to businesses but to the premises they occupy. The additional cost of returning transitional protection to properties where there was a change of occupier in 1990–91 or 1991–92 would be around £1 million. No estimate is possible for 1992–93.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of increasing the thresholds at which Welsh businesses are eligible for the small business category of uniform business rate transitional relief, from a rateable value of £10,000 to £15,000 in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I estimate that the cost of increasing the small property threshold for uniform business rate transitional relief to £15,000 would be about £5 million in 1992–93.
  55
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the cost of cancelling the announced increase in the national non-domestic rate poundage for Wales in 1992–93; and what would be the cost of reducing that increase to(a) 3 per cent., (b) 2 per cent., and (c) 1 per cent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I estimate the cost of underindexing the national non-domestic rate poundage for Wales in 1992–93 would be approximately £5 million for each one percentage point. Cancelling the increase of just over 4 per cent. on the 1991–92 multiplier would cost approximately £20 million.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost in 1992–93 of extending the transitional relief scheme for the uniform business rate in Wales so that all losses are suspended in the coming financial year, while all gains continue to be phased in according to the transitional arrangements.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I estimate that the cost of reducing the real terms transitional limits to 0 per cent. in 1992–93 would be around £15 million.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost of lowering the maximum permissible annual increase in uniform business rate bills for Welsh businesses in(a) nominal and (b) real terms (i) for small businesses from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. and (ii) for larger businesses, from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. in 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The cost of lowering the maximum annual transition increase by 5 per cent. for (i) small businesses and (ii) larger businesses whether in nominal or real terms, would be about £5 million in each case, £10 million in total.

  Monmouth
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many inward investment projects have been attracted to Monmouth travel-to-work area since 1979; and if he will give details of those projects;

  (2) what proposals he has to attract business investment and quality jobs to the Monmouth travel-to-work area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Comprehensive records are not available from 1979.

  Wales has, however, secured record levels of inward investment in recent years and continuing efforts are made to draw to the attention of investors the advantages of locations throughout Wales. This includes targeted campaigns such as IT Wales and the financial services initiative. A range of assistance and considerable expert advice to aid industrial development is available from the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency and tourism developments are encouraged by schemes operated by the Wales tourist board.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what delegation he has agreed to meet concerning the application for assisted area status for the Monmouth travel-to-work area;

  (2) when he proposes to meet a delegation on behalf of Monmouth borough council, Monmouth town council, Gwent county council and Monmouth chamber of commerce concerning the application for assisted area status for the Monmouth travel-to-work area;
  56
  (3) when he next proposes to meet representatives of the business community in Monmouth to discuss business investment.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have agreed to meet a deputation to discuss business investment in the area, including assisted area status, but the details have not yet been finalised.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the travel-to-work areas in south Wales which do not have assisted area status.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Taking the area south of that covered by the Development Board of Rural Wales, there are three travel-to-work areas which are not assisted areas. These are Carmarthen, Llandeilo and Monmouth.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the levels of debt that each district authority in Wales is required to redeem from capital receipts from the sale of council houses.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The table sets out for each authority the amount required to be set aside for credit liabilities from the sale of council houses up to 31 March 1991.

  Reserved part of receipts from council house sales up to 31 March 1991(1)

  £000

  Alyn and Deeside

  3,813

  Colwyn

  2,324

  Delyn

  1,332

  Glyndwr

  2,230

  Rhuddlan

  2,859

  Wrexham Maelor

  10,904

  Carmarthen

  4,318

  Ceredigion

  5,372

  Dinefwr

  1,267

  Llanelli

  2,336

  Preseli Pembs

  5,674

  South Pembrokeshire

  4,582

  Blaenau Gwent

  6,223

  Islwyn

  6,894

  Monmouth

  4,362

  Newport

  10,453

  Torfaen

  6,395

  Aberconwy

  5,317

  Arfon

  4,293

  Dwyfor

  834

  Meirionnydd

  1,527

  Ynys Mon

  4,966

  Cynon Valley

  2,744

  Merthyr Tydfil

  3,185

  Ogwr

  6,724

  Rhondda

  621

  Rhymney Valley

  7,056

  Taff-Ely

  8,174

  Brecknock

  6,346

  Montgomeryshire

  7,584

  Radnorshire

  3,160

  Cardiff

  7,028

  Vale of Glamorgan

  18,922

  Port Talbot

  4,400

  Lliw Valley

  5,083

  Neath

  3,038

  Swansea

  4,838

  Total Wales

  187,178

  1 Including the reserved part of (i) cash backed accumulated receipts at midnight 31 March 1990 and (ii) in-year receipts 1990–91.

  57
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to whether local authorities in Wales are investing their permitted level of capital receipts from the sale of council houses in new housing.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of 1990–91 capital receipts from the sale of council houses each local authority in Wales has actually spent on housing.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Authorities may apply the usable part of capital receipts to any capital purpose. The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses he estimates could be constructed in each local authority in Wales if those local authorities were permitted to spend(a) 50 per cent., (b) 75 per cent. and (c) 100 per cent. of their 1990–91 capital receipts from the sale of council houses.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is not possible to make such estimates in view of factor cost variations and other considerations, including those related to sound financial and resource management.

  Further Education
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make provision for special transitional arrangements, pending the setting up of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales, to enable suitable premises to be found for further education students and staff currently located at the Llandaf and Colchester avenue campuses of the Cardiff institute of higher education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has agreed to meet a deputation from South Glamorgan county council, South Glamorgan TEC and the Construction Industry training board to discuss the local authority's proposals.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment has been made by CADW of listed buildings in Monmouth.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a duty to compile a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest for the guidance of local planning authorities. A detailed survey of Monmouth was undertaken in 1974 which identified 169 buildings. Since then, in response to inquiries made to the Department a further six buildings have been added to the statutory list.

  Health Service
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount allocated by each district health authority in Wales to the extra-contractual budget.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information relating to the reserves which each health authority in Wales has set aside in 1991–92 for extra contractual referrals is as follows:
  58

  Budget for extra contractual referrals 1991–92

  District health authority

  £ million

  Clwyd

  1·2

  East Dyfed

  1·2

  Gwent

  1·4

  Gwynedd

  1·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·3

  Pembrokeshire

  0·6

  Powys

  0·5

  South Glamorgan

  1·6

  West Glamorgan

  1·6

  Source: Health authorities in Wales.

  Sites of Archaeological Significance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the duties of local authority planning departments with regard to development on sites of archaeological significance.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The desirability of preserving archaeological remains is a material consideration which local planning authorities are obliged to consider. To assist authorities we have made available guidance: planning policy guidance note 16 (Wales) archaeology and planning, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding Monmouth's archaeological significance; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No general representations have been received about the archaeological significance of Monmouth although I, and the Department, fully appreciate the importance of the town's archaeology.

  Shared Ownership Accommodation
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of shared ownership houses and flats due to be completed by local authorities and housing associations in Wales in the current financial year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information about the intended tenure of local authority dwellings under construction is not available centrally. A total of 270 shared ownership dwellings are expected to be completed by housing associations in Wales in 1991–92. In addition it is estimated that 602 dwellings for flexible tenure for the elderly will be completed, many of which could be expected to be occupied on a shared equity basis.

  Chippenham Mead, Monmouth
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding proposed development of Chippenham Mead in Monmouth.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has received four letters and a petition containing over 300 signatures, objecting to two proposed developments on, or adjacent to, Chippenham Mead village green, and asking for the two applications for planning permission to be called-in for his determination. These planning applications are for the proposed continuation of use of part of the village green for temporary periods for caravan rallies
  59
  and associated parking of motor vehicles and the proposed construction of a supermarket and customer car park on Monnow street, Monmouth. These call-in requests are being considered and decisions on them will be reached shortly.

  My right hon. Friend is also considering a request from Monmouth borough council for his consent under the Commons Act 1899 to set aside part of the village green for the temporary parking of vehicles. So far he has received 52 letters on the proposals, 48 of which are objections.

  Building Costs
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current average cost of building one unit of social housing in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The average cost of a housing association unit inclusive of private sector funding at tender approval stage this financial year, to mid-January, is £41,000.

ENVIRONMENT

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent in derelict land grant in Darlington since 1979; and how many acres have been restored as a result

  Mr. Yeo
  Records for derelict land grant—DLG—payments towards reclamation schemes in Darlington, and the amount of land reclaimed, are not available for the full period covered by the question. However the expenditure incurred by Darlington borough council on DLG-supported reclamation, and the figures for the amount of land reclaimed are as follows:

  Darlington borough council: derelict land grant expenditure and land reclaimed

  £

  Acres

  1979–80

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  213,864

  n/a

  1981–82

  187,611

  n/a

  1982–83

  582,334

  n/a

  1983–84

  319,094

  12·97

  1984–85

  254,514

  13·91

  1985–86

  589,788

  6·79

  1986–87

  536,772

  24·21

  1987–88

  269,442

  1·24

  1988–89

  284,697

  41·74

  1989–90

  563,164

  18·43

  1990–91

  529,567

  14·89

  Total

  4,330,847

  134·17

  A further £32,697 has been spent by Durham county council in reclaiming 10–03 acres of land in Darlington.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the total acreage of national parks in England and (b) the current total acreage of designated environmentally sensitive areas in England; and what will be the total acreage of environmentally sensitive areas in England when the further designations, recently announced, have been fully implemented.
  60
  Mr. Baldry
  The seven national parks in England cover 2,348,000 acres. The 10 existing ESAs in England cover some 956,300 acres. The total acreage of all ESAs is expected to be around 2,870,000 acres when the further designations, recently announced, have been fully implemented.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (I) what is the 1992–93 precept per community charge payer proposed by Tadley town council in the borough of Basingstoke;

  (2) how many parish or town councils have proposed a precept of £29–88 or more per community charge payer for 1992–93.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not available to me.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will state the basis of the sum of £2,469,200,000 ascribed to debt charges in annex B of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) (No. 2) Report (England) H.C. 190.91/92 and the estimated total of all relevant local authorities receiving grant consequent to the report;

  (2) if he will state the basis on which he determined the formulae concerning the global sum and distribution of standard spending assessments, respectively for repayment of and interest on approved capital expenditure by local authorities, together with references to documents where such statements and formulae were publicly available.

  Mr. Key
  Total standard spending for 1992–93 represents the Government's view of the appropriate amount of revenue spending by local authorities to provide all services. Within that, the total amount allowed for the revenue consequences of capital spending represents the relative priority to be afforded to this type of expenditure, bearing in mind relevant factors such as likely movements in interest rates.

  The method of distribution of the SSA element for debt charges is set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (No. 2) (England). The basis of this approach is described in the publication by the Department of the Environment "SSAs Background and Underlying Methodology"; copies of both documents are in the Library.

  All 366 charging authorities receive revenue support grant.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from representative local authority organisations concerning the difference between the total of the standard spending assessments concerning capital charges and the amount they have, or are liable, to disperse in respect of their authorised borrowing requirements.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced his proposals for the 1992–93 revenue support grant settlement to the House on 26 November 1991. During the consultation period following that announcement representations on the capital financing element of standard spending assessments—SSAs—were received from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—AMA—and the Association of County Councils. Both associations commented on the
  61
  proposed total within SSAs for capital expenditure financed from the revenue account. The AMA also questioned the total available for debt charges and the link with falling interest rates.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when he expects to announce the outcome of the consultation on the local government finance settlement for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [pursuant to his answer, 23 January 1992, c. 277]: Since the approval of the revenue support grant report, I have formed the view that fresh circumstances affecting the finances of local authorities have arisen. I have today laid before the House the "Additional Grant Report (England) 1992–93", which contains my determination of the total amount of grant to be paid to local authorities in England, and the basis on which it is to be distributed; and I have placed in the vote office copies of a letter and table, showing individual grant entitlements, that is being sent to all local authorities today.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in rank order the SSA per head for the English shire counties for the forthcoming year, and for 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The SSA figures in pounds per adult are as follows for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  SSA per head of adult for English shire counties for 1991–92

  Local authority

  1991–92 Total SSA (£ adult)

  Cleveland

  964

  Bedfordshire

  851

  Lanchashire

  843

  Humberside

  839

  Leicestershire

  837

  Buckinghamshire

  833

  Northamptonshire

  813

  Berkshire

  805

  Nottinghamshire

  802

  Kent

  802

  Durham

  794

  Shropshire

  793

  Cornwall

  790

  Isle of Wight

  786

  Hertfordshire

  783

  Essex

  778

  Cheshire

  777

  Cumbria

  775

  Lincolnshire

  773

  Cambridgeshire

  772

  Hampshire

  763

  Somerset

  763

  Wiltshire

  753

  Suffolk

  752

  Staffordshire

  750

  Avon

  745

  Derbyshire

  743

  Gloucestershire

  743

  Oxfordshire Devon

  742

  Devon

  739

  North Yorkshire

  739

  Hereford and Worcester

  737

  Northumberland

  735

  East Sussex

  734

  Norfolk

  729

  Warwickshire

  728

  West Sussex

  718

  Surrey

  699

  Dorset

  680

  62

  SSA per head of adult for English shire counties for 1992–93

  Local authority

  1992–93 Total SSA (£ adult)

  Cleveland

  1,034

  Bedfordshire

  940

  Buckinghamshire

  912

  Lancashire

  912

  Humberside

  904

  Leicestershire

  902

  Berkshire

  889

  Northamptonshire

  881

  Nottinghamshire

  869

  Kent

  865

  Isle of Wight

  861

  Hertfordshire

  851

  Durham

  847

  Essex

  844

  Shropshire

  844

  Cambridgeshire

  842

  Cornwall

  840

  Cheshire

  837

  Lincolnshire

  830

  Hampshire

  829

  Cumbria

  828

  Wiltshire

  809

  Staffordshire

  807

  Somerset

  807

  Gloucestershire

  804

  Suffolk

  799

  Avon

  798

  East Sussex

  798

  Derbyshire

  795

  Oxfordshire

  794

  Devon

  792

  North Yorkshire

  789

  Northumberland

  787

  Hereford and Worcester

  785

  Warwickshire

  782

  Norfolk

  782

  West Sussex

  777

  Surrey

  759

  Dorset

  740

  Montreal Protocol
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will press for an emergency meeting of the Montreal protocol convention.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on 11 February 1992,Official Report column 430.

  Lead Pollution
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to reduce the amount of lead in the environment by reducing the proportion of lead that any product may contain.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's policy is to reduce man's exposure to lead wherever reasonably practicable. To this end, a number of measures have already been taken in the form of reductions in the amount of lead in petrol and encouragement in the use of unleaded petrol. Already in 1992 regulations to restrict the use of certain lead compounds in paints have been laid before Parliament. Further regulations to restrict the use of lead solders are currently being drafted. The Government are also continuing discussions with relevant bodies at both
  63
  national and international level with the aim of identifying where additional measures to reduce man's exposure to lead are viable.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest are currently designated.

  Mr. Baldry
  To date there are 3,559 sites of special scientific interest in England designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Housing, Stockton
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses have been(a) constructed and (b) repaired using funds from the Housing Corporation in the Stockton, South constituency in the current financial year.

  Mr. Yeo
  The distribution of resources among local authority areas is a matter for the Housing Corporation. I have, therefore, asked the corporation to reply direct to my hon. Friend with the information he has requested. A copy of the reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Animal Imports
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to implement the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species conference resolution 7.13, on welfare checks at the point of importation of all consignments of live animals.

  Mr. Baldry
  The steps the Government have taken to include requiring exporters of live specimens to transport the specimens in accordance with the International Air Transport Association live animals regulations, and the collection of information on the mortality of birds during transport. Compliance with the IATA regulations will become mandatory throughout the community from I January 1993 under EC directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport. We shall continue to press for further Community action. We are considering the need for other measures.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are taken to ensure the validity of declarations made by applicants for permits to import live animals to the effect that they have proper facilities for the accommodation of the species they wish to import and that the animals will be properly transported and cared for.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is an offence knowingly or recklessly to make a false declaration or provide false information for the purposes of obtaining an import permit. In the event of any doubt about the facilities available for accommodating an imported specimen, or the ability of an importer to care for a specimen adequately, the Department would pursue the matter in consultation with its scientific advisers. Follow-up action could, if appropriate, include asking for further details from the applicant or arranging for an inspection of the premises. If we were not satisfied that the appropriate standards were met, we would refuse to issue a permit.
  64
  For certain species, the Department asks new traders and those who move premises to supply information about their facilities.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent by housing associations in the Chelmsford parliamentary constituency in each year since 1979; and how many units of housing this has provided.

  Mr. Yeo
  The distribution of resources among local authority areas is a matter for the Housing Corporation. I have therefore asked the corporation to reply direct to my hon. Friend with the information he has requested. A copy of the reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing, Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to visit Liverpool in the near future; and if, on his next visit to the city, he will meet residents of the Norris Green and Dovecot housing estates to discuss housing and environment matters.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Liverpool in the near future. I am visiting Merseyside on 26 February and spending some time in Liverpool and Wirral, where I will be speaking at a seminar. Either I or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for housing, will be happy to consider a visit to these estates on a future occasion, once the city council has started to develop options for tackling the problems.

  Travellers
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the twice-yearly count of gipsy caravans for each year since 1982 in(a) England, (b) Buckinghamshire, (c) south Buckinghamshire and (d) Wycombe.

  Mr. Yeo
  I am placing this information in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many gipsy caravans were shown as being in the county of Surrey in each of the twice-yearly counts carried out for his Department by local authorities in each of the past 10 years; and how many of these were in the Boroughs of Woking and Guildford, respectively.

  Sir George Young
  I am placing this information in the Library of the House.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has of(a) the yield from national non-domestic rates in England and Wales in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93, (b) the yield from business rates in Scotland in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93, (c) how the revenue between (a)(ii) and (a)(i), and (b)(ii) and (b)(i), respectively, breaks down in terms of the increases in poundage, changes in the commercial property base and changes in the valuations that have occurred.
  65
  Mr. Portillo
  The estimated amount which I expect to be paid by way of rates and contributions in aid of rates for Crown property in England in respect of 1991–92 and 1992–93 are shown in the table together with the detailed assumptions. These estimates of yield formed the bases of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 1992–93 announced by my right hon. Friend on 6 November 1991.

  1991–92 £million

  1992–93 £million

  Estimated gross rate yield (aggregate rateable value x multiplier)

  13,369

  13,923

  Additions to Gross rate yield

  Enterprise Zones coming into rating

  21

  56

  Buoyancy between 1991–92 and 1992–93 (new and improved properties net of demolitions etc.)

  —

  156

  Net effect of transitional arrangements

  49

  35

  Reductions to Gross rate yield

  Appeals in 1992–93 (gross of transitional arrangements)

  -176

  -168

  Reliefs, allowance for losses on collection etc.

  -1,226

  -1,218

  Net yield from ratepayers

  (on an accruals basis, excluding the effect of appeals determined in future years)

  12,037

  12,784

  The arrangements for non-domestic rates in Wales and Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of cancelling the first monthly instalment of uniform business rate bills for businesses in England and Wales in 1992–93; and what would be the equivalent cost to Scottish local authorities as a whole with respect to business rate bills.

  Mr. Portillo
  The total amount which would be forgone as a result of cancelling the April 1992 instalment in England would be approximately f1.28 billion. This estimate includes contributions in aid of rates in respect of Crown property. Non-domestic rates contributions in Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales respectively.

  Local Councils (Survey)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the survey carried out by the university of Aston business school on the work of parish and town councils.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on 13 February 1992,Official Report columns 572–73.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out by standard industrial classification the numbers employed in the area covered by the Leeds Development Corporation at its inception, and the latest available figures.
  66
  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available. Leeds development corporation does not analyse employment numbers within its areas by standard industrial classification.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many shareholders there are in the 10 water companies in England and Wales.

  Mr. Baldry
  The companies themselves would be able to give the latest figures. However 1,096,025 shareholders paid the final instalment for the shares in July last year.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to have information in his Department on the level of the poll tax from most local authorities.

  Mr. Key
  Charging authorities are required to set their budgets for 1992–93 by 11 March and to set their community charges for 1992–93 on or before 1 April. We have asked them to report the community charges within seven days of setting them, or by 2 April 1992 at the latest.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment between which dates he estimates the majority of poll tax bills will be delivered by local authorities.

  Mr. Key
  An authority must set its community charge by 1 April and issue bills as soon as possible after the charge has been set.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has, at the latest convenient date, as to how much of the outstanding poll tax owed to local authorities is owed by people in receipt of poll tax rebate.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: This information is not available.

  Leigh Barton
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many workmen have been involved in the repair work preventing the historic monument Leigh Barton from being opened to the public since 1986, in each of the last five years; and in what crafts there is a shortage of skilled workmen to complete the repairs.

  Mr. Yeo
  A team of four general craftsmen have been working at Leigh Barton since 1986. There is no shortage of skilled workmen to complete the repairs.

  Road System, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a full environmental impact assessment has been carried out for the various suggested alternatives for the Leicester eastern district distributor road.

  Mr. Yeo
  I am advised that Leicestershire county council as the highway authority responsible is taking environmental considerations into account in examining a
  67
  number of alternatives for this road. When the route is finalised the county council, as planning authority, will consider the need for an environmental statement.

  Gulf War (Marine Pollution)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the effect upon the breeding and feeding grounds for the Penaid shrimp in the Tanajib Manifa embayment system of oil spilled during the Gulf war;

  (2) what steps have been taken to restore the ecology for the wader and inter-tidal invertebrates in the Gulf following the Gulf war.

  Mr. Baldry
  The primary responsibility for such questions rests with other Governments. My reply to the hon. Member of 15 January Official Report, column 573, sets out the contribution that the United Kingdom has made.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the level of grant per head of population for Blackburn, Burnley, Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Rochdale, Salford, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Coventry, Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Nottingham, Bradford and Kingston upon Hull, respectively in the financial years 1980–81, 1983–84, 1986–87 and 1989–90, for the urban programme category of central Government revenue funding of local authorities;

  (2) if he will list the level of grant per head of population for each of the standard economic regions and in Greater London in the financial years 1980–81, 1983–84, 1986–87 and 1989–90 for the urban programme category of central Government revenue funding of local authorities;

  (3) if he will list the level of grant per head of population for Brent, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth, respectively in the financial years 1980–81, 1983–84, 1986–87 and 1989–90, for the urban programme category of central Government revenue funding of local authorities.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: The tables provide total capital and revenue outturn figures for the urban programme for 1980–81, 1983–84, 1986–87 and 1989–90.

  Separate revenue figures are not readily available before 1988–89.

  Urban programme expenditure is targeted on the most deprived inner city areas within the local authorities' boundaries: population figures for these areas are not readily available.

  UP outturn by standard economic region and Greater London

  £ million

  Region

  1980–81

  1983–84

  1986–87

  1989–90

  Northern

  22·970

  37·900

  37·450

  40·628

  North West1

  22·930

  36·000

  37·470

  41·296

  Merseyside1

  20·420

  29·500

  30·500

  27·812

  West Midlands

  21·200

  34·800

  39·880

  42·837

  East Midlands

  7·240

  11·900

  10·020

  10·212

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  12·950

  20·300

  17·500

  27·210

  South West

  —

  —

  —

  2·431

  London

  55·110

  48·100

  47·600

  43·539

  68

  Notes:

  1 These two UP regions form one standard north-west region. None of the other standard regions received UP grant in these years. The number of UP authorities in the standard regions changed during the period covered.

  UP outturn by non-London UP authority

  £ million

  Authority

  1980–81

  1983–84

  1986–87

  1989–90

  Blackburn

  0·340

  1·600

  3·700

  4·093

  Burnley

  —

  —

  —

  1·954

  Knowsley

  0·150

  1·000

  3·610

  3·575

  Liverpool

  17·600

  25·000

  22·590

  16·473

  Manchester/Salford1

  17·500

  23·500

  22·660

  19·312

  Preston

  —

  —

  —

  2·577

  Rochdale

  0·550

  2·100

  3·620

  3·659

  Middlesbrough

  2·710

  5·600

  5·350

  5·073

  Birmingham

  17·300

  24·200

  25·940

  24·478

  Coventry

  0·140

  1·700

  3·750

  5·031

  Sandwell

  0·830

  3·100

  4·540

  4·689

  Wolverhampton

  2·930

  5·800

  5·650

  4·733

  Leicester

  3·830

  6·500

  4·710

  4·561

  Nottingham

  3·410

  5·400

  5·310

  4·522

  Bradford

  3·330

  5·900

  3·470

  4·502

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  2·620

  5·300

  4·530

  4·544

  1 Partnership authority.

  UP outturn by London UP authority

  £ million

  Authority

  1980–81

  1983–84

  1986–87

  1989–90

  Brent

  0·350

  1·400

  3·800

  2·413

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  0·998

  Hackney

  115·400

  12·500

  10·550

  4·491

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  3·330

  5·600

  4·520

  2·871

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  2·252

  Islington

  1—

  9·900

  9·270

  7·782

  Kensington & Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  1·720

  Lambeth

  9·000

  10·900

  11·320

  8·271

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  1·450

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  2·690

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  2·113

  Tower Hamlets

  0·350

  1·300

  3·910

  3·693

  Wandsworth

  0·480

  1·700

  4·230

  2·795

  Notes:

  1 Combined Hackney/Islington figure.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in December 1988, the then Secretary of State took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: I understand that my right hon. Friend undertook only official duties during his brief visit which came at the end of a visit to China to discuss environmental matters.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the cost of cancelling the increase in the national non-domestic rate poundage for England in 1992–93 which he announced in his answer to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) of 6 November 1991 Official Report, column 158; and what would be the cost of reducing that increase to (a) 3 per cent., (b) 2 per cent. and (c) 1 per cent.

  Mr. Portillo
  I estimate that the cost of cancelling the increase of just over 4 per cent. on the 1991–92 uniform
  69
  business rate multiplier would be approximately £500 million. Under-indexing would cost approximately £125 million for each percentage point.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of increasing the thresholds at which businesses are elegible for the small business category of uniform business rate transitional relief from a rateable value of £10,000 to £15,000 outside London, and from a rateable value of £15,000 to £25,000 within London for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Portillo
  I estimate that the cost in England would be about £25 million.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost in 1992–93 of extending the transitional relief scheme for the uniform business rate in England so that all losses are suspended in the coming financial year, while all gains continue to be phased in according to the transitional arrangements.
  70
  Mr. Portillo
  I estimate that the cost of freezing rate increases in real terms, for 1992–93, for ratepayers subject to transitional arrangements would be around £300 million.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the cost of lowering the maximum permissible annual increase in uniform business rate bills in(a) nominal and (h) real terms, (i) for small businesses, from 15 to 10 per cent. and (ii) for larger businesses, from 20 to 15 per cent. in 1992–93.

  Mr. Portillo
  I estimate that the cost in 1992–93 of confining the maximum annual transitional increase to 10 per cent. for small properties and 15 per cent. for large ones would be about £140 million. The cost of confining the maximum increase to the same limits in real terms would be about £70 million.

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

NHS: Spiritual Care
The Lord Bishop of Exeter The Lord Bishop of Exeter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why there was no consultation with the Christian Churches or other religious organisations prior to the issue of NHS Management Executive Circular HSG (92)2 on meeting the spiritual needs of patients and staff within the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, there was no review of policy in this instance. Had there been one we would have consulted as we have in the past. The objective of the circular in question is to clarify the existing powers and duties of health service bodies and to update previous guidance to reflect both management arrangements following the National Health Service reforms and the relevant Patient's Charter standard.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I appreciate the value that is put upon the spiritual care of patients and staff in hospitals. Does the Minister agree that for the satisfactory implementation of the circular continuing consultation with representatives of the Churches and faith organisations would be appropriate, particularly in order to maintain and monitor common standards of performance in this area of work across the country? Can the Minister hold out hope that there will be a full review of chaplaincy in this consultation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of this aspect of meeting patients' needs. In terms of chaplaincy services, we have regular contact with the Joint Committee for Hospital Chaplaincy—a body with representatives from the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Church Federal Council—as and when necessary. I understand that a meeting has been arranged for 27th March to discuss the new guidance. There are no formal links with other religious bodies but we do have informal contact from time to time.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that there were changes in this circular compared with the previous one, was this not an opportunity to hear the views not only of the Church of England and the Catholic Church but also of other faiths? Why was there not this consultation? Does the Minister feel that her Answer was satisfactory, there being no consultation?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The guidance has been generally welcomed. It does not significantly
984
alter the duties and powers of the health service. Perhaps for the first time it makes explicit the necessity to provide for the needs of patients of all religions. However, that was the custom and practice in places where best practice was operating. Certainly the guidance highlights a number of options available to health service managers to enable them to provide those services. The changed management structure is also reflected. There was no intention to have a whole review of policy in that area.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, in order to enlighten the House about this exchange, can my noble friend say what exactly was the change of policy and what was the point of substance taken in this case?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I had hoped to have made clear by now that there has been no change in policy. The objective of the guidelines that were issued was to update previous guidelines in reflecting both the changes that have been brought into National Health Service management as a result of the reforms and in relation to the Patient's Charter standard.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, while welcoming the breadth of the advice given applying both to patients and to staff, and to those of all faiths, does the Minister agree that assurances were given from 1989 onwards that there would be a review of the chaplaincy services? Does she agree that such a review is particularly needful in terms of national standards of training and performance?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in view of the contact with the Joint Committee for Hospital Chaplaincy, to which I have already referred and which takes place on a regular basis, and contact with other organisations, I think that we in the department are up to speed on thinking in this matter. If and when any changes of policy are needed then obviously a full consultation will take place.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, having had the misfortune to be detained in three hospitals recently, I should like to express appreciation to the right reverend Prelate for the splendid way in which the Church of England, the Catholic Church and other denominations look after the patients and staff in hospitals.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. It is important to recognise that hospital chaplains have played a major role in caring not only for the spiritual but also for the wider needs of hospital patients and staff. We wish to emphasise that whenever it is possible.
Lord Elton: My Lords, arising out of my noble friend's answer to the question of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, does the Minister agree that the second point in the first paragraph of the document in question arranges for hospital chaplains to be paid under arrangements made by contract with the local provider unit and that in the past they have been provided for centrally? For them that represents a considerable change of policy.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the changes in management arrangements following the National Health Service reforms include the fact that National Health Service trusts have responsibility for employment where appropriate. The object of these guidelines is to ensure that people making those decisions at local level are aware of the general policy in that area.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is the Minister confident that decentralising this responsibility to individual provider units will guarantee patient choice, especially as regards minority religions? Individual provider units may not have the facilities to guarantee that patients' special needs are met.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the best possible way to meet specific needs is to ensure that decisions are made at a local level which reflect local circumstances. As we all know, the composition of populations and the needs of those populations in cultural and religious terms differ widely across the country.

Palace of Westminster: Waste Paper
2.44 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham Lord Rippon of Hexham asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many tonnes of waste paper were collected in the Palace of Westminster in the last six months for which figures are available, and for how much it was sold.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, between two and four tonnes of waste paper are collected from the Palace of Westminster daily. The paper is removed for recycling free of charge by the waste disposal contractor.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Perhaps I may say how pleased I am that the Government are not making a loss. Is she aware that on 4th February 1952 my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter told another place that he had managed to sell the 28 tonnes of waste paper collected in six months for £300, and also that he had arranged for the pulping of 58 tonnes of used ballot papers and had received £1,130? Will my noble friend consider changing the policy so that government can be run and trade as profitably as was the case in my noble friend's day?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the issue raised by my noble friend's Question is as pertinent now as it was when my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter answered in another place in 1952. In return for the waste paper and having the benefit of being able to sell it on, all of the waste throughout the whole of the Palace of Westminster and indeed Nos. 1 and 2 Abbey Gardens, No. 3 Dean's Yard, No. 1 Cannon Row, St. Stephen's House, the Norman Shaw building, No. 1 Parliament Street and No. 1 Derby Gate is collected free.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon,
986
has raised a very important question? Will the Government take steps to ensure that all local authorities have a waste paper collection scheme? In my area of Bexley, I save waste paper every week but it goes in the bin with the rest of the rubbish. A waste paper collection policy would save a large number of trees, and have a great effect on the environment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. I agree with what he said about my noble friend's Question. This Government put on the statute book the Environmental Protection Act, which has gone a long way down the road to achieve the objectives set out by the noble Lord.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps I may commend to your Lordships by way of a question to the noble Baroness the Hansard index, I think of last year. I commented to your Lordships that you should set the nation a good example by not scattering papers when the House rises.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I invite all noble Lords to take note of what the noble Earl has just said.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it would be interesting to know what proportion of the paper reaches a higher value when it is disposed of than at any time during what some would describe as its useful life.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to say that the question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I suspect the answer is that in some cases it reaches a higher value and in others it does not.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, what effect has the imminence of the election on the output of parliamentary rubbish?
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, in view of the enormous increase in the consumption of paper, will my noble friend consider ways in which consumption might be reduced or will she take steps to test my theory that inflation and costs rise in direct proportion to the use of paper?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, the collection of the waste paper that is available represents good value in that all waste is collected at no cost to the Palace of Westminster. Secondly, my noble friend makes a very good point. I hope that that message will be taken on board by all departments and by all noble Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are not the figures that have been given rather worrying? Does it not seem to be the fact that the amount of waste paper increases in inverse proportion to the importance of Parliament? In other words, the less important Parliament becomes, the greater the increase in the amount of waste paper. Can we have either an increase in the powers of Parliament or a reduction in the amount of waste paper?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should be a little more impressed with the noble Lord's point if he were not so demanding in his requests to see every single piece of paper that is produced by any government department at almost any time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: When was that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on a very minor point, I wonder whether the value of paper for recycling is at all affected by the aggravating habit of Her Majesty's Stationery Office of wrapping even small amounts of paper in a plastic bag?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must admit to the House and to the noble Lord that I say just that to my husband almost every weekend as I unwrap single pieces of paper wrapped in single plastic bags. I do not know the answer to the question. However, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall ask that question on his behalf and on behalf of other noble Lords in the House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may deny the Minister's accusation that I request to see every single piece of paper; I certainly do not.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I withdraw the personal accusation that I made. Indeed, I was referring to noble Lords opposite who, quite rightly, demand to see and have copies of any pieces of paper produced. I believe that we are all far too demanding in our desire to see copies of other pieces of paper. Perhaps the greatest scourge of modern society is the photocopier.

Unemployment: Government Policies
2.51 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
In what respects government policies have affected the United Kingdom's level of unemployment and rate of increase in unemployment compared to those of other OECD countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government cannot determine the level of unemployment in the way that the noble Lord's Question implies. What the Government must do is ensure a sound and stable economic framework within which the battle against inflation can be won. If they fail to do so, the economy will suffer more unemployment in the long run. If one looks at our record on training and our record on inflation, one sees that the Government's policies have done a great deal to improve this country's long-term job prospects.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. However, I must correct him; I never said that the Government were responsible for the level of unemployment. My question—and I ask it again—is whether the Government deny that we have, as the Employment Gazette for this month tells us, the fastest rate of increase in unemployment of all countries in the OECD, the highest level of unemployment of all but three countries in the OECD, the lowest level of public investment in the OECD and a lower level of private investment than 1979? Are those factors not
988
connected? Further, are not various aspects of the Government's policies resulting in our very bad record on unemployment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps I may also quote from the latest OECD report on the United Kingdom which says:
"The United Kingdom economy created almost 3 million jobs between early 1984 and mid-1990, by far the best job creation record of the larger EC countries".
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not time that we recognised the fact that oral Questions, which in this House are limited to four, are really designed for the purpose of eliciting information, and that, therefore, this exchange is an abuse of the process of the House?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a good point. But of course it is my duty to answer the Questions on the Order Paper.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Black Thursday's reminder—namely, 2,600,000 unemployed—proved the point that under this Government we are suffering the worst recession on record, the longest recession on record, the deepest recession on record and a worse recession than any other OECD country? With the reduction in manufacturing employment in the past 12 months at 334,000 and constant rises in unemployment, can the noble Viscount tell the House what future there is for the people of this country under the present Government?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, rising unemployment is not unique to the United Kingdom. I dare say that noble Lords have heard me say that before from this Dispatch Box. Indeed, it has risen in most European EC countries and is higher today than it was a year ago in every EFTA and G7 country. It is most important that any decisions on wage increases must be taken with a realistic view to not decreasing the number of jobs.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, while comparisons with other countries can be made, does my noble friend agree that so far as concerns our own country, government policies to encourage new employment have been very successful in areas which have known the enormous problem of declining major industry? A good example of such an area is Sunderland in the North East of England. Does my noble friend also appreciate that the granting of city status by Her Majesty to Sunderland last week was of enormous encouragement to the region and that it is seen as a tribute to the people of the region, who are, with the considerable aid of government grants, adjusting themselves to modern industrial requirements?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend has made a very good point. I am sure that the granting of city status to Sunderland is welcomed on all sides of the House. I believe that it demonstrates that the workforce in Sunderland is especially productive. That has made certain that investment from overseas has located itself in the region.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many of the anxieties expressed by his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—which he expresses every time a Question inconvenient to his philosophy arises—could be avoided if Ministers actually answered the Questions put to them?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is a job that I undertake very willingly.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that in answer to the Question I tabled last week he said that training and enterprise councils were well on the way to providing 30,000 places on the employment action scheme by March? That surprised me. I thought that fewer than 10,000 people were then on the scheme and the month of March begins next week. Can he tell the House precisely how many people are actually on the scheme now?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at the end of January I gather that the number of people receiving allowances was 8,500. But that is very likely to understate the situation because of the problem of gathering information. However, we shall be building up to the 30,000 places, as I said, by March 1992.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I should like to be quite clear about what the Minister is saying. I take it that he is not saying that asking Questions of this kind about the effect of government policy is an abuse of the procedures of the House. I hope that he is not saying that. If he is not saying that, is he saying that there is no point in our asking such Questions because the Government take the view that nothing they have done has had the slightest effect on unemployment, that nothing they intend to do will have any effect on unemployment and that unemployment has nothing to do with the Government?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. I have tried to demonstrate that the policies of Her Majesty's Government have had a great deal to do with employment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the assumption that the Government surely do not accept in any respects that their policies have adversely affected unemployment—and I am looking at the Question on the Order Paper—is my noble friend aware of any alternative policies put forward by either party on the Benches opposite which would have had a more beneficial effect?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should be most interested to hear about those policies. For example, one of the proposed policies is a minimum wage. In its latest report on France, the OECD said:
"France's unemployment record compares unfavourably with that elsewhere. The problem is substantially more severe for youths, older workers and the unskilled. The national minimum wage seems in part to be responsible for this outcome".
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister know that the level of unemployment in France is significantly below the level in this country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it may be below the level, but it is at a record high.
Lord Blease: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it might be more helpful, and indeed more constructive to those who are making policy and trying to help the unemployed, if the Government published the real figures of non-employment in the United Kingdom? Is it not a fact that, in addition to the figures for the classified unemployed, we have about 1 million workers in this country in dead-end training schemes and other forms of economic inactivity? Those workers are not classified as being unemployed. If productive employment was available, they would be in work.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not agree at all with the premise of the noble Lord. He does those who are on training schemes a disservice. Many are placed with employers, and do productive work.

Iraqi Oil Exports: UN Resolutions
3 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following Iraq's decision to break off talks with the United Nations concerning oil exports.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we shall continue to work with other members of the Security Council for the implementation in full of all relevant resolutions, including Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712, which are mandatory. We shall maintain our humanitarian efforts to assist the civilian population of Iraq for whom Saddam Hussein shows callous disregard by his refusal to co-operate.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but is it not a fact that the dictator in Iraq has literally got away with murder? He is now absolutely defying United Nations Resolution 207, which was designed to obtain Iraqi oil and to try to help the tens of thousands who have suffered from the Iraqi dictator's behaviour, and for humanitarian causes, such as providing medicine, clothes and food for those who have suffered so desperately under him. Is it not about time that we took some real action to rid ourselves and the world of that evil dictator?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the Iraqis have walked out of the talks on United Nations Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712. The purpose of those resolutions was to allow humanitarian relief to Iraq to be funded by the sale of Iraqi oil to the tune of 1.6 billion dollars over a six-month period. It is Saddam Hussein who is causing the problem.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the United Nations resolution that deals with the disarmament and removal of nuclear facilities from Iraq being followed up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, work is continuing. Twenty-five inspections have revealed an

991
enormous covert nuclear weapons development programme, a biological research programme for military purposes, over 46,000 chemical munitions and 30 chemical warheads for ballistic missiles, super-gun assemblies, and other parts.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us will be encouraged by what he has said about the British Government continuing humanitarian assistance on an international scale in every way that they can to help the civilian population in Iraq? Is he further aware that there is a rising tide of concern about the appalling tragedy that is taking place in that country, which is affecting men and women and especially children? Can he give us any further hope about whether, in spite of the difficulties over the sale of oil and the intransigence of Saddam Hussein, more humanitarian aid can be provided?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for that question from the right reverend Prelate. We are the fifth largest donor of aid to relieve the humanitarian problems in Iraq. If other countries contributed the same as us, the situation would be relieved. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has proposed an international donor conference with the United Nations on 27th February in order to continue the effective co-ordination of the international response.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, in addition to all the tragedies that have been described by noble Lords, the blockade against the Kurds is continuing? Further to the question of the right reverend Prelate, could any further initiative be taken by Her Majesty's Government and other governments through the United Nations to try to bring those tragedies to an end?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is right that the blockade is continuing. That is exactly why my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has proposed the conference. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be raising precisely that issue in the Foreign Affairs Council today.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, perhaps I may reveal that enormous resources are being discovered. Are they being dismantled, destroyed or withdrawn? What is happening to them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the destruction of chemical munitions and bulk agents has already begun. The IAEA is already preparing to remove all nuclear material that is covered by its safeguards.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, are the Government preparing to support the Pishdare plan to exploit oil resources in Kurdistan in Northern Iraq to finance humanitarian assistance to the Kurds?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are not prepared to support the plan as currently conceived. It
992
would contravene the terms of Security Council Resolution 661 and the United Nations embargo against Iraq. Clearly, the right thing to do is for Iraq to return to the negotiating table to talk about Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minster agree that we are talking this afternoon about 3 million Kurds and Shi'as who are literally starving and who have had an appalling winter, yet that evil dictator is simply cocking a snook at the United Nations? Would it not be far better if we had occupied Baghdad and controlled the whole situation, as happened when we went into Bonn and Berlin?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asked an interesting question, but it is rather wide of that on the Order Paper. If he wishes to table such a question, I shall do my best to answer it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister comment on today's press report that emergency supplies and assistance are not getting through to the north on account of both the blockade and the severe weather conditions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are certainly some appalling weather conditions in the north, and the blockade has restricted some supplies.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill will be taken.

Humber Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Llanelli Borough Council (River Lliedi) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
River Humber (Upper Burcom Cooling Works) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Local Government Finance Bill
Report received.
Clause 1 [Council tax in respect of dwellings]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:

993
("( ) Within three months from the date of Royal Assent to this Act the Audit Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall report on the financial, managerial and personnel costs of implementing council tax and on the preparedness of billing authorities for the introduction of such a tax").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must confess that I had hoped that the formal business that we have just dealt with would have enabled the exodus to take place before I got to my feet. I am disappointed, and must now take it personally.
The text of Amendment No. 1 is the result of the statement made by the Minister in Committee, who said:
"The council tax is based on commonsense principles and its operation will be straightforward".—[Official Report, 21/1/92; col. 759.]
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, believes that, but I do not know whether his faith has been cracked as a result of some of the revelations that were made in Committee. I do not think that anybody else in the country believes that the operation of the council tax will be straightforward.
As time expires towards the deadline of the end of March 1993, when the poll tax is supposed to die and to be replaced by the council tax, evidence becomes more and more weighty that the operation of the council tax will not, by any means, be straightforward. Without referring to any outside evidence, I cite only the draft regulations that are now circulating among the local authorities. As of the end of last week, there are no fewer that 16 sets of draft regulations, some of which are a second version, and all of which require comments to be made between the middle of January and the end of February. These are complex regulations, as was evident when, in response to a question from me, the Minister agreed that the regulations should be placed in the Library.
This is a complex Bill, as is the system. There are regulations on exempt dwellings; the liability of owners; discount disregards; additional provisions for discount disregards; the reduction scheme for England; the calculation of the council tax base; the administration, billing and collection; the council tax demand notice; chargeable dwellings; the contents of valuation lists; practice notes on valuation lists; reductions for disabilities; appeals; setting the council tax; precepting and funds; and enforcement. All of those regulations are now in the field, so to speak. They are being, or have been, responded to by local authorities and local authority associations. There is no evidence that the flood of paper from Marsham Street will diminish, let alone come to an end, while Marsham Street remains intact.
Enormous concern is being expressed within local authorities about those regulations, and, in particular, about what will happen as regards them when there is a general election, as there must be within the next few months. I understand that regulations which are subject to the negative resolution will count as many days as are applicable towards their 40 days before the dissolution of Parliament, and will take up counting again when the new Parliament assembles. That means that there will be a time gap of anything
994
between three weeks and five weeks during which those regulations may be prayed against and, therefore, may or may not take effect.
For regulations subject to the affirmative resolution, the position is somewhat worse. When the affirmative resolution is required, I understand that the regulations can have no effect until Parliament's affirmation has been received. Here again there will be a delay—I do not know whether it was planned for —in the decisions about the basic way in which the council tax will apply.
The poll tax, which may or may not have been more complicated, took place within a stable basis of local authority taxation—the rating system—and a further year was provided between the legislation and the implementation of the tax that is now provided for in respect of the council tax. The council tax may or may not be simpler. That remains to be seen. The council tax is planned to be implemented at a time when many of the problems of the poll tax are still in full flood. They are problems not just of non-collection but of definition and of how the tax was designed. Under those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that local authority practitioners, supported by CIPFA, the CSL Group Ltd., consultants to the Department of the Environment, and, above all, by the Audit Commission, which advised the Government on those matters, are worried about the timetable for the implementation of the council tax.
This is a modest amendment. It does not seek to delay or damage the implementation of the council tax. It does not impose any additional deadlines upon the Government. It provides that:
"the Audit Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall report on the financial, managerial and personnel costs of implementing council tax and on the preparedness of billing authorities for the introduction of such a tax".
That will leave it to the Secretary of State of the day to make his judgment on the report of the Audit Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General as to whether special steps may have to be taken to facilitate the implementation of the council tax or, at worst, whether some delay is necessary in the implementation of the council tax.
Let me make it clear that we do not want to delay the death of the poll tax, but we do not want the unprecedented disruption and chaos in local authority financial administration caused by the poll tax to be succeeded by a further period of disruption and chaos caused by the implementation of an inadequately prepared, worked out and funded new system of local government taxation. The amendment is a protection for government and in no way a threat, but it is also a protection for local authorities and the people who live in their areas. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, in Committee, a whole series of amendments, similar to this one, was proposed by the Opposition, ostensibly requiring the publication of supposedly useful information; but in reality making rhetorical points, not always of great substance. The amendment contains a great deal of rhetoric because the

995
information it seeks would not be of great use to anyone. Our job is to make the Bill, when it is enacted, work. If I may say so, the Opposition are making heavy weather of the enterprise, because the Bill, in its outline and principles, is one of considerable simplicity. I made that point previously. The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to it just now.
One hopes and believes that it will be much simpler to collect the council tax than the community charge. The costs of collection, which are the subject of the amendment, are likely to be very much less than any scheme the Opposition are likely to propose. The outlines of the Opposition fair rates scheme are far from clear; but, nonetheless, it involves, first, valuing every property in the land, and then proceeding to add to the valuation the notion of rental value for every property, and, in addition, maintenance costs and rebuilding costs. No wonder that, by contrast, the Opposition have sometimes suggested that the valuation-by-band scheme is over simple.
On Second Reading (at col. 1636 of Hansard for 9th January), the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, observed that the original estimated cost of valuation was £120 million. She pointed out that it had decreased to £20 million. She suggested that that might be 20 pence per property. She went on to say:
"Far from the valuation being carried out from the back of a car, it is now being carried out from the back of an office".
So much the better. If there is a valuation scheme for properties in a given area—she gave the example of Barrow —where many properties are of approximately the same value, the valuation can be achieved by studying the type of properties without having a separate exercise for each one, and how much more efficacious that will be. That is one of the great strengths of the Bill. That is why I feel that the amendment is essentially rhetorical. When it comes to discounts, let us remember that although local authorities will make every effort to give an appropriate estimate for discount in the bills sent out, it will be open to those receiving the bills to make application for discount to their satisfaction.
Benefits are of course more complicated, but then benefits always are more complicated. I feel that the Opposition are exaggerating—they may be wilfully exaggerating, but I shall not make that point seriously —the complications involved in the application of the Bill. The great strength of the council tax is that it should be simple to collect and, as the noble Baroness said, the valuation will be simple. Those are positive features.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first may I thank my noble friend for making one or two of the points—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lady Phillips wished to speak before the Minister. We are at Report stage.
Baroness Phillips: Thank you, my Lords. If the Minister is too sharp, I could understand why she might neatly cut us out. That could be the case, but knowing her, I do not believe that that was what she intended. Having listened to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, regarding simplicity, I shall tell a simple tale. This week, in my own area, I
996
heard of two elderly ladies of great distinction and intelligence who are alone and dependent on someone else to call on them now and again to help them with the bills they receive which are becoming more and more complicated. One needs to study finance now just to pay the electricity bill. Those two ladies, without realising what it was, received a summons to attend court because they had not paid their tax bill. When questioned by the lady who called on them they both said, "I did not understand what it was all about". These are people of good, high character. If they cannot understand it, they will not be alone—they are typical. The lady who called on them immediately wrote out cheques for both of them for their tax. When she telephoned the tax office—or whatever it is called these days in the town hall—and pointed out the situation, she was told, "They will still have to pay for the summons, £23 each".
What condition have we reached where good, honest people receive a summons to a civil court simply because they have not understood the unnecessarily complicated ways in which we deal with Acts of Parliament? For heaven's sake, let this next tax be understandable. The previous one certainly was not.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is an odd amendment. For the Audit Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General to have to investigate these matters within three months of Royal Assent would simply have the effect of imposing additional work on the local authorities. Moreover that would happen at the the very moment when they should be and would otherwise be concentrating on bringing the new tax into operation and carrying out all the administrative work. If they are to be distracted from that in order to supply a mass of statistics and material in this way, it would complicate their task and delay the implementation of the tax.
There, perhaps, the secret peeps out. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that if the reports indicated that there were difficulties in bringing the tax into operation, then the Government would have to consider delaying or amending it. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is simply designed—quite ingeniously—with the hope of delaying the implementation of the Bill. It would have no practical value; it is simply a rather intelligent piece of obstruction.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, suggested that the operation of the tax would be simplicity itself; it would be easy, no problem, everyone would know what he had to pay and would pay up and there would be no further problems.
However, I sat here listening to the same arguments about the poll tax. I was told, "Here is a simple, easily understood tax which applies to everyone. It is fair, everyone who uses services would pay a contribution. As a result, bills would be far less for every payer". We now know what happened. We found that the poll tax was the most complicated of taxes ever devised. We also found that, except in a few cases, bills were sometimes twice as high as they were previously and

997
that now many people throughout the country have to pay an extra £45, £50 or £52 in order to make up for those who have not paid. The local authorities have been unable to catch up with the non-payers. Thus, what was supposed to be a simple tax and was represented to the House as a simple tax proved to be a nightmare, not only for the collectors but for the whole population.
We are now being told that this tax is simplicity itself, people will understand it and will therefore succumb and pay it without further problems. However, what will people say whose houses are valued at between £160,000 and £320,000? They may find that they pay as much tax on their house in a less salubrious area as a person living in a comparable house twice the size in a very salubrious area. That will not appear to them to be simple. My noble friend was right in saying that when people are informed of the so-called value of their houses, many will be so appalled that they will rush to appeal against the valuations. That in turn will cause difficulties for the local authorities.
I hope that the Government will not just cast the amendment aside. It is right that whatever colour the Government may be, they should be aware of what is going on and what the difficulties will be. Had such amendments been accepted by the Government and passed in relation to the poll tax legislation, a good many of the problems which have arisen as a result of that tax might have been avoided. I urge the Government not to spurn this amendment out of hand. It is designed to help.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when I first saw the amendment I was in two minds about the wisdom of imposing on local authorities and local government yet another exercise in considering various problems. Having thought about it, I see the wisdom of the amendment. It does not ask for individual local authorities to become involved in the exercise. The proposed report could involve the local authority associations. Given the huge complexities of which we have all become aware as we consider the Bill, I do not believe that any of your Lordships feel more confident about the ease of administration of the legislation than when we began examining the Bill about a month ago.
I believe that the amendment is not a bad suggestion for giving the various parties the opportunity to assess where we are and also for local authority associations to be reassured. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that a dialogue is going on with the local authority associations. I accept that, but your Lordships may wish to have it on record. There would be an opportunity for discussion and assessment and perhaps a revision of some regulations which are being considered at the moment.
Although I have some doubts as to exactly what additional dialogue we wish to add to the exercise, I understand the wisdom and the thrust of the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I wish to apologise to the noble Baroness for seeming to interject too quickly. I did not think that anyone else was rising. I hope she knows that I would not wish to interrupt.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I still love the noble Baroness!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The exercise will take time and cost money. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, this is not the time to impose yet more time-consuming exercises. It is certainly not the time to incur greater costs over and above those that are already being incurred.
As regards reporting on the preparedness of billing authorities for introducing the tax, we all know that some authorities are getting on well with that work and will be ready to introduce the tax while others will not. I cannot understand how such an exercise can be undertaken without considering each individual authority. If it is to be just a general exercise, it will tell us what we already know—that some local authorities are highly efficient and others are not. A general overseeing exercise will not be fruitful.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was worried about the general election. If I may say so, he rather laboured the point that local authorities have a number of matters to cope with at this time in preparing for the council tax. That is rather rich coming from a member of a party that is also preparing for government in the not too distant future. As my noble friend Lord Renfrew has already pointed out, that party is prepared, almost within days of the election, to return to the former rating system that is only—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope I may continue. The Labour Party would like to return by 1993 to the former rating system. To achieve that that party would have to get on with that process almost as soon as a general election had taken place, otherwise local authorities could not cope with the workload. As I have said, the former rating system is 19 years out of date and it has many inequities and iniquities.
As my noble friend has already said, at almost the same time another piece of major legislation would be put in place to establish an evaluation system to be carried out annually. That evaluation system would assess rental values, capital values, rebuilding costs and repair costs and the system is related to assessing the income of each household. In the first year of its operation—even before the return to the former rating system—it requires legislation to effect 100 per cent. rebates for individuals in the tail end of the community charge.
We understand the Labour Party also intends to put legislation on the stocks quickly to establish regional assemblies and to devolve some government to Scotland. All of that legislation will place enormous

999
burdens on local authorities. The system of council tax to raise revenues for local authorities that we propose is simple and fair. I believe local authorities are getting on with the work of implementing that tax and are already making immense progress. We congratulate them on that progress.
The Audit Commission and Comptroller and Auditor General are independent bodies with wide remits to investigate the efficiency, economy and effectiveness with which public services are provided. It is for them to decide, in the light of their other responsibilities and priorities, whether there is a need to conduct an inquiry of the kind proposed by noble Lords opposite. It would be inappropriate to seek to direct their studies through this Bill.
In any case there is no need for such an inquiry. No one is better placed than local government to assess its own costs in implementing the council tax. I am glad to tell your Lordships that the cost of valuation in England, Scotland and Wales is now expected to be £83 million compared to our initial estimate of £250 million. This saving is due to keen tenders from private sector valuers. It is an example of what can be achieved through co-operation between the public and private sectors.
Noble Lords opposite argue that we have underestimated the cost to local authorities of preparing for the council tax. We commissioned an independent consultant to look into this matter and we accepted its findings in full. I have heard nothing today to persuade me that the initial estimates were unsound. The arrangements for funding the preparation of the local tax seem to have been generally welcomed by local government. Despite what noble Lords opposite might say, there are no grounds for thinking that local authorities will have any difficulty in implementing the council tax by 1st April 1993. We are doing all we can to help them. Apart from financial support, we have circulated a user requirements specification to all local authorities to use in specifying and evaluating computer software for the council tax. Only a minority of authorities are planning to design their own software. Most will rely on commercial products. I understand that the user requirements specification has been very well received.
We have been consulting the local authority associations about draft regulations and orders since before Christmas. Last week we sent copies of the latest drafts to all local authorities and to the main software houses. These drafts cover all main aspects of the council tax which are needed for the preparation of computer software and the development of administrative systems. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill, we intend to lay the orders and regulations as soon as possible after Royal Assent.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the main regulations for the council tax will be subject to negative resolution. We intend to lay them shortly after Royal Assent. They will come into effect in 21 days, regardless of whether Parliament is prorogued. As the noble Lord knows, they can be prayed against within 40 days. As I believe he is also aware, the clock stops during prorogation. This amendment is another attempt to overlay a layer of
1000
bureaucracy. It is also another attempt to thwart the implementation of the council tax. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot let this moment pass without expressing my gratitude to the Minister for the information she has imparted about the Labour Party manifesto. She seems to know a great deal about Labour Party policies for the forthcoming election including the priorities for different kinds of legislation. It is useful to have her informed knowledge on this subject.
I shall now return to the subject of the amendment which is about government policy rather than Labour Party policy. I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, which I noted down with great care. He did not say the Bill was simplicity itself, but rather that it was of considerable simplicity in outline. That was an interesting remark. My noble friend Lord Stoddart effectively gave the lie to that by pointing out that the poll tax was simplicity itself in outline as it was intended to be a flat rate tax levied on everyone in the country by local authorities. I agree with my noble friend that one could not imagine anything more simple in outline and more complex in practice.
However, the council tax is not even simple in outline let alone in practice. As Ministers have been at pains to explain, the council tax is a compromise between a property tax and a personal tax. It is supposed to be 50 per cent. property tax and 50 per cent. personal tax. It is complicated further by the provision of a discount structure, and further still by the addition of a rebate structure which, as the noble Lord has rightly said, can never be simple. What he does not observe, of course, is that there is an interaction between the discount structure and the rebate structure which increases enormously the complexity of the operation of the tax, not least as regards the software systems which local authorities have to put in place to give effect to the council tax and to establish individual or property obligation for the council tax.
I fear there is a great confusion in the minds of noble Lords opposite about this concept of simplicity. They have mentioned the cheapness of the valuation system. They claim that because the valuation system is cheap that in itself will provide simplicity in the operation of the tax system which results. I suggest to your Lordships that the opposite is the case. It reminds me of Richard Brinsley Sheridan who said about writing that one writes with ease to show one's breeding, but easy writing is damned hard reading. I rather suspect that easy valuation will be damned hard to implement. All the evidence suggests that that will be the case and there will be a far higher number of appeals because people will feel a far greater sense of injustice both as a result of the similarities between properties which people think should be valued differently and as a result of the differences in values of properties which people think should be given similar values.
In a characteristic intervention the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made much of the work which would be imposed on local authorities. That point was

1001
answered effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said, quite rightly, that that work would be done by the associations rather than by individual authorities.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I nearly intervened when the noble Baroness spoke. If the noble Lord looks at his own amendment he will see that it refers to the work to be done by the billing authorities, not by the associations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I was about to go on to say, the report will be on:
"the financial, managerial and personnel costs of implementing council tax".
I do not believe that the noble Lord is seriously suggesting that local authorities are not already calculating the financial, managerial and personnel costs of implementing the council tax. Indeed, they have to do so because 75 per cent. of the revenue costs will be reimbursed by central government. No additional work is involved there. The point at issue is not the complexity of the information demands but the quantum of additional expenditure which is involved in the implementation of the council tax.
It would be irresponsible of us not to propose in the amendment that there should also be a report on the preparedness of billing authorities for the introduction of such a tax. Otherwise one might find that the Audit Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General reported to the Secretary of State and to Parliament that the costs were enormously higher than had been anticipated and, though they might know that local authorities were not as prepared as they ought to be for implementation on 1st April 1993, because Parliament had not ordered them to do so they could not say anything about that. That would be like the Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark, who adapted the principle that no one should speak to the man at the helm with the corollary that the man at the helm should speak to no one so that there was no communication between the helm and the rest of the crew. As Lewis Carroll said, during those bewildering intervals the ship usually sailed backwards.
As we have made clear, this is a helpful amendment. It is intended to bring forward as rapidly as possible into the domain of public information the real progress towards implementation of the council tax and enable the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, to do something effective about it. To deny that is to will the end but to refuse to provide the means. The House should give its opinion of the amendment.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Birk, B.

Bottomley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

1002

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mayhew, L.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peston, L.

Fitt, L.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Hampden, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stallard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stedman, B.

Hooson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Judd, L.

Warnock, B.

Listowel, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Derwent, L.

Aldington, L.

Dudley, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Effingham, E.

Ampthill, L.

Elibank, L.

Arran, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Astor, V.

Elles, B.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Balfour, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Erne, E.

Beloff, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Belstead, L.

Faithfull, B.

Bessborough, E.

Flather, B.

Blatch, B.

Gainford, L.

Blyth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Boardman, L.

Geddes, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Haddington, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Haig, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Brigstocke, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Havers, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hayter, L.

Caithness, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Henley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hesketh, L.[Teller.]

Carnock, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hood, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hooper, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Howe, E.

Cockfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Inglewood, L.

Colwyn, L.

Ironside, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Joseph, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Killearn, L.

Denham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

1003

Kinnaird, L.

Prentice, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Knollys, V.

Reay, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rees, L.

Long, V.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Lyell, L.

Romney, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. Davids, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Malmesbury, E.

Selkirk, E.

Mancroft, L.

Strange, B.

Manton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Middleton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Milne, L.

Terrington, L.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mountevans, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Nelson, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Newall, L.

Waddington, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Westbury, L.

Orkney, E.

Wharton, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Young, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.52 p.m.
Clause 3 [Meaning of "dwelling"]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 22, leave out from ("which") to ("is") in line 23 and insert:
("(a) is a composite hereditament for the purposes of Part III of the 1988 Act; and
(b) would still be such a hereditament if paragraphs (b) to (d) of section 66(1) of that Act (domestic property) were omitted,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. During Committee we debated the purpose of Clause 3 and the differences between Clause 3 of this Bill and the schedule to the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act. The matter was similarly debated very fully in Committee in another place.
In the course of those debates the Government made clear that the intention of subsection 3(4) is to ensure that only properties which include living accommodation should be subject to the council tax. Garages, storage premises, yards, gardens and such like which are hereditaments in their own right should not be chargeable dwellings.
Amendment No. 2 puts beyond doubt that the same should apply to any composite hereditament which does not include living accommodation. These amendments specifically exclude from the definition of a dwelling any composite hereditament which is only a composite by virtue of the fact that it includes a domestic garage, storage premises, yard, garden or other domestic property which is not living accommodation. Amendment No. 4 is consequential.
As a result of detailed debate in Committee we realised that these technical amendments are needed to deal explicitly with the case of composite hereditaments which contain no living accommodation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had thought that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was going to congratulate the Government on the simplicity of this measure.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert:
("(d) a dwelling which is—

(i) an establishment, nursing home or mental nursing home which is required to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 or would be so required but for section 1(4), (5)(j) or 21(3) (a) of that Act; or

(ii) a property or part of a property in which residential accommodation is provided under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 or paragraph 2(1) (a) of the National Health Service Act 1977; or

(iii) a "hostel" in that it is an establishment in which residential accommodation is provided and which is—

(a) managed by a housing association registered with the Housing Corporation under section 5 of the Housing Associations Act 1985; or

(b) operated other than on a commercial basis and in respect of which funds are provided wholly or in part by a Government Department or agency or a local authority; or

(c) managed by a voluntary organisation.

and where the sole or main function of the establishment is to provide personal care or support, combined with board, to persons who are solely or mainly resident in the establishment.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to maintain the status quo by removing residential care homes, nursing homes and similar establishments from liability for council tax.
I refer to the council tax's two predecessors. I understand that residential homes and hostels were treated as domestic property for rates but, in effect, were exempt from liability through the disabled rate relief scheme. That principle was extended to the poll tax, although under that tax the mechanism is different: individuals in such establishments are exempt under statutory instruments from liability for poll tax. From previous debates on this Bill we all understood that the regulations on exempt dwellings would cover properties which had been exempt from the poll tax. Certainly I thought that residential and nursing establishments would be exempt. However, the draft regulations do not exempt those properties. Indeed, those who are concerned with this sector have been informed by various members of the Government that they will not be exempted.
There is certainly some confusion about the mechanisms of exemption and doubt as to what will be the future for the establishments referred to in this amendment. I hope that the Government can explain whether there has been a change in Government thinking from that on poll tax and indeed the rates. If there is to be a difference, will they explain why that is so?
The amendment seeks to exclude certain establishments from the definition of "dwelling". It does not propose that they should be exempt dwellings. It uses the wording in the community charge regulations to define the establishments which it is proposed should not be liable for council tax; in other words, the

1005
amendment seeks to restrict the concession to those establishments where residents are exempt from the poll tax and which were exempt from domestic rates.
I should be glad to know why there is a break with previous practice and why those homes will be liable for council tax. I should like to know the thinking behind the change. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, clearly explained, such properties have always been exempt under the rates by virtue of disabled rate relief and under the poll tax because the individuals therein were exempt. We wish to ensure that such properties continue to be exempt. Having read the discussions in Committee in the other place, it may well be that Ministers intend them to be exempted. In that case, we hope that this will be an opportunity for the Government to make clear their thinking on this matter.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I believe that at Report stage one wants amendments to make sense as one reads the legislation and to go on making sense as they are enacted. I apologise for making what may be a pedantic point but it is, I think, a not inappropriate one.
In the unamended Bill Clause 3(4) states that none of the properties (a), (b) and (c) is a dwelling. The amendment proposes to add a paragraph (d), "a dwelling". We are therefore told that none of the properties in (d) is a dwelling. In other words, the legislation will state that a dwelling is not a dwelling.
That cannot be good drafting. At Report stage it would be appropriate to have drafting which, when read in conjunction with the original Bill, does not result in what appears to be a contradiction in terms.
The noble Baroness seeks to elicit some information. I am sure that her request will receive a response. But perhaps I may speak to the content of the amendment. It seems to me that if one wishes to exempt such dwellings, the substance of the amendment could be included in Clause 4(3), along the lines of Amendment No. 7. That would place in the category of exempt dwellings those listed by the noble Baroness. That would perhaps make drafting sense.
Most of the dwellings that are listed are dwellings which also contain people whom one might well expect to be liable to pay the council tax. Many of the nursing homes will have proprietors. There may be other persons who will perfectly appropriately be subject to council tax. We understand from Committee stage that the warden of a student hostel will very probably be subject to council tax; and why not? The warden of a student hostel is in no different position from any other wage earner. The same may well apply to the proprietor of an establishment—a nursing home or a mental nursing home. It is not clear to me whether that category of person should be exempted, in which case it is not necessarily appropriate to make such residences exempt dwellings.
1006
One understands the point that the noble Baroness seeks to achieve. It may well be appropriate that some persons do not pay council tax. No doubt we shall discuss their eligibility for benefits later. That alternative avenue might well be more within the logic of the Bill. However, apart from the trivial drafting point with which I began, there is a more substantial point which makes the amendment not altogether appropriate.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may follow on from what my noble friend Lord Renfrew said. I believe that the provisions ought to be in Clause 8 and not Clause 3. Clause 8 provides for liability in prescribed cases. That might meet some of the arguments. As my noble friend Lord Renfrew said, where a dwelling—the word "hostel" is used in the amendment—is managed by a voluntary organisation, it is the voluntary organisation which would be involved. I believe that the amendment is totally unsuitable in Clause 3. However, I have some sympathy with the considerations underlying the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a number of serious misunderstandings were revealed in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. First, he seems to believe that it is wrong to point out that there are circumstances in which a dwelling is not a dwelling. Unfortunately it is a trap which the Government have built for Parliament and for the country through the drafting of this legislation. The whole of Clause 3 is concerned with the definition of a dwelling. Subsection (1) attempts to define a dwelling. Subsection (6) gives the Secretary of State power to say that a dwelling is not a dwelling if he thinks fit by regulation afterwards.
The difficulty arises because the Government have changed their mind since the paving Act passed in the summer of last year. The phrase used then was "a domestic property". If we had stuck to that, we might not be in the difficulty in which we find ourselves.
The noble Lord's second misunderstanding arose from what he said about the warden of a student hostel. The tax is a tax on property. If a warden of a student hostel is to have exemption under a discount or rebate system, that will be dealt with in the appropriate way. However, the tax is on the dwelling. The amendment, quite rightly, seeks to provide that certain dwellings—in common parlance, places where people live—ought not to be included for good, humanitarian, charitable reasons.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, the noble Lord kindly gives way. The misunderstanding is largely on his side. My understanding was that students resident in a student hostel, for instance, will not be subject to council tax, but that nonetheless provision will be made so that a warden can be expected to pay council tax. That was my understanding. We shall have to ask my noble friend to clarify the matter. It was the substance of the noble Baroness's announcement at Committee stage.

1007
It would he anomalous to exclude the warden of a nursing home when one does not exclude the warden of a student hostel. I was appealing on the ground of symmetry.
I accept that there are different categories of residence which it may or may not be convenient to call a dwelling. I objected to the pedantic wording. To say that a dwelling is not a dwelling cannot be good drafting.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not give way again at Report stage if, in order to clarify the position, the noble Lord makes second speeches in place of an intervention.
The purpose of the amendment, as is quite clear, is to extend the protection—which has already been extended to some deserving cases—to others. The amendment deserves the consideration of the House on that basis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lord Balfour for explaining some of the technical deficiencies of the amendment. I was also surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not support the amendment by putting their names to it, but no doubt that was an oversight. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that there was some confusion on the issue. Perhaps I may clarify that confusion.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, the amendment would exclude from the definition of "dwelling" residential care and nursing homes and certain hostels. This would mean that no council tax was payable in respect of such buildings.
The residents and owners of care homes and hostels benefit from local services just as other people do. Their refuse is collected; they can call on the police or the fire brigade; their residents use the highways. It is fair that they should contribute something to the cost of providing those services, provided that they have the means to do so, and provided that they are not required to pay a disproportionate amount.
Many care homes and hostels are based in large houses, which are likely to fall in one of the higher council tax valuation bands. As such, they will benefit from the banding arrangements the Government are proposing, which ensure that the bill for the most expensive property is limited to three times the bill for the smallest.
Homes and hostels which provide extra space or special facilities because they have disabled residents will be entitled to have their bill reduced to that for the band immediately below. Therefore a home whose value would put it in band G would only give rise to the bill for a band F property.
Those properties will therefore be well treated under our general proposals. We have also made specific provision for them. We propose to designate care homes under Clause 8 of the Bill so that the owner, rather than the residents, will be liable for the council tax. And under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, residents receiving care in care homes will be
1008
disregarded for the purposes of discount. Therefore any home where the staff reside elsewhere will face only a 50 per cent. council tax bill.
Perhaps it will be beneficial if I cite an example of a typical case. Some large homes will be in band H, the top valuation band. The basic bill for such a property might be about £800, based on the council tax levels that we estimate would have prevailed had the tax been in force this year. If the home included a treatment room for disabled residents the bill would be reduced to £668. If there were no resident staff the local authority would apply a 50 per cent. discount, cutting the bill to £334.
Let us consider that in the context of the total costs of a residential care home. In the case that I considered there might be 20 residents. The fee for each resident might typically be £175 per week, so that the total running costs of the home would be in the region of £180,000 per year. Plainly a £334 increase in those costs will barely be noticeable.
If the care home owner in this case decided to pass those costs on to the residents, the result would be a fee increase of about 32p per week each. Residents receiving benefits will have this cost met by the local authority. But even for residents not receiving benefit, the tax would cost just 32p within a total bill of £175.
Although that contribution may be small, the Government believe that it represents an important principle which goes to the heart of our care in the community policy. The principle is that of equivalent treatment for those who are cared for in institutions and those who receive their care in the wider community. Many elderly and disabled people in the community will be liable to pay their council tax. Rebates will be available if they are in receipt of low incomes. There is no reason why elderly and disabled people should not contribute to local services simply because they receive their care in a residential home.
In opposing the amendment, the Government are seeking to ensure equal treatment of those in the community and those in care homes and hostels. I hope that I have been able to clarify the position for the noble Baroness and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I suppose that when we are considering how well or badly we treat properties as opposed to people such confusion is likely to arise. I used the phrase "treating property well" because it was used by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—he said that properties will be well-treated. I half accept some of the points that were made about the drafting. One becomes accustomed to phraseology such as "a dwelling shall be a dwelling only if" and "a dwelling is not a dwelling when". I had hoped that we could concentrate more on the underlying thrust of the amendment than on its terminology. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, agrees with that.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, suggested that the provision should appear in Clause 8. However, I proposed an amendment in this part of the Bill in order not to reach the point of valuing the property and levying a tax. It may well be that a warden of such a property should pay the tax. A dilemma arises in

1009
that we are dealing with a tax which has its roots as a property tax rather than as a personal tax. I do not seek to exempt wardens who ought to pay their taxes in the same way as everyone else. However, they are in an unfortunate situation because they live in large properties which fall into a high tax band.
There is the opportunity for a reduction by one band but that will not apply to all the properties which fall within the provisions of the amendment. The reduction may apply to nursing homes but is unlikely to apply to joint homes for people with learning disabilities, for instance. The provisions which ameliorate the situation as described by the Minister will not apply to people in short-stay homes and to people who are receiving respite care. I believe that to be a matter for the Government's community care policy.
I am sad that whatever the drawbacks of the drafting of the amendment, its underlying thrust has not been accepted, nor do we appear to have had a great deal of movement towards acceptance. I shall consider whether an amendment may find more favour with your Lordships at a later stage of the Bill. However, I am now more anxious about the matter than I was when I first moved the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("or (3)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from ("amend") to ("any") in line 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall pause judiciously at suitable points in the proceedings if the Government Front Bench do not pursue their own amendments. Late at night in Committee we debated an issue which deserved greater attention. It was the provision at the end of Clause 3 for the Secretary of State by order to amend the definition of "dwelling" which appears in Clause 3(2). I do not wish to go over the full panoply of the Henry VIII argument. It was made successfully when the Local Government Bill was being debated, and we must return to the matter in considering Commons amendments to that Bill. It was distressing to note that the Government used their majority in another place to reinstate in a slightly different form the Henry VIII provisions to which your Lordships took exception.
A similar attempt is made in this Bill to allow the Secretary of State to change by order a provision which appears on the face of the Bill. It is not that the matter is unimportant. The definition of "dwelling", as we discussed when considering the previous amendment, is of great importance. It has been changed by Government since the paving Act of 1991.
The Government have always made clear that the way in which "dwelling" is defined is critical to the operation of the council tax.
When in Committee we moved a more comprehensive amendment to remedy that fault, the Minister said that the Government had no intention of changing the definition but that they could not promise that that would be the last word. She drew attention to the need for a proper congruity—I do not believe she used that word—between the definition of "dwelling" for the council tax and the definition of a non-domestic hereditament from the point of view of the non-domestic rating system.
I can say only that if the Government cannot get their act together after a number of Bills and produce a satisfactory definition for both terms, they have not been trying very hard. With all its faults, the rating system never had any difficulty in distinguishing between domestic hereditaments, mixed hereditaments and non-domestic hereditaments. They were always well-defined and the definition became better defined in case law subsequent to the passing of legislation. It would be a simple solution for the Government to return to those well-tried definitions rather than to introduce this objectionable procedure whereby the Secretary of State may amend primary legislation simply by order.
Amendment No. 6 would eliminate the power of the Secretary of State to substitute another definition for any definition of "dwelling" which is effective for the purposes of this part of the Bill. However, it would allow the Secretary of State to make amendments rather than substitution. The reasoning behind that provision is, first, that we know that in accordance with the procedures of the House we cannot return to an amendment which has been voted on in Committee. Secondly, we recognise that there is a ghost of a case for making procedural amendments as time goes on. However, there is no case for a substitution by order of a definition laid down in primary legislation.
The distinction was made—notably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and, in coming to his assistance from the historical point of view, the noble Earl, Lord Russell—that although Henry VIII provisions are not always wrong, it is certainly wrong for them to be introduced when they are merely convenient rather than essential. I suggest that this is a classic example of a Henry VIII provision being introduced simply for the convenience of the Government because they cannot be bothered to get the wording right. That is not a satisfactory justification for the breach of the primacy of primary legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am sure that there must be a provision in this clause to give the Government power to amend the definition of "dwelling" in order to avoid the need for primary legislation if, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, recognises may well be the case, decisions of the courts produce a solution which is not acceptable to Parliament. Parliament may then be perfectly ready to amend. When a new tax is being introduced and when

1011
there are new parameters, and, therefore it is necessary to have new rules, it seems to me to make a great deal of sense that there should be power to amend.
Having said that, I have some sympathy with those who say that amendment is one thing but merely to take power to substitute an entirely different definition is another. I speak before my noble friend has spoken, but I remain to be convinced that the words which the amendment seeks to omit —namely, "or substitute another definition for"—really are necessary for the Government's case.
That is the most offensive kind of Henry VIII clause because it would give power by order to remove an entire subsection or indeed most of the clause and put something else in its place. I am happy to see a power to amend, but I require some persuasion that a total power of substitution is an appropriate way of legislating in these circumstances. My noble friend on the Front Bench may be able to convince me, but for the moment I am all agog to hear her reasons. I am not sure that those words add so much to the powers of the Government that they should stay in the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I do not believe that this amendment should be accepted. The Bill as drafted is much more satisfactory. If the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is accepted, it may prevent the Secretary of State transferring a residential property of one kind to a prescribed dwelling under Clause 8. That is not in our best interests for the future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as has been pointed out, Clause 3(6) allows the Secretary of State, by order, to amend or substitute the definition of "dwelling". Amendment No. 6 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from substituting the definition of "dwelling". However, it would still be possible to amend the definition.
I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Balfour have said. I have heard enough for a questionmark to be planted in my mind and I need to take further advice on this matter. Perhaps noble Lords will be assured that I shall profitably use the time between now and Third Reading. I should preface that by saying that I make no commitment but I need to be convinced. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has pointed out that from time to time the Government will need power to amend and Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, which I have moved this afternoon, amend definitions; those positive amendments were accepted by the House. However, I take the point about wholesale substitution. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will accept that I shall consider this matter further with my advisers, in which case he may not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister cannot say fairer than that. I am grateful for what she said. I accept that she does not give assurances. If she wishes to discuss this matter
1012
between now and Third Reading I shall be happy to do so, as I am sure will be the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Dwellings chargeable to council tax]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert ("except that all dwellings occupied exclusively by persons defined in Schedule I to this Act shall be exempt dwellings.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to extend the principle of the exempt dwelling. There are two kinds of discounts of which I am sure your Lordships are aware. The first is the 25 per cent. discount for single adult occupancy which is an occupancy discount. The second is the personal discount based upon status; for example, student, trainee, a person with severe mental impairment, the 18 year-old who is still at school and so on. Whether or not such people are members of a household, they are invisible and their presence makes no difference to the final bill. In other words, if they live in a three-person household, the bill will be as though for two people and if they live in a two-person household, the bill will be as though for one and hence attract a 25 per cent. discount.
In a half-way house occupied by two or three adults with severe mental impairment, each would receive a 25 per cent. discount up to a maximum of 50 per cent. of the total bill but would still be liable for the residual 50 per cent., which is the property element. This amendment seeks to make those people exempt. After all, there is the existing precedent of full-time students and Project 2000 nurses. Where two or four students or Project 2000 nurses share a dwelling, the entire property is exempt rather than each individual carrying a 25 per cent. discount. The argument is that such people are outside the benefit system and therefore the dwelling should be exempt. However, in the cases that I have mentioned—the severely mentally impaired or young adults living in a sheltered workshop—those people may receive a very low income but nevertheless will still be eligible to pay part of the bill because rebates, particularly under the Government's proposals, end very abruptly at £75 per week on an average council tax bill. Therefore, this amendment seeks to extend the recognition which the Government have already attributed to those groups so that property which is occupied only by such people should be exempt, following the precedent of students and Project 2000 nurses. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, the amendment states:
"except that all dwellings occupied exclusively by persons defined in Schedule 1".
That includes people in prison or in a mental home. I do not see how this amendment can in any way achieve that which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put forward. Although I sympathise with her arguments, as the amendment is drafted it will not work.
Earl Howe: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 would exempt all dwellings occupied exclusively by persons

1013
falling to be disrgerded for the purposes of discount. The Government propose that only the 50 per cent. property element of the council tax should be payable in respect of such dwellings.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I again explain the Government's thinking. It is the Government's intention that people entitled to "status discounts" should not add to the personal element of the tax. Most of them had special status under the community charge—they were either exempt, or paid only 20 per cent. of the charge. Those people will continue to receive special status within the personal element of the council tax. But the tax also has a property element. There is no reason why the property element of a local tax should depend on the personal status of the residents of a property. There was no such exemption under the rates.
If people in these groups are on low incomes, they will generally be able to claim rebates. These will meet the full bill for people whose incomes are at or below the income support level. Such people will pay neither the personal nor the property element. As the noble Baroness reminded us, the one exception is students and nurses on Project 2000. Students are not generally eligible to claim income-related benefits; their support is instead channelled through the student grant and loan systems. Because they will be unable to claim council tax benefit we have made special provision for them. Student halls of residence and dwellings where all the residents are students will be exempted from the tax under Clause 4.
However, that is not appropriate for other groups of people entitled to status discounts. They will be eligible for rebates. They should also not qualify for the special exemption arrangements. For those reasons, the Government are opposed to this amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press it.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister and we on these Benches share the same reading of the Bill. There is no misunderstanding of interpretation between us. However, perhaps I may make two further comments on the examples raised by Members opposite in regard to the amendment.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, who raised the question of prisoners and why they should be eligible, given Schedule 1. The amendment will ensure that, under Schedule 1, while someone is in prison he will receive no council tax bill. As I understand it, under the Bill as drafted while a prisoner has an unoccupied house in the community he will still be required to pay 50 per cent. of the bill. How can he do that while in prison? That is one anomaly which the amendment seeks to overcome.
I am more concerned with the effect on mentally impaired young people who may be single, sharing a half-way house and in a sheltered workshop with low incomes but nonetheless beyond the rebate scheme. Under the poll tax they were entirely exempt. Under the council tax they are not. On grounds of humanity we are seeking to continue the same kind of
1014
exemptions under the council tax as existed under the poll tax for people who are already suffering enormous disabilities and problems. The cost is not high. But the result, which will allow those people to continue to lead a worthwhile life in the community, is important.
We shall probably want to return to the issue and look at other exempt groups at Third Reading. In the light of what I have said perhaps the Minister will look at the groups that I have mentioned. They present real anomalies as between the poll tax and the council tax as the Bill presently stands. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Transitory arrangements for student nurses
—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 4 above, any dwelling occupied wholly by student nurses shall be prescribed as an exempt dwelling.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "student nurse" shall be taken to mean any person undertaking a full time course in nursing education which would enable such a person to qualify for registration under the terms of the Nurse, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979.
(3) This section shall cease to have effect after 31st December 1999.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that I moved a similar amendment at Committee stage on 30th January. On that occasion there was heartening support from all sides of your Lordships' House. It therefore encouraged me to table a slightly altered amendment for today. It still contains a proper definition of a student nurse. That is a tremendously important part of the amendment. We must get away from the feeling that there are two different kinds of student nurse who are not of equal value. There is a great feeling of dissatisfaction among student nurses on the conventional type of course and we should support them.
Subsection (3) clearly points out what a short-term expense to the Government the amendment would be. It will cease to have effect on 31st December 1999. In fact, it will almost cease to have effect by 1997 as the progress of the introduction of Project 2000 is carried forward. Since Committee stage the Minister was kind enough to write to me setting out in a summary table the annual income of different types of student. I accept the figures and in my comparisons I would like to use them for the whole of the country rather than just for London.
A student grant plus loan amounts to £2,845; a Project 2000 nurse earns £4,320 and a student nurse's first year salary is approximately £6,440. I accept those figures as being correct. However, we must compare like with like. In order to make a fair comparison the different forms of student support must be considered, taking into account the following points. On the conventional system a student nurse with the higher income must pay tax and national insurance; that does not apply to the other two types of student. We are therefore not comparing like with like. The net income should be taken into account if we are to use those figures.
There are three different courses for nursing education producing three different types of student. First, there are degree students; secondly, Project 2000 students; and, thirdly, conventional students. The conventional students are paid an income over 52 weeks a year. They are employee students and work for those 52 weeks. The bursary of Project 2000 students is calculated over 45 weeks of the year. A degree student has a work basic of 30 weeks over the year. There is therefore a difference when one compares the incomes.
Conventional students rely solely on their training allowance. Undergraduates and Project 2000 students have between seven and 22 weeks during the year when, if they wish, they can earn extra income by working as auxiliary agency nurses. But the students who have time free to earn outside income are also those considered most favourably by the council tax.
I was given an analysis of figures by the Royal College of Nursing. If one uses the table to which I have just referred, which was given to me by the Minister, one can take the income of £4,320 of a Project 2000 student and, dividing it over the 45 weeks, produce a weekly income of —96. The degree course student with £2,845, divided by 30, has a weekly income of £94.83. The employee student with an income of £6,440, when divided by 52, earns £96.83 per week, before deducting tax and national insurance. Other anomalies exist.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. Does the noble Baroness agree that a student nurse earning between £6,440 and £7,450 per annumߞthat is the student nurse on conventional training across the country—would be earning between £123.85 and £143.27 per week before tax and national insurance were deducted?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the figures I received from the Royal College of Nursing give me £96.83.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will again give way. This is important. There is a real difference between net and gross. I am saying that somebody earning between £6,440 and £7,450 —the pay for a nurse on a traditional training course; not in London, because the figures are much higher there—would be earning weekly, before the deduction of tax and national insurance, between £123.85 and £143.27.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I apologise for my mistake. I did not realise that the figures I received from the Royal College of Nursing were net. I take back the last sentence I added in regard to tax and national insurance.
There are other anomalies. For instance, Project 2000 students over 25 get additional bursaries. Something else I cannot quite understand is that employees of the NHS who take the Project 2000 course maintain their old salary for the duration of the course. They, too, are being treated differently from the normal, as we understand it, conventional student nurse.
1016
What worries me most of all about the whole problem is that it has created a feeling of resentment among large numbers of our student nurses. We cannot afford to create resentment. It is not fair to treat them differently. Considering that by 1997 there will be hardly any conventional nurses left—they will practically all be Project 2000 nurses—I hope that the Government can see their way to agreeing that we should treat all nurses the same way. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I was not present when the Committee stage of the Bill was taken but when I first saw this amendment and read the report of the Committee stage my first reaction was, in a sense, to echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said about the undesirability of drawing distinctions between different kinds of students. But one is not seeking to say that there are two kinds of students in the sense that they give rise to different qualifications, or that one form of training is superior to another. On the contrary, in a perfect world it would have been desirable to have moved entirely to Project 2000.
Project 2000 is a development in which I have taken a great deal of interest. It originally stemmed from the creation of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Council to which I made the first appointments as long ago as 1980. I was very pleased when eventually the council was able to put forward Project 2000, as it became known, and was accepted by the Government for progressive introduction. In general, it is more desirable that student nurses are trained in the way that is now being brought in than in the traditional way of the past. Of course, they reach the same qualifications.
However, it simply is not possible for the purposes of taxation—and we are talking about local taxation —to ignore the quite significant differences in income and (I mention this not to put a great deal of weight on it) entitlement to benefit. There may well be rare cases where income support might be appropriate to which the Project 2000 nurses are not entitled, because they are treated like other students, whereas student nurses in the traditional traditional form are entitled to it. They have a higher income and for that reason it is not reasonable to regard them as equally exempt.
I do not shy away from taking a firm view that those who are to be regarded as students—the Project 2000 student nurses—should be regarded as exempt. After some hesitation the noble Baroness agreed figures. We have been quoting them for outside London, but the gap is a good deal wider in London. Nurses are being paid higher salaries, even after tax and national insurance has been deducted. That they should be regarded as equally exempt seems to me to be unfair. It is mainly unfair when one considers some of the other categories of young people who may be in low paid occupations and for whom there is no suggestion that they shall be regarded as exempt simply by virtue of their status.
One can imagine young people who have not long left school who are serving in shops; young people who are living at home and working as care assistants in circumstances under which they do not qualify under Schedule 1; and young people in a variety of occupations. We must not allow ourselves to be

1017
mesmerised by the natural feeling of respect, and even of emotion, that one feels towards the nursing profession. It is not just because someone is a student nurse that they ought to be entitled to some form of tax exemption. If a student nurse is on the relatively low salary which the noble Baroness quoted—£4,320 per annum outside London; that is, £83.07 per week —then it seems perfectly reasonable that the exemption should apply.
However, for student nurses in London on the traditional basis with a remuneration that can go up to £9,247 per annum —£177·83 per week—to simply say that, because they have chosen the nursing profession, somehow they have to be equally exempt simply does not stand to reason. We have to take—
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord quoted £4,320 for Project 2000 nurses. That is from the "elsewhere" column. The noble Lord then quoted £9,427 from the "London" column. Perhaps we can have a correct comparison.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I made it perfectly clear to the House that I was quoting up to the maximum figure that applies in London. I was not seeking to compare the two. I was simply saying that the effect of the amendment would be to extend the exemption to traditional student nurses who, in London, are earning up to over £9,000 a year; that is, nearly £178 a week from which, of course, one would have to deduct tax and national insurance.
It simply does not seem to me to be self evident that one profession earning those rates—and outside London it is nearly £7,500 per annum at the top of the scale—should receive a total exemption which is not to be extended to anybody else. Yes, we all love the nurses but this is not a particularly good basis for establishing a legislative exemption.
I believe that when these figures are understood and when they are appreciated, even within the nursing profession and certainly within other low-paid occupations (some of them, I suspect, lower than the traditional student nurses) there would be a good deal of indignation if it was found that simply because someone is training to be a nurse they had a tax exemption which is not available to a lot of other people on the same or even lower incomes. For that reason, wherever one's heart might move one, I am sure one's head should very firmly say that this amendment ought not be accepted.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that the House will not be seduced by the arguments of the noble Lord. It seems to me that he conceded much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was arguing. The first point was about equity between nurses doing the same work. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, showed that the ordinary first year nurse—the employee nurse, if you like—is earning about £6,400 gross outside London for 52 weeks at work, or about £5,000 a year net, compared with—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please give way? The figure is actually £7,450 gross outside of London. It is £9,247 gross within London.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am giving the first year figures from the Royal College of Nursing. In Committee we were told that a first year student nurse outside London receives £6,400 gross or around £5,000 net compared with a bursary for a 45-week year of £4,300, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, if averaged out over 52 weeks, comes to £87. If averaged out over the 45 weeks for which the bursary runs, it comes to around £96, which is virtually identical to the net income of the salaried nurse. Therefore, in terms of equity, the disposable income for the period of work of a Project 2000 nurse on a bursary and a student employee nurse of the NHS is virtually identical. That is the first point the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was seeking to make.
Student nurses on Project 2000 or indeed degree students have vacations. It is entirely reasonable therefore to take their bursary or grant into account only for the period of term time study. As a university teacher myself I know very well that even in these difficult economic conditions every student—I am sure that this point will be supported by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—tries to obtain vacation work to amplify his grant. Therefore the figures offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, as given by the Royal College of Nursing, are entirely correct.
I note incidentally that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, thought that the figure of £87 for a student nurse on Project 2000 was sufficiently low to entitle her to exemption. That is interesting because a single person on an income of £75 a week will come out of rebate. Therefore, I hope to see the noble Lord's support for extending the rebate scheme for those on £87 a week or on such low incomes that they should be exempt altogether. That is another point.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, just as a matter of correction, the figure was £83.07. Let us have the right figures on the record.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am still looking forward to the noble Lord joining us when we seek to improve the rebate scheme so that a single person on £83.07 will be exempt by virtue of rebate. I should like to think that the noble Lord will join us, but I rather doubt it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, established that there should be equity between nurses with similar disposable incomes. Another factor is that there is an administrative problem in dealing with mixed houses. It will be difficult enough for local authorities to track exempt dwellings among students. How much more difficult will it be when a local authority has to work out whether, in any household of three nurses, all three are Project 2000 nurses and are therefore exempt, or one nurse is Project 2000 or two are Project 2000? If three nurses are all on Project 2000 the dwelling is exempt. If, however, one nurse is not Project 2000 but is a year older and is therefore an

1019
employee, that property will pay 50 per cent. The local authority will somehow have to find out what kind of nurses they are and not merely that they are nurses.
A household may have three nurses all of whom are Project 2000. However, one leaves and the remaining nurses want to replace her. They may want a friend, an acquaintance or someone with whom they share a ward. The first question they must sensibly ask is, "Are you a Project 2000 nurse? I know that you do the same job as us; I know that you have the same income as us; but if you come in and you are not Project 2000 we face a 50 per cent. bill. If you are Project 2000 we will not have to pay anything." That cannot be administratively sensible. This morning I asked the assistant treasurer of my own local authority how it would do this. He said, "Heaven only knows".
I would be more impressed by the Government's position—this concerns the third point raised by the noble Baroness—if it were a continuing anomaly. However, as she rightly said, it is a transitional problem. At the moment, of 52,000 nurses, around 7,500 are on Project 2000. By 1995–96 virtually all will be. We have a temporary anomaly which would not cost very much to correct. The numbers involved will dwindle over time. Nonetheless major administrative problems will be produced for the local authority and a major sense of injustice will be produced among the student nurse population. I hope that the Government will support the noble Baroness's amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, maintained that there should be equality between people doing the same kind of work. Surely, what is more important is that there should be equality between people receiving the same amount of gross pay. As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, he was asking why a young person who works in a shop and receives £125 a week gross should pay more council tax than a student nurse also earning about £125 a week gross. That question is an unanswerable one.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, my contribution may not be relevant to the debate but I feel that this is one of those occasions when your Lordships make me feel upset. Noble Lords have spoken in reverential tones about some unfortunate person who is receiving the princely sum of £94 a week. It is a wonder that we have any nurses. They must be dedicated even to contemplate two or three years on such measly money. I would suggest to your Lordships that the administrators who have to work out these figures are probably earning about £10,000 a year. If we saved on some of the administration—
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, they are probably earning £20,000.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the top man will get around £20,000. The people who do the work on computers will get around £10,000. That is the nature of the beast. There is no reason why, when we are discussing these matters, we should adopt this reverential tone. I suspect that some noble Lords will
1020
go out this evening for dinner and think nothing of paying £40. What can you do with £94 a week? How do people manage to buy clothing?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: That is two dinners, my Lords.
Baroness Phillips: Or you can find a gentleman who will be kind to you, I suppose.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that leading members of her party went out the other night to a dinner for which they paid £500?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, that has nothing whatever to do with the debate. I merely ask in the name of these splendid young people—not only nurses but all kinds of young people—that the figures should not be referred to in reverential tones. The nurses whom I saw in Westminster had to pay a lot to live in the nurses' home. They were paying nearly £100 a week to live in the nurses' home. I wondered how they managed. Anyone who receives a reasonable salary wonders how people on small salaries manage, particularly in London.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I believe that we have got this issue the wrong way round. I have worked all my life in the health service and I have great sympathy for nurses. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the different types of nurses do the same work. That is not strictly correct. As I understand it, some are working all the year with a small amount of holiday time while others are working in terms and have vacations. I do not consider that it is an identical form of work.
The noble Baroness also said that local authorities will have to check between different types of nurses. That will not be the matter being checked. The matter being checked will be whether they are students or not students. I have been opposed to the fact that students should receive these benefits at all. Rather than all nurses receiving a rebate I would ask why student nurses are receiving it, even the Project 2000 ones. When I checked into the matter I found that full-time students are not eligible for rebates or an allowance. I have therefore withdrawn my opposition because I think it was ill founded. I support the fact that students are getting the benefit.
The comparison has to be with anyone else who is training in a job. One has to look at apprentices, people doing on-site training and so on. I sit on an industrial tribunal and I am quite surprised by how many low paid jobs there are. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that resentment would develop between different types of nurses. Will not greater resentment develop between nurses and other people who are in even worse paid jobs?
We must consider that aspect of the matter. We must appreciate the fact that the way to deal with categories other than students is simply on a rebate system. If the earnings of such people are so high that they lose the rebate, that means that they are not the people determined to receive one. If the council tax proves to be a major factor when salaries are being

1021
negotiated—I do not believe that it will because I think that the more simple we keep it the lower the cost of collection will be—surely that will be taken into account when the scales of pay are set for ensuing years.
I did not vote for the proposal in Committee. I abstained, because I thought that the arguments put forward on that occasion were very sound. However, having looked into the facts and figures, I find that the details put forward were not accurate. I believe that the proposal would be unfair to many other people in society. Although I have every sympathy with the desire not to create divisions in the nursing profession, I realise that such divisions already exist. Indeed, even when a nurse is fully trained she will be graded according to the type of nurse she is and the level of her qualifications. The nursing profession has a wide variety of classifications within it. I believe it is right that those who are receiving the other treatment should be classified as "students" and not as nurses.
5 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the debate. Because of the confusion as regards the figures that have been bandied around, I find it very difficult to know who is quoting the right figures; still less, do I understand student nurses being able to comprehend how they are being perceived in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that student nurses will inevitably feel aggrieved as regards the interpretation put on the position in which they find themselves.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I have one point to make. I am not in any way well informed on the issue. I should really like to ask a question of the noble Baroness who moved the amendment. Is not the essential distinction that between unsalaried student nurses and salaried student nurses? When one uses the word "student" in general parlance, one does not really think of students in general terms as being salaried; indeed, as we have heard from the figures quoted, they receive a grant. Is that not the key? It seems that we have two categories of student nurses: those who have a salary and those who do not. Those who have a salary receive something like £2,000 a year more. Of course, one can divide by 52 or by 45 and arrive at different answers. However, that seems to me to be the long and the short of the matter.
I agree with the comments made by my noble friends on this side of the House that that is the fundamental distinction. Even so, one appreciates that the salaried student nurses are not earning vast sums of money. That is a perfectly reasonable point. One very much values and appreciates the work which they undertake. But noble Lords have pointed to other segments of the community with commensurately low salaries, sad though it may be, for different classes of work. One should not lose sight of the distinction. It has been said that student nurses do not understand why they are being treated differently. But surely they
1022
must be more aware than most of us that some of them have salaries while others do not. I hope that my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong in that respect.
Lord Desai: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to draw attention to a strange anomaly. Usually, when talking about income, noble Lords opposite complain about taxation and worry about how much tax is taken. Suddenly, today, we are referring only to the gross earnings of nurses and not to their net earnings. As the noble Baroness said, the correct comparison is between net earnings of salaried nurses and the grant of non-salaried people. Why are people suddenly ignoring the burden of taxation? Is it just because it happens, in this instance, to be falling on poor people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. One reason why it is difficult and misleading to use one single net figure is that we are not talking about one single gross income. I have put forward a range of incomes which I shall repeat, because it is important for the sake of the record that I should do so. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. I believe that there is a great deal of confusion in the matter. It is important that the correct figures should be recorded.
Not only will there be a range of income; there will also be a range of circumstances of the individual and the basis upon which they are taxed. The figure of £96 has been used extensively in the debate. I believe that to be a misleading figure.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify a point. Does she agree that in her letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, she established the fact that the first-year salary for a student nurse—not a Project 2000 nurse—outside of London was indeed £6,400; in other words, the figure used both by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and myself?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was just about to put forward all the figures for the record. Therefore the noble Baroness will be able to see whether there is consistency between what I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and what I am about to say.
In London, Project 2000 nurses have an income of £5,075 per annum. That is another figure which has not been used. It is a per-annum figure. In that respect, I can confirm that it is true that Project 2000 nurses work for 45 weeks a year. That is equal to a sum of £97.59 per week. For the sake of the point made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, let us talk about the salaried nurse so that there is no confusion between a student nurse on Project 2000 and a student nurse receiving conventional training under the traditional system whom I describe as a salaried nurse. The salaried nurse in London receives £8,187. That is not static: it ranges to £9,247 per annum. As a weekly income, that works out at £157.44 and ranges to £177.83 per week.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, did the Minister use the figure £4,320 for Project 2000 nurses?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was referring to London. I am now about to move on to Project 2000—
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I did not hear the figure of £5,075 which is what the Project 2000 nurse receives in London. We must compare like with like.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall return to the figures that I gave the noble Baroness and then I shall continue with the presentation that I was giving on figures.
As regards London—these are the figures I quoted to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in my letter—the student grant plus loan for those people working just 30 weeks a year is £3,505. For the Project 2000 nurses in London, the figure I gave was £5,075. They receive a bursary for 45 weeks. The student nurse salary is £8,187 ranging to £9,427. The figures for elsewhere in the country are as follows: for the student working 30 weeks, £2,845; for the Project 2000 nurse with a bursary for 45 weeks, £4,320; and for the student nurse who is salaried, £6,440 ranging to £7,450.
Perhaps I may return to those annual sums for each of the categories of student nurse. As regards the Project 2000 nurse in London, the figure for weekly income is £97.59. The weekly figure for the salaried student nurse in London is £157.44 ranging to £177.83. No mention of such figures has been made by noble Lords opposite. They have always talked about the first-day salary; they have not talked about the continuing incremental increase as the student nurse goes through training. That is different from the purely inflationary increase which goes to the student on 45 weeks a year. Elsewhere in the country, other than London, the weekly income of Project 2000 nurses is £83.07 and the weekly income of the salaried student nurse is £123.85 rising to £143.27.
Another factor that has not been mentioned is that in practice student nurses who are salaried receive on average —and it is an on average price—salaries that are 10 per cent. higher than those that I have quoted because of allowances. Such allowances do not apply to Project 2000 nurses and do not apply to other student nurses.
My noble friends have made many points about other young people who are on comparable salaries. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips; indeed, it was a proper point to make. However, I should have more respect for the points raised by noble Lords opposite if they had the same kind of sympathy for all of those people on comparable salaries who are not student nurses. I should also like them to recognise the cost of doing so.
I should like to give some examples of comparable salaries and categories of worker in the Civil Service. Typists earn £132 per week in London and £124 per week elsewhere, but do not receive a discount and are under an obligation to pay the property tax element, unlike the arrangements that the amendment seeks to introduce for student nurses. An administrative assistant earns £120 per week in London and £112 per week outside London. I stress that I am giving starting salaries, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred
1024
to starting salaries for nurses. An administrative officer will earn £137 per week in London and £128 per week outside London. I shall take the health service as my final example. The majority of staff who work as ancillaries in the health service earn £123 per week, with more experienced staff earning £153 per week.
There is, therefore, an inconsistency about whom one is fighting for, which I should like to put into context. If the system were in place today and if only the property element of £133 for a band A property had to be met, the bill would be less than £2 per week for a salaried student nurse. I stress that the sums would be shared between the number of nurses in the property. The potential bill for a band D property would be £200, which would mean that £4 per week would have to be shared between however many nurses shared the property. The very highest bill would be £400, which would mean that a bill of £8 per week would have to be shared between all the nurses living in that property.
As I said, we are talking about salaries of £123.85 per week out of London, before tax and national insurance deductions, for salaried student nurses. Even after tax, however, and accepting that, on average, those staff receive 10 per cent. more in allowances, they are still significantly better off than the Project 2000 nurses.
We come down to the question of how we treat a salaried nurse who is in a more favourable financial position than her counterpart Project 2000 nurse. I disagree seriously with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who says that the two types of nurse do exactly the same work. They do not. The whole point of Project 2000 was to stop hospitals using student nurses as fully fledged members of staff. That was a kind of exploitation, and the argument against it has been won. Project 2000 is a much better course for young people. A Project 2000 nurse is not doing the same work as someone whom the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has referred to as an "employee", which is how salaried student nurses have often been described.
There are three categories of student. The first two categories receive a discount and an exemption for the property element of the tax, and only those young people receive that exemption. The other group of students is salaried. I believe that I have given enough evidence to show that a reasonable distinction can be drawn between the way in which the two groups are treated financially and that that difference allows salaried student nurses to pay their share of less than £2 per week, £4 per week or, at the maximum, £8 per week. That bill can be shared between those with weekly before-tax salaries that range from a London minimum of £157.44 to a maximum of £143.27 outside London. It would be helpful if the same tax and national insurance deductions, where they apply, could be made for student nurses because, in terms of costs, that would put all the nurses on an equal footing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that we must get away from having two types of nurse and that we should have equal treatment for all nurses. That is precisely the Government's policy. Our policy now is that there should be a category of "student

1025
nurse", which should be treated properly and have a properly designed course that is responsive to the needs of the nursing profession. Although that is happening, in the interim, the salaried nurses are being treated financially more favourably than their student counterparts. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, shakes her head. Perhaps she will rise if she wishes to counter any figure that I have given.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with pleasure. Let us compare two first-year students outside London. If we take their net disposable income and divide it by the number of weeks for which that income applies, the difference is between £96 per week and £96.70 per week.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness does some funny accounting. I have given the annual incomes for 45-week nurses and for salaried nurses who probably work for only 48 weeks per year because of their holidays. Student grants are given for the whole year. The Project 2000 nurse is given an annual income, and the salaried nurse is given an annual income but, in practice, the Project 2000 nurse works for 45 weeks whereas the salaried nurse may work for 48 weeks. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has, however, chosen to divide the figures that she has given by 30, 45 and 52 weeks. I have given annual incomes for all young nurses. I think that I have said that, even after tax, there is sufficient financial distinction to allow a salaried student nurse to meet a share of £2 per week for a band A property, of £4 per week in a band D property and of £8 per week in a property in the highest band in the land.
We should not turn our backs on somebody who earns a comparable sum, but who does not qualify for a discount or for exemption from the property element of the tax. Are we to say to somebody on a low salary, "Because you are a typist or an ancillary worker in the health service you are not as precious to society—your work is not as valuable to society—as a salaried nurse who is being trained"? A student nurse, I would still argue, is being treated financially more favourably.
We think that student nurses are very important. I do not want anything that I have said to detract from the importance that we attach to student nurses or to the need to have professionally trained student nurses. That is what Project 2000 is all about. We believe that we have been fair to the nurses and have recognised the distinction between them. I wonder whether the salaried nurses would swop their salaries for the Project 2000 financial arrangements during the interim period so that we really could compare like with like.
I rest my case on the fact that I believe that the Government have recognised the professionalism of nurses and have been fair in recognising that, whatever their category, they should all qualify for a discount. However, in terms of the property element, we believe that the salaried nurses, who have a greater financial ability to pay, should be allowed to meet what is not a demanding bill.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for raising the collection of the tax. I spent some time on that subject in Committee and do not want to repeat that point now, although it is important and local authorities will find it difficult to address.
Much has been said about comparing salaried student nurses with other young people who work for not very high incomes. Of course, we all feel sorry for people who do not earn enough or who earn very little money, but we are talking now about a profession in which two groups of people are undertaking a full-time course that will enable them to qualify for registration under the terms of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979. Both groups are aiming at the same thing. We cannot compare them with a shop assistant. We can compare them only with each other because they are working towards the same end. I believe that they should be treated the same during their training period, but this is an interim—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of course we want them to be treated the same. After all the figures that have been given to the House, does the noble Baroness agree that they are treated differently in the way that they are paid?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I agree that they are in receipt of a salary. If the Minister uses the calculations that I used she will see that there is not much difference between the income of the Project 2000 nurses and that of salaried nurses. The other point that upsets me is that we are talking about a short interim period. If the House accepts the amendment it would make nurses feel that we appreciate what they are doing. It would make an enormous difference to student nurses in both schemes, because there is a feeling that they are not being treated the same. Once again, I should like the House to decide.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kennet, L.

Blease, L.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mayhew, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller]

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Parry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkender, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.[Teller]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Gregson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Jeger, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Belstead, L.

Aldington, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Astor, V.

Boardman, L.

Auckland, L.

Borthwick, L.

Balfour, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Barber, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Beloff, L.

Brookeborough, V.

1036

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Leathers, V.

Caithness, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Manton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cox, B.

Merrivale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mersey, V.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Milne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Milverton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monson, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Derwent, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Munster, E.

Elibank, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Erne, E.

Pender, L.

Faithfull, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Prentice, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pym, L.

Flather, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rennell, L.

Grantchester, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Haddington, E.

St. Davids, V.

Haig, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Seccombe, B.

Hanson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Slim, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henley, L.

Strange, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller]

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller]

HolmPatrick, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Trumpington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Waddington, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Killearn, L.

Wise, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Knollys, V.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Lawrence, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 5 [Different amounts for dwellings in different valuation bands]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) This section has effect for the purposes of—

(a) determining that the amounts of council tax payable in respect of dwellings within the area of any billing authority shall be in proportion to the rateable value of the property held on the valuation list; and

(b) specifying the valuation bands to be applied for the calculation of amounts of council tax, and the Secretary of State shall not use the bands established or by order substituted under this section as the basis for the distribution of revenue support grant to local authorities, or make such calculations derived from them.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment returns to one of the most controversial issues of the council tax proposals. It was debated at considerable length in a different form at Committee stage. I do not apologise for returning to it because it lies at the heart of our objections to the council tax proposals. I can summarise our objections to them readily. First, the banding system which is introduced in Clause 5 is insensitive to differences between different properties. It is also insensitive to similarities between different properties, a matter to which I shall return.
Secondly, it is not only insensitive, but because of the difference in property prices in different parts of the country, in many areas it will approximate to being a flat rate tax or at any rate a tax with only two or three different bands affecting the majority of occupiers of residences in a given local authority area.
Thirdly, because it is a banding system and the information about the position of any property within a band is not to be revealed, it will be widely misunderstood. Noble Lords will recall that when the Government backed down on the poll tax they did so not because they accepted that the poll tax was wrong but because they accepted that they could not sell it. They accepted that the poll tax was felt to be unjust. That psychological factor is a significant element in the defects of the proposed council tax.
Fourthly, a matter to which we shall return with a later amendment is that there is no provision within the legislation for the regular revaluation of properties. That is necessary if the council tax is truly to reflect the value of properties as an element in the discriminatory capacity of the tax. Fifthly, and above all, the council tax is regressive. It is not only more regressive than income tax, but more regressive than any straightforward property taxation, such as the rates.
The significance of subsection (a) of the amendment is that we propose that the amounts of council tax payable should be in proportion to the rateable value of the property rather than on the arbitrary basis of the three to one difference provided for in Clause 5.
Having done that, in the amendment we attack a second major defect of the council tax proposal; namely, the likelihood —although it is not referred to directly—that the council tax base, the property base as assessed in the council tax, will be used as part of a measurement of the resources of a local authority.
Obviously, the Government will not be able to do that in a crude way. For example, it will be recognised that the fact that property prices are high in Hackney and low in Bury does not mean that the Government will not have to take other elements into account. Clearly it would be wrong to say that Hackney was richer than Bury by the extent to which property prices are higher, and still less, that Hackney was richer than other parts of London where property prices are lower but incomes are considerably higher.
It would be wrong for this peculiar, arbitrary banding and differential system of valuation to be used in any way as a measure of the resources available to the local authority. That is so not only because of the bands themselves, but because, given that there are only a certain number of bands and that the bottom band is below £40,000 and the top is above £320,000, there is a peculiar statistical effect. In the poorer areas where there is a higher proportion of properties in band A, all the properties below £40,000 will be overvalued. In other words, they will be valued at the maximum of £40,000, whereas in the richer areas with higher property values, there will be a flattening in the other direction. All the properties worth much more than £320,000 will be undervalued at the figure of £320,000. In practice, that means that there will be a further flattening of the valuation system. As a result there will be less for the poorer areas and more for the richer areas. Thus the three to one which applies in theory between the lowest and the highest band will be flattened still further.
Those are the bases on which we question the whole banding and differential element in the council tax. They are not essential to a reform; the abolition of the poll tax could well take place without them. If the Government so wished, it could take place on an individual valuation basis; it could take place on a basis which more adequately reflected the real value of the properties and the ability to pay of the occupiers of the properties. However, we are not in the business
1030
of proposing alternatives; we are in the business of pointing out what is wrong with the Government's proposals.
What I have said may not differ much from what I said at Committee stage, but since the Committee stage many of our fears about the practicalities of the banding proposal are already proving to be true. In the issue of Public Finance and Accountancy of 14th February, I find that already, before I would have thought it possible, a firm of estate agents in Yorkshire based in Halifax has launched a major advertising campaign in the Kirklees and Calderdale districts. It urges:
"the prudent public to have a banding valuation between now and April 1992 undertaken by a professional firm to ensure that the inspection date corresponds with that of the Inland Revenue … Our banding valuation will involve an internal inspection of the property and this will obviously carry weight in any subsequent appeal against the limited external 'street' inspection of the government valuer".
I shall not give the name of the firm any undeserved publicity because I do not approve of what it is doing, but it is significant that that is happening. The firm proposes that the basic fee for a prompt and carefully considered banding valuation will be £10 plus VAT. The advertisement continues:
"There is great concern throughout the profession and indeed throughout the local authorities about the quality and accuracy of valuations carried out for such low fees".
The Minister already told us earlier this afternoon about the total cost. I understand that the current figure is that the average cost of valuations carried out by the valuation office is £1.80.
I do not approve of people taking advantage of the public in this way. I do not believe that the public will gain advantage from a valuation carried out now, and I do not recommend anyone to pre-empt their valuation by spending money on a speculative basis. However, the fact is that the professions in the business have recognised what we have said all along: there will be a high figure rather than a low figure of appeals.
We shall find that the system which is supposed to replace the misunderstood poll tax will be a misunderstood council tax. Misunderstandings are already beginning. It is important not that we should exaggerate them or give them unnecessary publicity or support, but that we should seek to put right the system which gives rise to misunderstandings. If we accept this amendment and provide in the Bill that valuation is carried out on a proper individual basis and that the grant to local authorities is not dependent on an inadequate valuation, we shall have made major and worth while changes to the council tax proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, when I read this amendment I was uncertain whether it was a wrecking amendment or whether it was, in a literal sense, nonsense—that is to say, it did not make sense in what it proposes. I must confess I am not certain which of those applies—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Both‡
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, my noble friend in front of me says both of those interpretations

1031
apply and he may well be right. I say that this is a wrecking amendment. It would be such an amendment if the noble Lord seriously proposed that the Bill should be amended in such a way—the amendment certainly does not make that clear—that each property should be given a specific value of X thousands of pounds, for example £150,000 or £151,000.
I assume that the noble Lord is well aware that the Bill makes provision that properties should be assigned to bands and that is the extent of the valuation process. Amendment No. 9 states:
"determining that the amounts of council tax payable in respect of dwellings within the area of any billing authority shall be in proportion to the rateable value of the property held on the valuation list".
It is apposite to invite the noble Lord to say what he imagines the rateable value of the property held on the valuation list will be. If we take the example of band G which ranges from £160,000 to £320,000, what is the rateable value there according to the notion of the noble Lord? Is it the middle of the band and, if so, what is the rateable value of properties in band H which is open-ended at the upper end of the range? It is clear that the provision suggested by the noble Lord could not operate under the valuation system proposed in the Bill. Therefore I conclude that the noble Lord is in a sense proposing a wrecking amendment; that is to say, he is insisting that each property should he separately valued to a specific sum. That is exactly what Members on this side of the House have stressed again and again is the complexity which the Bill ingeniously and effectively avoids by the provision of valuing to bands.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out the inconsistencies in this amendment. That at least saves me a minute or two in responding to the confusion I believed existed on this matter. We have heard what I believe represents a trained valuer's charter from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The noble Lord has tried ingeniously at each stage of the Bill so far to move us back to a unique valuation of each property, preferably on the basis of rental values, capital values, repair costs and rebuilding costs. Therefore when one improves one's house, a valuation officer would assess the improvements and the householder would pay more in rates. We have tried to get away from that system. Even the Leader of the party of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has always said that he would never revert to such a system. Yet here we have an amendment that seeks to return to individual valuations of properties.
Noble Lords will have noted that the amendment requires yet another valuation system to be established and to be maintained. If the Labour Party had its way, we would quickly be drowned in a sea of administrative red tape. Faced with a bill only a trained valuer could understand, goodness only knows how the poor taxpayer would cope.
Noble Lords will not need reminding that under the former rating system those living in high value properties suffered greatly from disproportionately large local tax bills. That is an arrangement to which
1032
the Labour Party proposes to return. It is interesting that the Labour Party says—however, it does not address the detail of this proposal—that it would wish to relate the system to the income of each household. I suggest that that could be assessed in one of two ways. It could be assessed partially by linking with the Inland Revenue and partially by some kind of submission of income assessment on the part of each individual person living in a household. That is an arrangement which the Labour Party considers to be fair. However, that proposal would not reflect a taxpayer's ability to pay but the Labour Party's enthusiasm for unlimited liability.
We propose that the bills sent to households in different bands should bear a fixed relationship to each other. That will ensure that everyone is asked to make no more than a reasonable contribution to the cost of providing local services. I believe that the range of bills we have proposed, where the highest can be no more than three times the lowest, is fair and sustainable.
The amendment also proposes that valuation bands should not be used as the basis of the distribution of revenue support grant. The noble Lord has not said how he would replace such a system or how grant would be distributed with no reference to properties and the banding system. Nothing in the amendment deals with that point either. As I have said, it would have been more interesting to hear what basis noble Lords opposite propose rather than what basis they do not. Again, I fear that is something which is unlikely to emerge in the course of this debate.
We have set out in detail how grant will be distributed between local authorities when the council tax is introduced. If all authorities in England spend at the level of their standard spending assessment, the council tax in every band could be the same across the country. There will be similar arrangements in Scotland and Wales but with different levels of council tax.
In areas where property values are predominantly low, the deemed income from the council tax from those properties will also be low. The grant system will reflect that. Conversely, in parts of the country where property values are predominantly high, that will be reflected in the grant. That is fair. However, if that provision were removed from the Bill, I wonder how one could distribute grant with the council tax in place. I hope the noble Lord will tell us when he replies how he would intend to distribute the grant. It is not good enough for him to say that the council tax would not be in place. What we are talking about here is the council tax and a grant distribution that is fair and reflects the fact that in some parts of the country property values are predominantly low, whereas in other parts of the country property values are predominantly high.
The cost of providing a standard level of services in each area, the standard spending assessment, is estimated. The method of calculating SSAs is set out each year in a report to Parliament. We propose that each local authority should be able to fund this level of spending by setting the same council tax. We call this the council tax for standard spending. The income

1033
from that council tax, however, will vary from area to area, depending on the number of properties in each of the eight valuation bands and the number of discounts. Grant will bridge the gap between the SSA and the income from the council tax for standard spending, less, of course, the authorities' income from non-domestic rates. This part of the amendment, therefore, goes to the heart of the council tax. If the distribution of grant were to take no account of the valuation bands, the fairness of the council tax would be destroyed. It is incumbent upon the noble Lord who has tabled these amendments to say exactly how grant would be distributed if the amendments were to be accepted. I ask the House to reject the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose it is only as we enter the last four weeks of nearly 13 years of Conservative government that we descend to that kind of level of argument. I find, both in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and of the Minister, a remarkable assumption about the work of this House. They seem to think that any amendment which would make a major difference to the Bill—this amendment certainly would make a major difference to the Bill—is somehow a wrecking amendment. They used the term "wrecking amendment", but what they really mean is lèse-majesté. They think that a government has a divine right not only to establish the principles on which taxation and all other aspects of public administration shall be conducted, but that the Opposition has no right to make fundamental criticisms of those principles and of the way in which it is proposed they are implemented in legislation. That is not the position in which we find ourselves as regards this Bill. It is our duty to examine the legislation before us, to point out the consequences of the legislation before us and to seek to amend it, either in detail or more broadly, to meet what we understand to be the needs of our people and our society.
Secondly, increasingly—and I suppose that we have to put up with this for another four weeks—as soon as we criticise government legislative proposals it is urged in reply not that the government legislative proposals themselves are right or can be defended (no argument is put forward to support those government proposals); it is simply stated that they are there and that we should do nothing about them. Indeed, we are given lengthy expositions of what the Government understand to be Labour Party policy. Having listened to those during six days in Committee, at the beginning of three days of Report stage my heart sinks. Lengthy expositions of Labour Party policy are not an appropriate use of your Lordships' time. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats will agree a fortiori with what I have just said. It is not our job to fight an election campaign as we consider the Government's legislation. I have refrained from doing so throughout the consideration of the Bill.
We have pointed out, and we have received no effective answer, that the taxation system which is proposed in the Bill departs as little as possible both from the general injustice of the poll tax and from the capacity to be misunderstood which the Government claim to have been the downfall of the poll tax. It is
1034
not sufficiently realised the extent to which there will be an outcry when people realise that the valuations which are now being made of their properties will not be revealed to them. They will not be told the valuation of their property. We shall all be told merely into which band our property falls. That misunderstanding is very widespread. It extends to the director of the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation, who is quoted in the same article to which I referred when I quoted cases in Yorkshire. He said that the pre-emptive valuation exercise was unnecessary because:
"People would be better advised to wait until they know what the actual value of their home is before deciding whether to appeal".
They will not know the actual value of their home. They will not be told the value of their home. Because they will not be told the value of their home they will certainly feel a sense of injustice, and firms of estate agents like those in Yorkshire will have a ready market among those who feel that there is a case for appeal and who will seek alternative valuations.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, of course it is clear what the amendment means. Of course we are advocating a return to individual valuations. That is the only form of valuation which will be accepted by the people of this country as fair. It is the only form of valuation which will be understood.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am not intervening in his speech, but merely wish to make a few remarks before he withdraws the amendment. I hope that that is in order.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, it is Report stage.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have not spoken yet.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the procedure at Report stage is that noble Lords who wish to make speeches should do so before the Government and the mover of the amendment reply.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, surely that convention demands also that the noble Lord who replies from the Opposition Front Bench does not attack a noble Lord who has not spoken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not attacked a noble Lord who has not spoken. I spoke entirely about the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, the Minister and nobody else at all. I think that the noble Lord will agree, on reflection, that that is the case.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made an attack upon a noble Lord who had not dealt with any of the issues. He suddenly made that onslaught.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, who did I attack? I referred to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who had spoken, and of the Minister. I am at a loss. I do not think that I have in any way

1035
breached the conventions or rules of the House. I think that when he reads Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will agree that that is the case.
I am proud of the important and fundamental changes which are proposed. I believe that it is necessary for them to be proposed. I believed that it is necessary for us to state clearly at every opportunity that this is a dangerous and unfair way of reforming the poll tax. It is the wrong to reform the poll tax. We have made that point on at least one occasion. It is a matter which will now have to be determined by an election. However, I believe that I should give your Lordships one last opportunity to express a view on this matter before we move on.
5.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Content, 80; Not-Contents, 135.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert:
("(1A) The amount of the council tax payable in respect of dwellings in Band A shall be subject to a reduction of 12.5 per cent. If—

(a) a listings officer has determined that there has been a material reduction in the value of the dwelling due to any adaptation to make it suitable for use by a physically disabled person, as defined in section 24(10) below: or conditions as specified in regulations made under section 13 and would thereby qualify under the disability reduction scheme for reduction in band except for the fact that it falls within Band A.;

1037

(b) the dwelling meets the prescribed conditions as specified in regulations made under section 13 and would thereby qualify under the disability reduction scheme for a reduction in band except for the fact that it falls within Band A.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to one of the Scottish amendments, Amendment No. 33. Perhaps I may point out a small printing error in Amendment No. 33: line 2 of paragraph (b) should read "under section 80" instead of "under section 13".
This amendment comes with the full support of RADAR, MENCAP and other disability organisations. It seeks to make a band A property occupied by a disabled person eligible for 12½ per cent. Relief—12½ per cent., which is roughly equivalent to the same percentage drop between other points coming down from band C to band B or from band B to band A. At Committee stage our arguments were based on two grounds: hardship and equity. The ground of hardship arises because, as noble Lords will know, disabled people have low incomes and high costs. They have incomes which are on average only 72 per cent. of the incomes of non-disabled people, and three-quarters of disabled people are on benefits. They have high costs for heating, clothing, diet, special aids, adaptations and gadgets. There are also additional costs faced by the disabled when they have to buy that help in order to do what someone fully fit could do for themselves; namely, cleaning, decorating, driving, shopping, and so on.
The Disablement Income Group (DIG), has calculated that the extra costs of being severely disabled are on average some £60 a week—£60 being paid out by someone with an income of only three-quarters that of a non-disabled person. Benefits do not cover those costs. So there is an issue of hardship.
There is also an issue of equity and that is the point about the reduction of 12½ per cent. Disabled people living in a property that falls in a higher band will have their council tax reduced—we welcome that reduction and were at pains to say so at Committee stage—by a band, which is worth approximately 12½ per cent. off their bill. We calculate that outside London a disproportionate number of disabled people will be in band A properties. Virtually all the local authority and housing association specially designed flats for the elderly or single disabled person will come into band A. Indeed, we calculate that in places in the North, for example, where 50 per cent. of the property is in band A, probably something like 75 per cent. of all disabled people will be living in a band A property. We cannot of course be firm on our figures until the valuation lists are published.
We sought to argue the point in Committee and were glad to see that there was considerable support from many Members. However, the Minister—1 hope that I paraphrase him correctly—rejected the amendment on the grounds that, if there existed a band A which was the lowest band, by definition a property in band A could not fall down a band because there was no further band into which that
1038
property could fall. The Minister nods and I am glad that he does so. It is tautology; it is true by definition because the Minister has defined it to be so.
If this amendment is accepted, in practice another band will have been invented for that category of occupant and therefore people in that property will have another band to fall into. I hope the Minister will find that this is a helpful amendment to overcome the limitations of the tautology of his own designation. Let us presume that there exists a band ZA below band A. We should then accept, on the logic of his decision, that a property would fall into that category if it enjoyed relevant material alterations.
We propose this amendment not just on those grounds. This amendment, taken in conjunction with the Minister's comments on an amendment put forward at Committee stage on Clause 24— Amendment No.114—opens up a whole new set of arguments which require further exploration. On that amendment and over the course of the debate on the two amendments made in Committee, we established that there were four situations in which a property might be affected by disability, with consequential implications for valuation. I shall take those four situations in turn.
The first is that a property might gain a second bathroom or an additional bedroom, but that would not push up the property valuation by a band. However, as the Minister conceded at the time, that addition would not push up anyone's valuation by a band until the point of sale. That is not therefore a concession that advantages the disabled; everyone is eligible. The concession applies to all.
The second situation explored in Committee was that alterations such as widening a door for a wheelchair to go through or lowering the level of kitchen units might materially reduce the value of a property and therefore the property value should be reduced by a band. However, we established that if a person's property suffered a material reduction—for example, through a change in the physical environment—that concession too applied to anyone. Therefore, there is no concession to the disabled alone. It applies in principle to all, although I accept that it is more likely to apply to disabled persons than to others. The only argument for a property valuation not dropping below band A is that there is no lower band to drop to. I hope that the Minister will accept the logic that were such a band to exist the property would drop to a lower band.
Let us turn to the arguments used by the Minister in Committee relating to a later clause. Clause 114 deals not with valuation but with the issue of alterations as they affect valuation. The position is interesting. If one takes the third of four considerations, the Minister agreed that where a disabled person moved house to a different property—presumably larger—but did no alterations to it, its valuation did not go up (by which he would not be penalised) nor down (by which he would be helped). Nonetheless he enjoyed a banded reduction. Why? I welcome the reduction but it has nothing to do with

1039
the property; the property has not been touched. It is simply because of the use made of that property by someone who is disabled.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. If she quotes me, she ought to get it right. The point I sought to make was that if a person moved to a property of a larger size because of his disability, obviously he was entitled to some reduction in his bill. He had to move to the bigger property because he needed the extra space for his wheelchair, or whatever, the old property from which he had moved not being adequate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister is entirely correct. In Committee, at col. 1123 on Monday, 27th January, he stated:
"Definitely one could have a reduction in band if one had to move to a larger house because of a disability".
The noble Lord is entirely right; there is no disagreement between us.
I seek to establish that the property comes down a band not because of anything done to the property but because someone moved to it who had a disability.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not like intervening in this way at Report stage. However, I must get the position right. I thought that I had explained it at our meeting the other day. It is not the property that comes down a band; in effect the bill comes down one band for the individual in the property.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I entirely accept that. That is correct. Of course we welcome such reduction. However, for someone in a band A property the bill cannot come down. The point I seek to establish is this. In the first two examples there was an alteration to property. In the example to which I now refer we speak of someone who by virtue of disability enjoys a reduction, no changes having been made to the property. I sought to establish that there was inequity between someone in a larger property who can move down a band and someone in a band A property who cannot.
Why? The argument is not that the property falls in value but that the property should be reduced a band by virtue of who uses and occupies it; that is, a disabled person. The Minister conceded that point at Clause 114 in Committee. We were happy that he should do so. It seemed an honourable way forward.
Interestingly, the Minister went one step further. It is my fourth situation. He stated that if a person were in a band B property, perhaps a two-bedroomed flat, and paying a band B council tax, but then became disabled and as a result made new and significant use of the facilities in that same flat —perhaps needing a separate bedroom or making greater use of the sitting room which was larger for a wheelchair—without the person moving to another property, without any alteration being done to the property, the property would drop a band. All other factors remain unchanged except the new disability incurred by one member of the family. In other words, the reduction is attached to the person irrespective of the band in which his property lies, until one considers the poorest
1040
people in the lowest band. They are denied that reduction because the Minister has defined that to be the case.
A disabled person who has sufficient resources to live in a higher banded property will receive a 12½ per cent. reduction on average on his council tax bill whether he has or has not done anything to the property. I welcome that worthwhile reduction. It is not a compensation for the reduction in value of the property, as the Minister first argued. The disabled person need do nothing; he still receives that reduction. However, those who are most in need—the disabled person with probably the lowest income, suffering the greatest hardship, living in the poorest property, often alone and because they live alone with the highest need for help—will receive nothing.
In other words, if a disabled person improves his house, adapts his house, moves house, or does nothing to his house and stays put, if he is disabled and in a property in band B or upwards he gains a reduction of a band. But if one is disabled with a property in band A, one receives nothing. Nonetheless, that is where hardship is most likely to be acute. Therefore on the grounds of equity, fairness and consideration of hardship, I ask the House to support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wish to associate those on the Liberal Democrat Benches with the amendment, simply—I do not discount the many arguments put forward so cogently by the noble Baroness —on the ground of equity. Although we may be treating the matter as an intellectual debate, it is not seen as that by the people who are affected by the provision. I go along with this straightforward question. If one's property is in a higher band and one achieves a reduction, and if those same circumstances apply to someone in a property in the bottom band—it may be a different band in each of the three countries—on what logic should there not be a reduction? I support the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is it not true that if a disabled person lives in a higher banded property, he still pays more than a disabled person living in a band A property? Listening carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, if someone has had to move to a property in bands B, C, D, or E because of severe disability, even with a reduction he would still pay more than the person in band A. Is that true?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to that point with noble Lords' permission. If a person were in band B, he would not. He would pay the same as a person in band A who did not enjoy a similar reduction.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I referred to someone in a higher band. I suggested band E, F or whatever. Disabled people are not all paying the same. People in band A pay less than those who receive a discount living in a higher banded property.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was watching the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, while my noble friend spoke. They became very agitated. The noble Baroness, Lady

1041
Blatch, shook her head vigorously and appeared to be saying, "No, it is not right that people in band A would be disadvantaged although they were the poorer sector of the community and could not have the advantage of a reduced band because of their disability."
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is having fun interpreting my facial expressions on this side of the House. Perhaps I may say this. The poorest in society, the most disadvantaged—those who are described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—are also subject to 100 per cent. rebates for the bills that they pay.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if they are subject to a 100 per cent. rebate, that is all right. However, many of those people who will be living in properties in band A will not be in receipt of social benefits. They are the people about whom we must be concerned. I can assure the Minister that I do not think that the matter is funny; it is very serious. Perhaps all other noble Lords understand the issue but it will have to be explained to me why in moving the amendment my noble friend was not correct in saying that people who would in general be poorer and living in properties in band A should not receive the same benefit of a 12.5 per cent. decrease as those living in properties in bands B, C, D, E or F.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the argument is about a simple principle. It is that people who are disabled will pay less than they would pay if they were not disabled. If that principle applies to bands B, C, D, E and F, why does it not apply to band A? It is not the band within which one falls that leads to the reduction but the disability. If one is disabled, one is disabled no matter which band one is in. The fact that one cannot move into a lower band is neither here nor there.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wish to comment on Amendment No. 33 which is very defective. First, it confuses Parts I and II of the Bill. It refers to "listing officers" who apply only to England. It should refer to a local assessor. It refers to "section 24(10)" but that should read section 87, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said. Furthermore, it refers to "section 13" which should be Clause 80. Under those circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment as drafted.
To a great extent the reduction of 12.5 per cent. that is being sought can be obtained under Clause 13, or Clause 80 as the case may be for England or Scotland, by the Secretary of State subject to the approval of Parliament. That is how the provision should be made, and on those grounds I am not sure that the amendment is necessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble Earl is correct in pointing out those errors. Had it been a Government amendment, they would have put them down to typographical errors. I agree that the term "listing officer" is used in the English legislation, and I apologise for that error. The reference to "section 13" instead of Clause 80 is a typographical error and I apologise.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am increasingly in sympathy with noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Seear, have put their fingers on the issue in pointing to the position of the poor, disabled people. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, disabled people will consider the situation unfair unless they enjoy a 12.5 per cent. reduction in the bottom band A. For the life of me, I cannot see how that sense of unfairness can be removed from the disabled community unless one can go some way towards the mechanism provided in the amendment or provide another means of restoring equity.
I understand that the Bill proposes two different forms of disability tax relief. The first is in cases of adaptations to the property, for instance, special lifts. In that case under Clause 24 the taxpayer can claim a material reduction which will be eligible for a rebate. The second is in cases where facilities are needed by a disabled person, whether or not specially made by that disabled person, the dwelling will be eligible under regulations made under Clause 13 for a reduction in its band. Those are the two ways in which disability tax relief can be obtained under the Bill.
However, I understand that if one is in band A, one cannot claim tax relief in either of those two circumstances. I cannot believe that any Member of this House cannot see that that is unfair vis-à-vis those who are more fortunate in their income or in the value of their houses and are in higher bands. It is that sense of unfairness which the amendment seeks to eradicate for those at the bottom of the class of disabled person. Therefore, I hope that the House will be sympathetic to this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the idea behind the two amendments. One must bear in mind that often the income of disabled people is less than that of others. Band A will cover the smaller and often older dwellings which make them more difficult and often more expensive suitably to convert for disabled people. If such dwellings are owned by disabled people, it is probable that they will have to pay a higher figure for the necessary adaptations out of their smaller income. They will probably have to take out a mortgage and therefore they will have higher monthly or quarterly payments and higher amounts of interest to pay. When disabled people living in dwellings in other bands have a reduction in tax because of their disabilities and the adaptations to their dwellings, I can see no reason why those in band A should not also receive a reduction.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is a slight difficulty in that we are discussing two separate amendments. The first applies to a people-related relief, a matter touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The second is a property-related relief. I readily accept that both are for the undeniable need of disabled people. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, pre-empted me because I have no difficulty with the people-related amendment. I believe that such an

1043
amendment is needed. The trouble is how to get a people-related amendment within the scope of this part of the Bill. Amendment No. 10 states:
"a listings officer has determined that there has been a material reduction in the value of the dwelling due to any adaptation to make it suitable for use",
and for no other purpose. That will not help those people in band A who also need to be helped.
In spite of what the Minister said in Committee on the likelihood that there would be a material reduction in the value of the dwelling if it were a band A house and adapted specifically for disabled people, that cannot always be the case. For example, my noble friend Lord Swinfen spoke about putting a lift in a building. That will not materially decrease the value of the building. We should perhaps use social security legislation rather than this Bill to provide the relief which is needed.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend misquoted me. I did not mention a lift at all. He will perhaps be interested to know that putting in certain adaptations—for example, enlarging ground floor facilities to form lavatories, showers and so on and, on a single floor dwelling, enlarging rooms to provide facilities where there is room for a wheelchair to manoeuvre—can reduce the value of the building because of the loss of other accommodation. Also, altering the height of work surfaces in kitchens may mean that, if a property is sold or transferred to an able bodied person, sometimes a considerable amount of money needs to be expended on it to make that kitchen suitable for use by an able-bodied person.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I am sorry if I misheard him. However, that does not alter the fact that there will be circumstances in which there will be a material reduction. I agree with that. Equally, there will be occasions when there will be an increase in the value of the property.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I mentioned lifts. I know the widow of a very severely disabled person who had installed a lift; she has now taken it out in order to restore the value of her property. I do not mind how this amendment is made so long as it is made. I do not mind whether that is achieved by way of attacking the principle of property or people.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, argued her case on the twofold grounds of hardship and equity. Perhaps I may deal with hardship first. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said that we should look to the social security system to provide help for the less well off disabled. I agree with him.
I must stress that for those disabled people who are on low income and who may have difficulty in meeting the bill, the benefit system—and we heard little of the benefit system from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis —will provide rebates of up to 100 per cent. of the bill. As regards the benefits system it is important to remember that premiums and other allowances are
1044
built into the income support regime. They give those who are disabled who are either in receipt of disability premium or severe disability premium or both considerably higher incomes than other people who are less well off. In other words, they can receive income support or 100 per cent. council tax benefit on a much higher income than an able bodied person whose circumstances are similar in other ways.
I move from the question of hardship, which I believe was the second line of attack of the noble Baroness, to the question of equity which was the point which most noble Lords have argued. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, argued that people should pay less because they are disabled. I have some difficulty with that. We are arguing that no one should pay more because of a disability. There is a great distinction between the two concepts: whether you should pay less because you are disabled or whether you should not pay more because of your disability. We have taken considerable care to ensure that the council tax is fair to disabled people, both in the way that dwellings are valued and through the separate scheme for delivering reductions for disabled people where they need more space or extra rooms in their homes, a point touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. As I said, we have taken particular pains to make sure that people should not have to pay more tax simply on account of space or fixtures required because of a physical disability.
The noble Baroness prays in aid RADAR and I accept that RADAR may support the amendment. However, we have discussed these matters at great length with RADAR and other bodies and I am grateful for their help in framing the measures which we have taken. They believed that it would be unfair if a disabled person had to pay more tax than others because of a disability. They put it to us that someone who needed an extra room to store wheelchairs or for kidney dialysis equipment might have to buy a two-bedroomed flat or a house with two reception rooms whereas, but for their disability, a smaller property with a lower capital value would have sufficed. Similarly, someone who needed to use a wheelchair inside the home would need larger rooms than would otherwise be the case in order to manoeuvre a wheelchair. We took on those anxieties that some people may pay more tax because they need to live in larger and, therefore, more expensive dwellings. However, when we spoke to the organisations concerned, we were not asked for a general reduction for disabled people purely on the grounds of their disability. We were asked to provide equal treatment where a disability may have led directly to a higher bill.
We accepted those arguments and developed a special scheme under Clause 13 which will give a reduction where a disabled person needs to use a wheelchair in his home, or needs an extra kitchen, bathroom, or other room. So a disabled person who might be living in a band E property because of his need for a room to serve as a treatment room would be eligible for a reduction under the scheme. In this

1045
case the bill would be calculated as if the dwelling were in band D, so that he would not have to pay more tax on account of his need for an extra room.
In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, anyone in band D or reduced from band D to band C would pay more than someone in band A but in the case of someone who was in band B who had his band reduced to band A, I accept that the two would pay the same amount.
We also recognised that disabled people might need to adapt their homes to accommodate their disability, and that in some cases this could reduce the value; for example, altering the layout of a house or flat, or installing a lift, especially in a smaller property, could well reduce the value. We will be providing in regulations under Clause 24 that where such adaptations are made, and the value of the dwelling is reduced, then the reduced value will be reflected in the banding of the property.
But in the case of a band A property, it is simply not possible for someone to be paying more on account of a disability. A disabled person living in a band A house or flat cannot say that he is paying more tax because more space or adaptations to accommodate his disability have placed his home in a higher band than would otherwise be the case. The dwelling is already in the lowest band, and the taxpayer will already be paying the smallest amount of tax possible for his area. The case that was put to us—that disabled people could be paying more because of their disability—simply does not arise in a band A property.
The noble Baroness accused me of tautology and claimed that because I said that one could not go lower than band A, there could be no lower band. If band A is the lowest band, one cannot go below it. However, to be ingenious the noble Baroness came up with what she calls her new band—band ZA —for certain people. It would not be fair to allow some people but not others, who feel that they have just as good a case, to benefit from what would be a lower valuation band; that is, band ZA. Those in the most modest dwellings of all with a capital value well below the band A limit would no doubt feel that they should benefit from any new lower band. We have already explained at some length why we believe that the eight bands are appropriate. I accept that noble Lords opposite do not agree with that. They have just pressed an amendment to a Division and the House resolved quite conclusively that our view should prevail on this matter. We have decided that eight bands are appropriate and we do not consider that a band below band A is necessary.
If there is to be a banding system, there has to be a bottom band. We believe that our proposals strike the right balance. The measures we have taken have been in direct response to the representations made to us; that is, that disabled people should not be disadvantaged in comparison with others because property values form the basis of the council tax.
There is a basic divide between myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I am saying that the disabled should not pay more because of their disability. The
1046
noble Baroness is seeking to give a bonus to the disabled purely on account of their disability. I cannot accept that, for the reasons I have given. Further, it is condescending to disabled people to say, "Simply because of your disability, you should pay less". We are saying, "Because you have to adapt your house and live in more expensive property, you should not pay more".
That is the right way forward, and I hope that the House will reject the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given the response from Members on the Government side, I was hoping that the Minister would at least have recognised that an issue exists. I am willing to be persuaded that there are more effective ways of dealing with the issue, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It seems to me that no noble Lord can be persuaded that a problem does not exist, having heard the remarks of the Minister. He basically responded on two points and perhaps I may comment on those.
First, the Minister made the point about hardship and that anybody severely disabled is likely to enjoy sufficient benefit—I hope that I am fairly paraphrasing him—such that the hardship will be met in other ways. I accept that in many situations people who are disabled will be enjoying premium benefits which will enable them to enjoy substantial rebates. But what does the Minister say to the situation when the disabled person is living with a relative who is the liable person—it is often the relative who is liable to pay the bill—and has an income slightly above rebate level which may only be £90 to £100 a week. That household must therefore meet the cost of the disability without any rebate help at all.
Under the rates system, the lowest value properties would have qualified for some reduction in the bill to help those people. Many disabled people living with a relative who is the liable person, will not be helped, as the noble Lord suggested, by rebates or benefits because they will not be eligible. Rebates only follow the liable person, with one or two specific exemptions. Therefore I hope that the House accepts that the Minister has not met our case on that point.
Secondly, the Minister argued in regard to equity. The case we are trying to advance does not concern equity between people within a band but equity within the disabled community. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that no one should pay more because of their disability. He made the points that I tried to outline in three of the four situations I gave. First, that if disabled people improve their property they should not be disadvantaged. But under the Bill as it stands neither would I. That is not a concession to the disabled. Secondly, if people make alterations to their homes which devalue their property, they should benefit from that; but so would I. The situation is not specifically targeted to help the disabled. Thirdly, the Minister accepted that when disabled people moved to a larger property they should nonetheless have the bonus of a lower band, and I welcome that.
However, the Minister did not address the situation I outlined in my fourth example, that people in their

1047
own property may become disabled, perhaps as the result of a car accident, and therefore make a somewhat different use of the house. Although no changes have been made to the fabric of the property, nonetheless they enjoy a discount. The discount is enjoyed and the property goes down a band not by virtue of anything that has been done to the property but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, simply by virtue of their disability.
That is what we are trying to establish. By virtue of their disability, the person enjoys a reduction in the level of a band; that is, unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, they are living in properties that are difficult to adapt with possibly the lowest incomes. That is not fair. I do not believe that anyone in this Chamber, in their heart of hearts, would agree that it was fair.
I am willing to take the amendment away and come back with another which more accurately picks up the anxieties of the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Swinfen. I am anxious, howsoever it is achieved, that the poorest of the disabled should acquire the same benefit that the better off among the disabled will enjoy. I pay compliments to the Government for that, but I cannot understand why a Government that are willing to help the better—off disabled —which we all welcome—will do so little to protect the disabled at the bottom of the pile. I cannot understand that.
I may be wrong, but in the hope that we can obtain some movement, particularly by Members on the Government Benches, to explain to the Minister that there may be ways forward to meet the issue, I am willing to withdraw the amendment and return to it at Third Reading. But return to it at Third Reading I must. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I believe it is an abuse of the procedures of the House for a Minister from the Front Bench to refuse leave. It is a disgraceful ploy which should not be indulged in. I ask noble Lords on the Front Bench to think again.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, it is frequently done. It is in accordance with the rules of the House, as no one knows better than the noble Lord.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not believe that it is frequently done, and if it is, it is not to my knowledge.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been done to me on many occasions. I object to it just as strongly as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and for good reason on this occasion. In seeking to withdraw the amendment, my noble friend said that she recognised the force of some of the arguments raised in regard to the wording. She was seeking to come back to it at a later stage. It is not an abuse of the procedure of the House, but under these circumstances I should have thought that the noble Lord would think better of it as a matter of courtesy.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Question has been put to the House to which there can be a negative or affirmative Answer. We have chosen to give a negative Answer and that is an end to the matter.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 19, after ("order")insert("in the third year following the coming into force of this section and not less frequently than in every third year thereafter").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I half apologise that Amendment No. 11 is identical to one that I moved at Committee stage. I still feel as strongly as I felt at that time that the amendment is right in principle and that we should revive the former practice of carrying out rating revaluations at regular intervals. The practice has existed for many years and ought not to be abandoned simply for the convenience of the Government.
There is always the danger that revaluations carried out on a haphazard basis or at the whim of government will be carried out at a time when they are politically advantageous to the government. Provision for regular revaluation, as set out in the amendment, would deal with the problem.
I have an additional reason for returning with the amendment. I confess that when these matters were debated in Committee I was not quick enough off the mark. In response to an earlier amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the Minister criticised our demands for regular revaluation on the grounds that we did not perform regular revaluations ourselves. The noble Baroness and, indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Jenkin, said that it was the Labour Party that ran away from revaluations.
The Minister said,
"It is extraordinary that the noble Lord [she meant me] should be so critical of the system proposed in the Bill when he knows that his party, when in office, never faced the pain of a revaluation".—[Official Report, 23/1/92; col. 958.]
I should have responded to that immediately. I had completely forgotten that it was a Labour Government who embarked on a revaluation in 1979 before the 1979 election. No sooner was the 1979 election through than we had the then Secretary of State, who is the present Secretary of State, cancelling the revaluation. On 22nd June 1979 there was a DoE press notice headed:
"'Tear them up' says Michael Heseltine—rating revaluation cacelled".
It went on:
"The Government has cancelled the rating revaluation now in progress and householders who have received questionnaires from the Valuation Office should 'tear them up', said Michael Heseltine, Secretary of State for the Environment, today".
It continued:
"Cancellation of the revaluation will provide the opportunity for the Government to sort out the longer-term future of the rating system".
That was 13 years ago. It took the Government another seven or eight years to come to the first wrong conclusion about the longer-term future of the rating system and then another three years to come to a second wrong conclusion. I really felt that I could not let Ministers get away with the accusation that it was

1049
we who were running away from revaluation when it was quite patently not only this Government, but the present Secretary of State who was running away from revaluation. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the issue that arises on this amendment is not whether at an appropriate time revaluation is appropriate—it obviously is—but whether a rigid system should be introduced under which, whatever has happened, or not happened, every three years we must go through the elaborate and expensive process of a revaluation. It is perfectly true that if we were in an era of galloping inflation a revaluation might well be inevitable quite frequently. But surely it is equally true that if we have a stable economy and minimal inflation, it would be an enormous waste of effort to go through the machinery of revaluation simply because we were into the third year. That is surely unnecessarily rigid.
If we look at it in the present circumstances, we know that, thanks to the Government policy, inflation has been largely eliminated from our system and that we look forward to a very stable system of prices for the years ahead. In the face of that, simply to lay down that because we get to a third year we have to go through all that process again is surely very wasteful and likely to antagonise public opinion and, if I may say so bluntly, quite pointless.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has no need to apologise for bringing forward this amendment. He was very entertaining in his introduction. The point is that revaluation in rates is an entirely different thing from revaluation of the council tax.
It will not be possible for the Secretary of State to substitute other valuation bands without commissioning a revaluation of dwellings at the same time. That is so because they will be valued into bands from the outset, in an exercise which is already under way, rather than being given precise values.
However, one of the attractions of the banding procedure is that frequent revaluations are not needed. Even though property values may have changed, a large number of properties would be in the same band both before and after a revaluation. That is an important point which bears repeating. Banding means that revaluation does not affect all dwellings.
Only when there has been a significant, long-term shift in relative house values would a general revaluation be needed. Local taxation should not be subject to short-term fluctuations in the property market. Our proposals ensure that it is not.
The point as regards this amendment is that what counts is the relationship between different prices of houses throughout the housing market, rather than specific values. I hope that the noble Lord will be convinced that revaluations every three years will be a bureaucratic nonsense and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was delighted, as I am so often, by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. His argument was
1050
against what he called a rigid, regular revaluation. The amendment is not rigid, it simply refers to every three years. During the bulk of the time when he was in government the law required a general rating revaluation—at that time every five years. The valuation lists which were in force in 1979 and which Mr. Heseltine continued, came into force in April 1973, and a general revaluation would have been required for 1978. That was cancelled by the Labour Government on the grounds that the Layfield Committee had been appointed and there could be changes in the rating system. That was done by the General Rate Act 1975 which I did not think was a particularly contentious issue. Certainly I do not recall there being any controversy about it.
Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, seemed to rely in their response on the argument that we have, first, a stable economy; and secondly, that we have such a crude valuation system that even major changes in the economy would not affect valuation very much. Clearly we have a stable economy, if bumping along the bottom can be called a stable economy. However, even given the quite extraordinary lack of effective financial management by this Government, that does not mean that there are not still significant regional variations. It certainly does not mean that there have not been changes in property values which do not go along with other changes in the economy. This is a matter which was raised in the same form at Committee stage and, having made the necessary additional points, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to divide the House on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Persons liable to pay council tax]:
Page 5, line 1, after ("statutory") insert ("assured").
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 11 A:
Page 5, line 1, after ("statutory") insert ("assured").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that assured tenancies are included at an appropriate point in the hierarchy of persons liable for council tax. Clause 6 sets out a hierarchy of persons liable to council tax, starting with a resident freehold owner and descending in order of liability via resident leaseholders, resident tenants, resident licensees, residents with no such interest and ending with a non-resident freeholder.
Paragraph (c) of subsection 2 refers to the liability of those people who are both resident and tenants. However, the tenancies referred to are only "statutory" under the Rent Act 1977 or the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or "secure" under the Housing Act 1985. There is no reference to assured tenants under the Housing Act 1988, which has been the common form of tenancy for both housing associations and private sector landlords since 15th January 1989.
When the matter was raised in Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, responded that assured tenants are already included within the provisions of Clause 6. He added,

1051
"A person who has such a tenancy has a leasehold interest in the dwelling and, if a resident, will therefore fall within Clause 6(2) (b)".—[Official Report, 23/1/92; col. 1024]
The National Federation of Housing Associations is surprised by that response. If that is the reason for excluding mention of assured tenancies, it points out that the same logic can be applied to secure tenants under the Housing Act 1985. Section 621(1) of that Act specifically states:
"In this Act 'lease' and 'tenancy' have the same meaning".
However, secure tenants are specifically referred to in paragraph (c) of Clause 6(2). In other words, they are one ring lower in the hierarchy than resident leaseholders, and, if the Government are correct, one ring lower than assured tenants. Surely that is illogical.
It would also raise particular problems for housing association shared housing, where tenants will have a tenancy for sole occupation of a room or rooms and share other facilities in the house. In such cases, there may well be a mixture of secure and assured tenants in the dwelling. Such tenants must, for the sake of equity, be on the same level in the hierarchy of liability for council tax. It would be wholly unjust if the assured tenant was liable for the whole of the council tax. The proposed amendment would make the assured tenant's position in the hierarchy beyond all doubt as well as pre-empting any possible injustice. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is confusing the issue here. Under the Rent Act 1968, which was a consolidation Act, statutory tenants were those next in line who had inherited from a private tenancy. Under the old Rent Acts someone's son could carry on the tenancy after the original tenant's death. He then became a statutory tenant. It is in this respect that I think the provision is referring back to those Acts. There are still quite a number of people today who are in the position of being statutory tenants and have security of tenure under the old Rent Acts for as long as they live. The tenancy comes to an end when the statutory tenant dies or gives up the lease, whichever is the first. I do not think it would be wise in this case to change the word "statutory" for the word "assured". I think that we are referring to quite different Acts.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is always a delight to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Dean, to our proceedings. I should like to set the noble Lord's mind at rest on this issue. I know that it came up at the Committee stage and I hope that I can clarify the position entirely.
Assured tenants are already included within the provisions of Clause 6. A tenancy under which a dwelling house is let as a separate dwelling is an assured tenancy for the purposes of the Housing Act 1988—subject to certain exceptions. It may be either a fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy. A person who has such a tenancy has a leasehold interest in the dwelling and, if a resident, will therefore fall within Clause 6(2) (b) of the Bill. There is a separate provision in Clause 6 for statutory tenants under the Rent Acts because they do not have a leasehold
1052
interest in a dwelling. In addition, secure tenants under the Housing Act 1985 may have only a licence and not a tenancy. Statutory tenants and certain secure tenants would not therefore fall within Clause 6(2) (b) and are included in a separate category—Clause 6(2) (c).
I have tried to explain the position. I hope that I have given the confirmation which the noble Lord requires.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for warmly welcoming my appearance at the Dispatch Box. I have tried to understand his answer. It was necessary to clarify what will happen when the Bill becomes an Act. It is only when one sees the provisions of an Act in operation that one understands the end result. However, I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to respond and for indicating that the provision is there for protection. I shall study what he has said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage does not begin again before 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Government policy on community care is to be found in the White Paper Caring for People, which clarifies the responsibilities of agencies with respect to the new funding arrangements for social care. This policy has been broadly welcomed by all parties.
From April 1993 local authorities will be responsible for funding and making arrangements for domiciliary, residential and nursing home care with a range of providers in the statutory and independent sectors. My Bill will facilitate implementation of that policy by replacing Section 42(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which amends Section 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, to provide for inadvertently curtailed local authority powers to make arrangements with the independent sector for residential accommodation.
A key objective of Caring for People is to enable the people rendered vulnerable by age or disability to live as independently as possible either in their own homes or in a homely setting in the community. Sometimes what people need is full residential or nursing home care. When that is so the local authority uses residential care homes or nursing homes which are registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 to safeguard standards and quality, except where they are specifically exempt; for example, homes established by Royal Charter such as those of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. But, so often, what

1053
people initially require is some form of supported housing other than full residential and nursing home care. It may be that, while the individual can no longer be supported in his or her own home, he or she does not require the type of personal care provided in residential care homes and nursing homes. From April 1993, when the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 comes into force, local authorities will have a duty to assess the needs of vulnerable people for social support and to design a package of care which is flexible and responsive both to the individual concerned and to his or her carers.
People do not come in neatly defined shapes and sizes; nor are their needs always the same. It is because of the diversity of the human spirit and the diversity of human need that the local authority should have the flexibility to meet users' care needs, taking account of their preferences, and have the flexibility also to contract with a range of organisations managing residential accommodation of different types and styles.
In that way, local authorities can offer individuals the maximum practical choice. In order to do that, local authorities need the maximum flexibility to make arrangements within both the independent sector and the public sector.
Noble Lords will be aware that it is often in the independent sector—that is, both voluntary and commercial —that good innovative imaginative schemes tailored to the unique needs of particular people can be found. I have in mind, for example, the excellent homes managed by the Leonard Cheshire Foundation, the Abbeyfield Society and autistic societies among many others.
At present local authorities provide residential care either directly or through the independent sector under the National Assistance Act 1948 or the National Health Service Act 1977. The general power for local authorities to make arrangements for the independent sector is in paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977. From April 1993 when the community care parts of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 are fully implementated, that provision will be repealed. Section 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948 will be amended by Section 42(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. However, a problem arises with Section 42(2) in its amendment of the National Assistance Act 1948 in that the local authorities' powers to make financial arrangements with hostels and organisations, like Abbeyfield, have been curtailed. Those hostels and organisations do not provide in most of their homes the personal care envisaged under the Registered Homes Act 1984, nor are they exempt from registration.
In short, Section 42(2) does not allow local authorities to make those arrangements with the whole range of organisations within the independent sector which they are currently able to do. That will affect organisations like the Abbeyfield Society, a voluntary body which has over 1,000 homes which provide residential accommodation for up to 10 elderly people in each home. They are in a homely
1054
setting where food and domestic help are provided, but where personal care is not required. Residents furnish their own rooms with their own treasured possessions, they lead their own lives and come together for the main meals of the day which are provided by a resident housekeeper.
The Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill remedies the problem by replacing Section 42(2) of the 1990 Act thus restoring to local authorities the powers which they now have to make full use of the independent sector—powers which they would lose in 1993 when the National Health Service and Community Care Act comes into force. As noble Lords will gather, the Bill is intended to make only that minor but vital technical change to the legislation and in no way heralds a policy change.
The substance of Clause 1 restores to local authorities the ability to make arrangements for residential accommodation with the independent sector in premises neither registrable under the Registered Homes Act 1984 nor exempt from registration. It restores the flexibility to make arrangements with a range of independent sector organisations for residential accommodation, as well as maintaining the rest of the arrangements found in Section 42(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Clause 2 provides for the short Title, commencement and extent. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Bill will deal with a technical problem which arises from Section 42(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and that it will remedy the position so that hostels and societies like Abbeyfield are not put at risk.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Brigstocke.)
7.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill. As is the convention in respect of a Bill of this nature, I should make it clear that I speak from this Dispatch Box on my own account. I express a personal view rather than the view of my party. I have only two or three points to make. I shall start with the lacuna in the 1990 Act. I use the word "lacuna" because it is actually mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. After the many days we spent examining the community care provisions in the 1990 Act, it seems extraordinary that such a lacuna could have been overlooked. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that what happened is that someone forgot the 1977 Act when drafting the 1990 Act. I suspect that that is what happened.
As I said, I have just a few points to make. First, if the lacuna is a drafting error in a government Bill, why are the Government not bringing forward the Bill to put right their own error rather than putting it through the Private Members' route? I ask the question as a matter of interest. I am surprised that the Government have not found the time to put it right by way of the Bill.
My other point is an obvious one. When the noble Baroness moved the Second Reading, she referred to

1055
the many estimable organisations which provide residential care in the private sector. However, there is some worry that homes will be used which are not required to be registered. The Minister will no doubt remember the many debates that we had on the 1990 Act, and indeed on other Acts, about the powers of registration or not of homes in the private sector. In her response, can the Minister say whether they are entirely satisfied, if the Bill is enacted, with the status of the homes which people will then be able to use but which in fact will not be registrable under the 1984 Act?
I make just two points. First, I am interested to know why the matter is not being dealt with as a government Bill. My second point is one of substance: are the Government satisfied that the homes which will be used will be up to standard? Having said that, I welcome the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches unreservedly support the noble Baroness and thank her for her explanation of what she described as a small technical Bill. Judging by the complications set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, one might think that it is not quite as simple a Bill as she described. I should thank the noble Baroness for the letter that she wrote to my noble friend Lord Winstanley; it clearly outlined the problem. He would have been speaking in my place this evening had he been able to do so.
We are not too much concerned as to whether it is a government Bill or a Private Bill that puts the matter right. As the noble Baroness so rightly said, the important thing is that the flexibility should remain with the local authority. Indeed, over the coming years, with the demographic trend, we shall be moving into areas where more and more people will need the kind of flexible treatment which the noble Baroness described. They will not necessarily need nursing or care which is provided for by the 1990 Act, but local authorities will need to consider very special cases which are not, probably by oversight, taken care of by the Act. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us why we need to consider a Bill which has been so thoughtfully provided by her noble friend Lady Brigstocke.
We are very happy that the lacuna has been spotted. I must admit that none of us on these Benches noticed it. I dare say that the Bill will perform a great service. Having said that, we are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness and look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words. I apologise for the fact that I did not put down my name to speak. I listened with great care to my noble friend's most careful explanation of the Bill. She did it extremely well. I had not studied the Bill, as I should have done, before I heard her speech. I see from Clause 2(4) that the legislation extends to England and Wales only. Can my noble friend the Minister in her response tell me
1056
whether the unfortunate error in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 which will be amended by the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill also exists in the Scottish legislation? The Bill would not put that right. I wonder whether we need another Private Member's Bill or whether the Government should introduce provisions to correct that. I should be interested if the Minister could answer that point.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke for introducing the Bill and explaining it so clearly. As has been said, the Bill provides a technical amendment to remedy a defect before that defect is implemented. The Government therefore welcome the Bill and give it their full support. It was certainly the Government's intention that the local authorities' current powers under the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Assistance Act 1948 should be retained in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. However, as my noble friend Lady Brigstocke has pointed out, Section 42(2) of that Act inadvertently curtails those powers, especially the local authorities' powers, to make financial arrangements with the independent sector.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour referred to Scotland. As she knows, the 1990 Act applied to England and Wales and we have discovered this lacuna in that Act. As far as I am aware, there is no similar problem in Scotland. I shall, however, ensure that I double check that point and shall return to my noble friend if that is an issue.
The fact that the powers were inadvertently curtailed puts at risk a range of independent sector providers, whether voluntary or commercial, such as the Abbeyfield Society, to which my noble friend Lady Brigstocke referred. Other organisations of a similar kind may also be put at risk. The anomaly will also inhibit Government policy which, as my noble friend said, was expressed in the White Paper, Caring for People, which seeks to provide high quality packages of care, tailored to meet the needs of individual citizens.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked, "Why a Private Member's Bill?" We believe that this is a non-controversial subject, and entirely suitable for a Private Member's Bill. Such legislation presents the best prospect of a change being made quickly so that we can put at rest the minds of those who run the homes. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will accept that—I see that he is nodding.
It is government policy that the promotion and development of a flourishing independent sector, alongside good quality public provision, will encourage innovative, flexible, cost-effective and high quality services, responsive to individuals and their needs. Many independent sector providers, such as the Abbeyfield Society, have provided that type of care for many years. The legislative framework that is provided by the National Health Service Act 1977 and

1057
the National Assistance Act 1948 enables local authorities to make arrangements with them, as appropriate.
The omission from Section 42(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 puts that flexibility at risk. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke for remedying that situation in the Bill without changing policy or introducing any new policy.
I advise the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that safeguards exist to protect residents. In the first place, the assessment procedures are important, as are the conditions of the contracts and the monitoring of the contracts. As a fallback, there is a full complaints procedure. We believe that the safeguards are adequate.
As I have said, the Government fully support the Bill. I trust that it will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. I hope that your Lordships do not feel that the fact that I have introduced the Bill is too controversial. Perhaps it is suitable that I have done so because I was the head of a school for some time and was used to the expression "a gap year" for pupils. As your Lordships know, "lacuna" means "gap", so perhaps that is why I was considered suitable for introducing a "gap" Bill.
Although my noble friend the Minister has already done so adequately, I, too, should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the Bill does not allow local authorities to use homes that should be registered but which are not. It is illegal to run a non-registered home.
As I have said, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate and who have supported the Bill. Homes, such as those provided by the Abbeyfield Society, play an important role in the provision of supportive care for frail, elderly people. It is essential that local authorities can continue to make arrangements for such care, where appropriate. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.26 to 8.5 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 6.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert:
1058
("( ) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to any person on any day who is a person to be disregarded for the purpose of discounts under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17 which raises the issue of joint and several liability.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I presume that the noble Baroness is speaking also to Amendments Nos. 35 and 37.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I stand corrected by the Minister. Whichever amendments the noble Lord mentioned, they were the correct ones, but that may be the only time tonight that I endorse entirely what he says. I thank him. The amendment seeks to raise the issue of joint and several liability for those people with severe mental impairment. In the United Kingdom about 750,000 people suffer from dementia—500,000 of them, mostly elderly, have Alzheimer's disease, and one in five of them is over 80. A further 130,000 adults have severe learning disabilities. We all know families with members suffering from Alzheimer's disease. I am sure that we are all aware of the strain, physical and financial, that that places on the family.
Under the council tax, people with severe mental impairment, and therefore their families, are considerably worse off than they were under the poll tax. I am not sure that that is what your Lordships wish or intend. There are two sets of amendments, one of which I am moving and one which will be moved later by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. If the House were minded to accept the amendments that would at least ensure that such people would not be worse off financially.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way, She referred to amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would be moving. It would help if she would let me know which they are so that I can respond to both sets of amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was referring to the amendment relating to carers, which I doubt will be moved tonight. The first issue relates to the proportion of the bill that someone with Alzheimer's disease has to pay, and the second relates to joint and several liability for the proportion of the bill that he or she does not have to pay. On the first point—the proportion of the bill that such a person has to pay—under the poll tax anyone suffering from Alzheimer's disease was exempt from paying. That meant that in a two-person household only 50 per cent. of the bill would be paid. Under the council tax, 75 per cent. of the bill will have to be paid by that family. The family will receive only a 25 per cent. discount. The family starts by being worse off although, as I have said, if the Government were minded to accept the amendments relating to carers tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, they would produce a second 25 per cent. discount which would restore people suffering from Alzheimer's disease to the position they currently experience under the poll tax.

1059
The second issue relates to joint and several liability which I should like to argue is even more perverse. It did not exist in practice under the rates, nor under the poll tax except between spouses. I have checked and even there I know of no local authority which pursued joint and several liability for debts incurred where the liability started only when the debt was incurred and not at the point when bills were drawn up, following practice note No. 16. Yet under the Bill people with Alzheimer's disease deemed not competent to pay their own bills—which is why they qualify for the discount—are held jointly and severally liable for someone else's tax.
Clearly, if people are able to live alone, there is a presumption that they have sufficient competence to know that they are required to pay the bill and can be pursued for it if they do not. But if they live with a spouse or relative —which is the situation under which the joint and several liability is likely to arise—as their condition deteriorates, they are likely to have no responsibility at all for budgeting and household decisions. Indeed, were they to know that they were liable for someone else's bills, that could only add to their worries, distress and confusion. If mistakes were made on the calculation of the bill or the rebate for which they were eligible, they would probably be unable to check the calculations correctly, unable to argue their case for backdated rebate and unable to know that part of the bill was already paid. They would be unable to protect their own interests.
How can a person with Alzheimer's disease, whose wife or husband has walked away and cannot be traced, cope with the situation of abandonment? They would probably have to move into residential care but at the same time they would be held accountable for the debts of other people.
I should like to give two examples. First, let us take a mother and son. Under the Bill, it would appear that if a widowed mother living with a 30 year-old son, who has a learning disability, defaulted on paying the council tax, she could find her son being pursued by the local authority for payment. That is despite her son being altogether exempt under the community charge. Another example, which is not hypothetical but a real case, is that of a husband and wife. I have a letter which was written from a carer to the Alzheimer's Disease Society. It states:
"My husband started to take ridiculous sums out of his accounts. I went to the bank and explained the problem. They said they were unable to help me at all and said they could only do something if I invoked the powers of attorney. I then asked them if they could have stopped all their advertising mail which jogged his memory and caused him to go rushing along to their branch and drawing money out. No they said we cannot stop the mail …
"The money he took out of the accounts he either gave away or lost. It was never recorded. At the time there was so much going on that I never realised how close we were to financial ruin".
The Alzheimer's Disease Society says in a letter that:
"the Bill as it stands imposes liability for a spouse's or other carer's bill on a person with severe mental impairment despite the fact that their own personal element has been discounted. It also imposes on a carer who has joint liability the burden of meeting the cost of the tax for the person with dementia who may be quite incapable of managing their own …affairs.
1060
"The council tax as currently constructed will add to the burden of caring for a person with dementia both by increasing the potential tax liability of the carer and by adding possible liability for the debts of the person",
who is mentally incompetent but who is still incurring the debts of the person for whom they care.
Why was exemption from the poll tax awarded? I quote from a letter dated 15th August 1989 from the Minister responsible at the time, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Environment, Mr. Christopher Chope, to the secretary of MENCAP:
"As you know the Local Government Finance Act 1988 provides that people who are severely mentally impaired will be exempt from the personal community charge. We recognise that these people may have little understanding of the concept of local government accountability and are unlikely to play a full role in the local democratic process. Therefore, it would not be fair to expect them to contribute towards the cost of local services".
These are the words of Mr. Christopher Chope, not of the Alzheimer's Disease Society nor us, but the Minister responsible at the time. He stated that it would not be fair to expect them to contribute towards the cost of local government services. If people could not take part in the democratic process, they should not be held liable for decisions they were incapable of making. To say that someone who is mentally impaired should receive a discount because he is not competent to handle his own affairs but should be jointly and severally liable for the debts of someone else—which is a much more complex situation—seems to me to be perverse and cruel.
Only a small number of people would be helped by the amendment: those in a situation where there is an unpaid bill, a person who is liable but who is unobtainable, either dead or missing, and where the remaining person is severely mentally impaired. It would cost very little but make a huge difference to the families of carers as well as the person with Alzheimer's disease, if the House were minded to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wish to ask one or two questions. Under Schedule 1, paragraph 9(1) on page 84,
"A person shall be disregarded for the purposes of discount…if—
(a) on the day he is engaged in providing care or support …to another person".
A person who is disabled would have a discount of 25 per cent. and the person helping with care would receive a further 25 per cent. discount.
Referring to page 85, paragraph 11 of Schedule 1, I was under the impression that this provision would enable the person receiving social security benefit to pay the council tax where a person was severely disabled and that the whole council tax could then be provided for under these conditions. That is the impression I received in Committee and I should be interested to hear what my noble friend says. If I am correct, then the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, would not be necessary.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we shall reach the question of carers when we consider the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady

1061
Seear, tomorrow afternoon. I should not like to say at this stage exactly how we shall respond to it but I am probably not giving anything away if I say at this stage that I hope that to a great extent we shall be able to meet the demands of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Having said that, I am not prepared to say how far we will go; I can only say that I do not believe that we can go as far as her amendment does at the moment. However, we shall go a considerable way to satisfying the demands of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Seear. On that occasion I hope that we shall be able to deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour about carers in relation to Schedule 1(9) (a).
Turning to Amendment No. 13 which, as the noble Baroness knows, we discussed in some detail during the Committee stage and which the noble Baroness and I have discussed further in the privacy of my office—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with others present.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said there were others present, but I am sure that she did not need to be chaperoned on that occasion, she is a grown up girl‡
Those were useful discussions, as the noble Baroness said, and to some extent we understand what we are both talking about. I also believe that she accepts that the award of a status discount which is what the discount for a person with Alzheimer's disease amounts to, does not mean that a person cannot be liable for the tax. That is clear if we look at the case of a discounted person who lives on his or her own. In that case, the tax will be reduced by 50 per cent. But the individual will still be liable for it, subject to any benefit entitlement. Again that point was made by my noble friend Lord Balfour as part of his question. There is no doubt that that individual would still be subject to 50 per cent. of the tax. The noble Baroness prays in aid the remarks of my honourable friend Mr. Chope in relation to the community charge. I must stress that that was a very different tax levied on very different principles. Here we are talking about a tax based on property.
The noble Baroness is concerned with a much narrower case and that is where two people are jointly liable for a council tax bill. This will happen where the pair are joint owners or tenants. It may cover the case the noble Baroness gave of a mother and son, or a brother and sister, or even for that matter a married couple. The noble Baroness argues that in these circumstances although it is right that the individual who is severely mentally impaired should retain some liability for the council tax, it is wrong for him to be liable for all of it. She argues that 25 per cent. of the bill represents the personal element of the other person, and that the person with the discount should not be liable for it. Certainly that is how the amendments read.
That argument is based on a misunderstanding of the way we propose that the council tax should work. It is a single indivisible tax and a single indivisible
1062
amount which is levied in respect of chargeable dwellings. It may be reduced according to the number of adults in a household or their status. As this discount is person based, it is reasonable to refer to it on occasions as the personal element of the tax. But it is not attributable to any particular individual. We can see that straightaway if we consider a house with three adults in it, all of whom are liable. To which of these three would the noble Baroness assign the two personal elements which she maintains are included in the bill? Nor does discount imply that the person giving rise to it is not competent to pay his own tax as I believe the noble Baroness was arguing. The point of the discounts is that those who are eligible for them should not add to the household bill. They say nothing about the competence or otherwise of the person who has to pay.
I can assure the noble Baroness that we have thought this through very carefully indeed. The amendment would not in fact prevent people who are severely mentally impaired from being liable. In the circumstances described by the noble Baroness where both fall to be liable under Clause 6, that liability would remain. It would not remove the liability for what the noble Baroness would refer to as the other person's liability. The amendment would simply not achieve the result that the noble Baroness seeks to achieve.
I do not make this point as a mere drafting quibble. The noble Baroness quoted an example of a difficult case of someone with Alzheimer's disease, or rather she referred to a mother who had a son with severe learning difficulties where the mother simply refused to pay the bill or abandoned her son. However, we do not feel it is possible to guard against every single possibility. People have responsibilities in many areas and it is always possible that some of them will turn their back on them. The law, however, should not be drafted on the basis that people will normally act in that way. The law should provide sensible arrangements for dealing with particular situations.
If we were to try to dictate the financial affairs of every household, we would be entering on very dangerous territory indeed. The arrangements allow those who find themselves in the position described by the noble Baroness to devise their own arrangements for paying the bill. Those arrangements can reflect the exact financial position of the household. In short, once it is accepted—I think the noble Baroness accepts this—that a person entitled to a discount may nonetheless be liable for a council tax bill, there is no case for lessening that liability in cases where someone else is jointly liable. There is no separate personal element in the council tax and if there were, these amendments would not relieve anyone of the liability to pay for it.
Joint and several liability under the council tax is entirely different, as I have said, from that under the community charge. There is no question of being liable for someone else's tax. Under the rates there were no special arrangements for people who were severely mentally impaired. Under the community charge which is a personal tax we provided that exemption. But, as I have said, the community charge

1063
was a very different animal from the council tax. We have carried this forward into a discount under the council tax. We believe we have arrived at arrangements which are in the main sensitive to people's circumstances. In the majority of cases, and perhaps even all of them, the arrangements will work well without any difficulties. I hope, with that explanation, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I must say I am entirely unpersuaded by the Minister's response. We are not dealing with discounts here. We are discussing whether someone who is severely mentally impaired, and as a result is not liable for a bill, is nonetheless responsible for somebody else's bill. In all common sense as well as compassion that cannot make sense. I seek leave to test the opinion of the House.
8.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 83.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Blackstone, B.

Lock wood, B.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Mayhew, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cobbold, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Parry, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Desai, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B. [Teller]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hollick, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

1064

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Whaddon, L.

Winstanley, L.

White, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hanson, L.

Arran, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Astor, V.

Henley, L.

Balfour, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Barber, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Howe, E.

Bethell, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Blyth, L.

Knutsford, V

Boardman, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norrie, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Northbrook, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Crathorne, L.

Prentice, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Rankeillour, L.

De La Warr, E.

Reay, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Renton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

St. Davids, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Seccombe, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Forester, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.[Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Haddington, E.

Waddington, L.

Haig, E.

Wolfson, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.33 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 13A:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) No individual shall be treated as having his sole or main residence in the dwelling on any days when he

(a) is detained within the terms of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1; or

(b) he is employed in a country outside Great Britain and he does not reside in the dwelling for longer than a period to be prescribed by regulation.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 13A might be called a probing amendment, if that helps noble Lords to make their travel arrangements. In Committee we were concerned about the definition of "sole or main residence" in Clause 6. In the history of the poll tax there have been considerable difficulties about the definition and case law appears to have come down sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other. In the amendment we have taken two examples to see whether we can tease out the Government's attitude on the matter.
The first example that we give is of someone who is detained. I take that to mean that that person is in prison or at least on remand. At Committee stage in another place the Minister, Mr. Portillo, appeared very confident that someone who was detained under the terms of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 would not be treated as resident in the dwelling. However, when pressed on the matter, Mr. Portillo did not seem able to cite any examples of what that meant. Nor did he seem able to justify his view. For the avoidance of doubt, we want to translate Mr. Portillo's assertion on to the face of the Bill.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment refers to a more complicated situation in which someone is employed in a country outside Great Britain and does not reside in the dwelling for longer than a period to be prescribed by regulation. As is so often the case with governments, it will be seen from the amendment that we are not able to make up our minds about the period which should be prescribed by regulation. However, local authorities have had difficulty making decisions in the case of somebody who keeps a residence here but is normally resident abroad, returning for periods of home leave or to visit family in this country for relatively short periods of, say, four to eight weeks in any 12 to 18 month period. The most common example might be a married couple living abroad who have children living in this country. We want to make sure that somebody who is employed in a country outside Great Britain but who does not reside in the dwelling for longer than a period to be prescribed by regulation will not be treated as having his sole or main residence in that dwelling.
Those are matters for clarification. I hope that the Government will be able to help us understand the definition of "sole or main residence." I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, I should like to ask a question in respect of the position of Merchant Navy personnel who may be out of the country for 11 months of the year.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the amendment was a probing amendment. This is the second time the matter has been probed because we discussed it in Committee. As the noble Lord said, there is nothing wrong with that. He can continue probing until the cows come home.
The amendment provides that no person shall be determined to be solely or mainly resident in a dwelling if he is in prison or if he is working abroad for more than a prescribed period. It is unnecessary since the current provisions of the Bill ensure that a prisoner receives a discount whether he is deemed to be resident at home or in prison. Most prisoners will have their sole or main residence in the place where they are detained. Where a sentence is relatively short, prisoners may, however, be deemed still to reside in the dwelling which they own or rent outside a prison. However, whether a prisoner is deemed to have his sole or main residence in prison or outside it, the provisions of this Bill will ensure that he will not add
1066
to the bill for any dwelling. If the dwelling is unoccupied while he is in prison it will be an exempt dwelling.
We cannot see any great advantage in a statutory prescription. It will make no difference to discounts. Even if a prisoner is deemed still to be resident in his own home he would be eligible for discounts. The only effect would be to prevent a prisoner from continuing to be jointly liable for the (probably discounted) council tax bill for a dwelling where his wife or joint owner/tenant still lives.
In the case of those working abroad, the Anderton Judgment has already provided clear guidelines for determining what constitutes sole or main residence and we see no reason to go further down that road. From the point of view of a merchant seaman, which was the point raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour, it was proved that a person's sole or main residence cannot be on board ship. It is clear from that judgment that time spent at a dwelling is not the only factor to be taken into account. To base a definition on time would be to risk achieving some very odd results. Sole or main residence is a question of fact to be determined in each case. There are helpful precedents on which to base a decision.
In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel that he has probed enough and is satisfied.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister suggested that we could probe until the cows come home. I do not believe he noticed that the cows came home on the last amendment. I do not say on which side the cows were to be found.
In his reply, which I found helpful, the Minister went some way to satisfy me about a person who is detained. As he said, it is reasonable that somebody on a long-term sentence should have his sole or main residence in the place of detention. I agree that there could be complications about short sentences, although such complications are caused by the insistence of the Government adding to a property tax the personal element which is calculated on a daily basis. It would be much simpler if we had an improved rating system. However, I shall not be tempted to go down that path.
His answer about merchant seamen was somewhat curious. He will recall, because it was discussed in Committee, that there have been cases on both sides. In one case it has been found that a merchant seaman could not have his sole or main residence on a ship; in another case it has been found that he could do so. Our probing, even though it has been reasonably persistent, has not got to the bottom of this matter. We shall still find ourselves in the position of having case law accumulate and the situation will take some time to become rational. I feel that to some considerable extent that is the Government's fault for imposing a combination of personal and property taxes in the form of the council tax. However, it is fair to say that this is not a matter to which we shall return at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Liability in prescribed cases]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert:
("(7) A person who is liable in respect of any chargeable dwelling under subsection (3) above shall have a duty separately to notify each resident of—

(a) the amount that resident shall pay to that or any other person in respect of council tax for that dwelling; and

(c) the amount that that resident shall pay to that or any other person in rent.

(8) At no time shall the total of the amounts, in respect of any chargeable dwelling, referred to in subsection (7) (a) above exceed the council tax due for that dwelling for that day or any other period.
(9) The amount each resident may be asked to pay shall be no more than the amount that would reasonably reflect the proportion of the dwelling occupied by that resident.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was referred to and discussed to some extent at Committee stage. I do not apologise for returning to this matter. I do not feel that our message adequately penetrated to the Government Front Bench. Noble Lords will forgive me if I remind the House that, during the passage of the poll tax Bill for England we pointed out that the similar Bill in Scotland, which had been enacted the previous year, had already resulted in very considerable injustice because of the Government's refusal to enforce any liability in law for landlords to reduce rents when the rents which they had charged were inclusive of rates and those rates were no longer applicable.
It was shown to the House in considerable detail that in Scotland, where the law had been enacted a year before, landlords were profiteering. They were not reducing rents to represent the reduction in their costs. They were no longer paying the rates and the individual tenants were paying the poll tax. The Government ignored our warnings and the evidence we produced to show that even at that stage, in 1988, profiteering by landlords amounted to something of the order of £40 million. Evidence now available from the introduction of the poll tax in England shows that the amounts of money which were quite unjustifiably retained by landlords, since they should have been handed over to their tenants as a result of the introduction of the poll tax, are very much greater than £40 million. It is almost impossible to put an exact figure on the sum. It is clearly an unknowable statistic since the people concerned are hardly likely to confess to the amounts that they have unjustly retained. However, the sum of £200 million is certainly not an underestimate for the first year of operation of the provision.
The Government having been told that such a thing would happen, having been warned that it would happen again and having been shown that it had happened again, I should find it quite extraordinary that, when they moved over to the council tax, they should still persist in that quite unnecessary protection of exploitation and profiteering by landlords.
This is a very modest amendment. New subsection (7) provides that the landlord should have the obligation to notify all those concerned—all their tenants—about the amount of the poll tax bill that is
1068
to be collected on their behalf in the whole dwelling. New subsection (8) states that the total amount added to the rent should be no greater than the additional amount to be paid in council tax. New subsection (9) provides that the division between the different tenants should be equitable, bearing in mind the property which they occupy.
I remind noble Lords that dwellings where payments are collected together—multi-occupied houses—are in any case a difficult kind of dwelling from which to collect rent, poll tax or council tax. The provision exists in the Bill for councils to agree that council tax should be levied collectively from such multi-occupied houses rather than be collected individually. They will do so, although in theory the amount that will be obtained from the council tax will be less, when they realise from the nature of the tenants and the accommodation that they occupy that it would be virtually impossible to collect the council tax individually —in other words to declare them to be separate dwellings. Very often it is short-term accommodation or lodging houses for people who have very few roots. A good deal of the accommodation is shared—bathrooms, kitchens, WCs and so on—and often the rooms have never been rated as separate dwellings in the past. It is therefore commonsense to do as the Government propose.
We now say only that when that happens, landlords should not be able to charge more on the grounds that they are assuming a council tax liability. They should not be given an opportunity to overcharge at the expense of tenants who themselves are very often the poorest people in our society. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, while I managed to follow what the noble Lord said, I am extremely unhappy about the wording of the amendment. New subsection (8) mentions:
"At no time shall the total of the amounts".
I have in mind electricity, gas, telephone charges, and so on. If this amendment is accepted as it stands, it appears to me that it could allow the subtenant to live virtually rent free. The amendment is defective, although I understand its intention. Subsection (9) states:
"The amount each resident may be asked to pay shall be no more than the amount that would reasonably reflect the proportion of the dwelling occupied by that resident".
In dealing with that proportion, the provision seems to cover just the council tax and nothing more. There are many other items to be considered.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it seems to me that in principle the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made out a very good case for the amendment, although it may possibly have technical defects, as the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, suggested.
Earl Howe: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 and its Scottish equivalent, Amendment No. 36, add three new subsections to Clause 8 which, in particular cases, places liability for payment of the council tax on the owner of a dwelling or other prescribed person. The amendment would require any person who has been made so liable to notify each of his residents of the

1069
amounts of council tax and of rent that each shall pay and to whom the payments should be made. It provides that the total of the amounts paid by the residents in respect of council tax should not exceed the amount due for the particular dwelling. The amendment also provides that the amount paid by each resident should reasonably reflect the proportion of the dwelling he occupies.
As the noble Lord reminded us, we discussed the amendment in Committee. We had a full debate at that time. As my noble friend Lady Blatch stated then, the end result of the amendment, for all that the noble Lord said, would be an unwarranted interference in people's private lives. Where the landlord has been made the liable person, he will have to pay the council tax bill. If he then chooses to collect contributions towards the bill from his tenants it is completely up to him how to do so. Landlords cannot sensibly be required to identify every individual component that makes up the rent that they charge tenants. They should be free to decide how they will reflect council tax in rent payments. They do not have to account separately for other overheads such as insurance or maintenance costs when determining rents. So why should they have to account separately for the council tax? The noble Lord cannot ignore the fact that for landlords the council tax is as much an overhead as his utilities' bills.
Even if a landlord were required to do what the noble Lord proposes, how could it be policed or enforced? The stated intention of the amendment is to prevent landlords from profiteering. But it is always possible for a landlord to load the rent in any number of different ways if he is so minded. The provisions of the amendment in the end would be completely pointless. I am sure we all agree that it is desirable that landlords should deal honestly with their tenants. However, I do not believe that we can or should attempt to write the provision on the face of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Blatch assured your Lordships that non-resident landlords will be made responsible for the council tax only in a small minority of cases, principally where it would be difficult to bill the residents directly. Under the rating system, to which noble Lords opposite would doubtless like to return, the rates were paid by the landlord in a far greater number of cases. Consequently, contributions for the rates were included in rents in a greater number of cases. However, under the council tax, inclusive rents will, I suggest, be the exception rather than the rule.
The issue has attracted a great deal of attention and a full debate on two occasions. However, I can see no convincing reason why council tax contributions should be separated from rent. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was very interested in the noble Earl's reply. I was particularly interested in his statement that the landlord may load the rent in any way he chooses. I believe that those were the noble Earl's words. Of course it is all too
1070
possible for landlords to do that. They still have that power even in the weakened economic circumstances in which landlords find themselves at present.
There are those who believe that rent control and public intervention in the housing market are an economic disaster responsible for many of the difficulties of recent years. There are those in the Conservative Party who take that view. I see the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, nodding approval. That has never been the position of the Government until now. The Government's approach to the liberalisation of the housing market has been notably cautious in the legislation with which I have been involved in this House in recent years. The Government have shrunk from the implication of what the noble Earl has just said. Certainly, the imposition of a new taxation system which provides an opportunity for landlords to change rents is a matter to which the Government should not be indifferent.
I believe—perhaps the noble Earl does not agree—that the size of the problem is not as great as it was when the poll tax was introduced. With large numbers of inclusive rents, the fact that landlords retained hundreds of millions of pounds when they no longer had to pay the rates does not mean that the problem is on that scale now. The boot is now on the other foot. Landlords are taking on additional obligations. Quite properly, they have to make an additional charge to their tenants to cover those additional obligations. However, anyone who considers the history of the way in which landlords have exploited opportunities—I shall not refer back to Rachman or those issues—must agree that any opportunity which can be taken by landlords to make an extra few pennies or an extra few pounds out of tenants will be taken.
We have remnants of rent control in this country. We have assured and secure tenancies of various kinds. We have rent tribunals. We have assessments of rent. There are a number of ways in which the housing market is controlled by government actions. It seems a modest change to suggest that, because of government action, because of the introduction of the council tax and the provisions in the Bill that houses in multiple occupation may be assessed collectively rather than individually, the tenants of those houses should be protected against exploitation.
I am sorry that the Government take the view that they do. I should have thought that the amendment in no way damaged the thrust of the Bill. I would have hoped that they would be more sympathetic towards it. However, at this time of night I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) Subsections (3) and (4) of this section shall not apply to any chargeable dwelling owned by a local authority or a registered housing association.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to a specific case of joint and several liability. The issue has been the subject of considerable debate in your Lordships' House both in Committee and

1071
earlier today. We are concerned with the specific case of a chargeable dwelling owned by a local authority or a registered housing association. We wish to ensure that local councils and housing associations are not made responsible for the collection of the council tax from such dwellings as hostels. We refer to a different kind of landlord. One might call him a social landlord.
Under the poll tax the local authority may designate a dwelling with a high turnover of residents to be subject to the collective community charge. I shall not weary your Lordships with the collective community charge that we debated at such length four years ago. Where the collective community charge applies, the landlord is responsible on a daily basis for collecting the community charge from the residents but it is the landlord who has to pay. Because there is a considerable administrative and financial burden, there is a right of appeal against designation for the collective community charge.
A number of housing associations run hostels and similar dwellings. They were very upset about the provision when it was introduced in the poll tax. They have been fairly successful in arguing against designation for the collective community charge. They are now worried that Clause 8 of the Bill as drafted will enable the Secretary of State to impose a similar regime on all hostels, not just short-stay hostels. It was a matter that we discussed on the poll tax Bill. But this time there would be no right of appeal. The housing associations understand that as causing the same burdens for them as those which could have existed under the collective community charge procedures. When local authorities run hostels they will be in the same position.
At the very least the provisions which existed under the poll tax legislation for appeal should apply in this case. There should be some relief for the social landlords, the local authorities and the housing associations, against what might be in certain circumstances an intolerable imposition. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him one question. Will caretakers in charge of such residences come under the provision?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the council tax is a property tax; it is a tax on the property and not on the individual. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to enlighten the noble Earl on that point.
9 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, Clause 8 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations placing liability for the council tax on the owner of a dwelling, or other prescribed person, rather than the residents in certain cases. Amendment No. 16 seeks to prevent liability being placed on local authorities or registered housing associations.
We intend to transfer liability for types of dwelling where it would be difficult to bill the residents directly. Those are principally houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and hostels. Some of those may be owned by local authorities or housing associations. We
1072
recognise that local authorities would of course be able to bill their residents directly as they would already be billing them for rent. However, as people living in dwellings such as HMOs, for example, are often very mobile local authorities would frequently have to reassess liability and reissue demand notices. It would be easier administratively for there to be one bill directed at the owner.
Local authorities and housing associations will not lose out. They will be able to seek contributions towards the council tax bill for any dwelling from the residents of that dwelling, as with other overheads such as insurance or maintenance costs.
The effect of the amendment would be to make life more difficult for local authorities. I believe that our proposals make administrative sense. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister's answer sounded like mere assertion rather than a reasoned argument. Perhaps understandably the noble Earl is using the short version of his brief, but I do not believe that he has answered the points that were raised by the amendment. I shall have to think about his answer. It is not an amendment upon which I wish to seek the opinion of the House, but I am bound to say that I was not happy about the answer that he gave. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Liability of spouses]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 35, at end insert:
("(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any person on any day who is a person to be disregarded for the purpose of discounts under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1.").
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any person in respect of any day when he had an income which would not have exceeded his applicable amount as a single person or as applicable as a single parent for the purposes of entitlement to income support calculated according to Part 1 of the Social Security Act 1986 if he made a claim for that benefit on any day during the period when liability arose.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 38. We return to the issue of joint and several liability and are dealing with the situation of partners in receipt of low incomes. There are several situations in which a partner may be pursued for an unpaid council tax bill in the name of his spouse or co-habitee. That is most likely to occur when one partner remains in the marital home while the other partner is unobtainable. That may follow, for example, the breakdown of a relationship, the death of a partner, a severe stroke or the development of a condition such as Alzheimer's disease. Clearly there are circumstances in which it is appropriate for a spouse to meet outstanding council tax payments. However, the amendment seeks to exempt local authorities from the requirement to

1073
pursue spouses and co-habitees for the council tax which relates to any period when they had an income at or below the income support level and would therefore have qualified for a 100 per cent. rebate in their own right if they had not been living with a partner.
It deals with the situation in which people find themselves with a bill which, had they been eligible for rebate, would have been met because of their low income. However, in a situation in which the liable person claimed a rebate under joint and several liability he or she is not now able to claim that rebate. As a result he or she is being pursued for debts incurred in a situation in which the spouse had no such income.
In Committee I accepted the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that he would not wish to build into legislation a perverse incentive for a husband to disappear in order to avoid paying debts knowing that the wife could automatically pick up backdated rebates. However, there are two situations which were not then fully explored and on which I hope the Minister will give us some help. First, perhaps the husband has moved away from the area to another local authority and is untraceable. Clearly it is not a matter of convenience and in that situation the local authority is more than likely to turn to the bailiff procedure in order to extract payment. Secondly, perhaps the husband has died leaving debts. The spouse or co-habitee will also have problems of bereavement. It is clear that in both circumstances we are not talking about a perverse incentive but a matter of compassion. We are saying that a spouse in that situation, usually the wife, who had no income or was below income support levels at the time the debt was incurred, should automatically be entitled to the backdated rebate as though she had that income. I hope that in the spirit in which the amendment is moved the Minister will find ways of accepting it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I remember well the amendment moved by the noble Baroness in Committee. She agreed that it would be wrong to create a perverse incentive. I shall put the matter purely in terms of husband and wife, the husband doing what is called "a runner" leaving debts. The noble Baroness accepted that it would be wrong to provide an incentive for the couple to split up leaving the debts with the wife when before the split they were well above benefit level. The provision suggested would be a strange new addition to the benefit system. The noble Baroness is suggesting that one could look at the wife's state as though she had been single when she had been one of a couple and therefore allow the backdating of benefit.
We do not believe that that would be the right way forward. However, we accept, as the noble Baroness said, that there may be occasions on which the husband is untraceable. Therefore, there may be a danger that the council will pursue a wife who, although she would have entitlement to benefit from
1074
the moment he left—and we are at one about the fact that the benefit arrangements will pick her up at that moment—will still be liable for previous debts.
As I have said before, in deciding which partner the authority must proceed against, it must look at who has the greater resources. Therefore, the authority will look at the husband, but as the noble Baroness said, there may be occasions when the husband is untraceable or he has just disappeared. As I mentioned earlier, there is a department practice note on joint and several liability as regards the community charge. That advised local authorities to take particular care when deciding whether to enforce liability in such circumstances. It advised that in cases where the partner has left—for example, the husband who has done a runner and cannot be traced—the authority will need to consider whether to enforce the joint and several liability of the remaining spouse taking account of, for example, policy on write-offs.
In Committee I dealt in some detail with the policy which local authorities have in pursuing debts. In their standing orders they can have a rule that debts below a certain amount need not be pursued but if they are above a certain amount, the authority must go through its finance and general purposes committee. As I understand it, if a larger debt is written off, that must be brought to the attention of the district auditor.
It would be wrong to allow someone benefit in respect of a period when they were still living with the partner whose income was sufficient to take them out of benefit. That could send strange messages about our attitude to marriage. Again, there would he a problem as regards deciding how far benefit entitlement should be back-dated. If it was back-dated long enough to allow the entire debt to be discharged, that would give a blank cheque to people who wished to walk away from their partners.
Having said that, we recognise that authorities must treat those cases extremely carefully. In certain cases it must be appropriate for them to write-off the debt of the deserted spouse. A sensitive approach is required. However, we believe that it is important that the blank cheque proposed in this amendment should not be given. That is not an appropriate way forward. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that that was a helpful response. Does that mean that he would expect his department to issue a practice note, as was the case as regards the community charge, dealing with joint and several liability? If that is done, guidance will be given to local authorities as to how to respond in this situation. I should be content if that is to be done. We both seek to avoid a situation in which a wife continues to have joint and several liability for debts which she had no income to meet at the time when they were incurred.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that I made it clear in Committee that the department will issue guidance on the matter. We believe that a sensitive approach is required but we still believe that liability

1075
should remain with the wife. It may be that the wife has adequate resources to meet the debt for which she is jointly and severally liable. It may be unfair in a situation in which the husband has more resources with which to meet the debt but has disappeared. However, as I said earlier, one cannot legislate for every eventuality. Certainly in a case where a wife has extremely limited resources, it must be a matter for sensitive treatment by the local authority. As I have said, we shall issue guidance on that matter as we did as regards the community charge.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The guidance as regards the community charge—practice note No. 16—made it clear that local authorities should pursue the person who was liable for the debt and that local authorities would not normally be expected to pursue the wife where she did not have the resources to meet the debt at the time when it was incurred. That is what practice note No. 16 says as regards the community -charge. Therefore, in practice, the substance of the amendment is met.
If the guidance note follows that line, then that is rather stronger than was previously indicated by the Minister and I am content with that. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me on that matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Discounts]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("a discount equal to twice the appropriate percentage of that amount") and insert ("the full rate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 19 seeks to ensure that those owning a second home pay full council tax. It was pointed out to me that the wording may apply only to empty homes and that is certainly not my intention. I propose that full council tax should be payable on all second homes.
It is against all natural justice that those fortunate enough to own two homes should pay at only half rate. To go from a full—double—community charge to a half council tax charge is indefensible. I say that knowing that if the Government accept the amendment I shall be among the losers by the change in the tax. I therefore make the proposal in the spirit for which your Lordships' House is renowned; that is, with fairness as the prime consideration.
We have spoken throughout our discussion on the Bill about the people who are disadvantaged. Anyone with two homes must be advantaged. I do not intend to go into the matter of lost revenue for local councils, although that is a factor. It is relevant in Westminster but I should make clear that that council has not asked me to raise the matter. My interest is in respect of the property owners who have the asset of a second home, and I can see no case for their receiving preferential treatment, as I believe they do under the present proposals.
I understand that Amendment No. 19 is grouped together with Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I do not support his
1076
amendments, which make the tax payable at the discretion of the local authority. That is not the ideal way of being fair. My aim is not to achieve a discretionary arrangement but simply to impose a full council tax rate. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 are grouped with Amendment No. 19 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. I am sorry to hear, as she suggests, that her amendment may be technically defective. If it were effective I should have no difficulty in supporting it. It was out of my natural spirit of moderation and compromise that I tabled amendments which gave some discretion to local authorities not to impose a full council tax if they felt it appropriate under certain circumstances. If Amendment No. 19 achieves the aims of the noble Baroness and does not simply cover empty properties, I hope that she will feel disposed to pursue the matter.
I am again perhaps being a little slow off the mark. We did not fully realise the significance of the issue at Committee stage. However, I am reminded of its importance when I look back at the Second Reading debate, when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was asked why the Government did not apply the principle in regard to the 50 per cent. rebate on second homes in Wales. On the 9th January at col. 1645 he said:
"in Wales there is a different cultural history and attitude to second homes. It is for that reason that it was felt necessary by the Secretary of State for Wales to have a different system. It is one of the charms of the British Parliament that we can have these different ways of doing things for different parts of the United Kingdom".
I rather feel that the noble Lord failed to read out the next sentence of his brief, which I am sure would have read, "A rather poor argument, but good enough for your Lordships". That is something we have heard on occasion from the Government Front Bench.
It is clearly a nonsense that we should have a provision that there can be a full charge in Wales and yet in England and Scotland there is not that provision. If that is the wish of the House I gladly support the noble Baroness's amendment of a mandatory 100 per cent. council tax being imposed. However, if the amendment is defective in any way perhaps she will think again and recognise that although my amendments allow discretion, in practice, as with the poll tax, they would result in the maximum amount of 100 per cent. being charged by virtually every council in the country. The noble Baroness may find that there is a distinction without a real difference.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, as it was my intervention which brought forth the response, I must say in defence of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, concluded with the interjection, "Good effort, my Lords!" That is hardly what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, just said.
However, I totally support the amendments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I do not wish to impose a charge on people whose homes are empty because for some reason or another they cannot sell them—there must be many people in that position at

1077
the moment—or on people who are abroad on business and may be abroad for more than six months but for one reason or another do not wish to let the property because they are not entirely sure when they will return. That is a situation which befell my own son, who fell foul of the poll tax and faced an enormous bill. I felt that was grossly unfair.
However, it is daft to say that because Wales seems to have a rather more bloody-minded attitude to second homes than England and Scotland, it should have this discretion of either charging the full amount or possibly giving a 25 per cent. discount, whereas in England and Scotland the discount is up to 50 per cent. People feel just as strongly about second homes in Cornwall or in the Lake District, as I am sure they do in Wales. But apparently setting fire to them seems to have stirred the Government into action; they are doing something different.
I was staggered when listening this morning between 9 and 10 a.m. to a discussion on Radio 4 on the curriculum for music. It appears that the proposals of the three wise men have been accepted in Wales and in Scotland but have not been accepted in England and are causing all sorts of problems. We see letters to the press from leading musicians of the country.
We also have a different situation with local government reform. Whereas in England and Scotland we are to have a commission which will look into the matter and report, which must be right, in Wales they are not. Why do we have these differences? That seems to be a great argument for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Perhaps that is the right thing to do. If they had that jurisdiction to act for themselves I could not complain in one iota. But that is not the case. The Bill applies to the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore I do not believe that it can possibly be right separately to legislate in Clause 12 so that people with second homes in Wales will not get quite such a big discount or even no discount at all; whereas people with second homes in England or Scotland may get up to a 50 per cent. discount, or possibly more, because it is left to an affirmative order from the Secretary of State.
Therefore, I totally support these amendments. If they are defective, then the Government ought to do something about it. I hope very much that we shall get a reply which concedes that this matter should be looked at again, even though time is short. It would be wrong to put this on the statute book in its present form.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to say a few words from the opposite way round. I apologise for repeating myself because I raised this matter at Committee. I was thinking particularly of Scotland and the case of Ravenscraig where a great many people have lost their jobs. I quoted the example of a man who had an old grandmother living with his wife and two children at home. He went off to look for another job in Birmingham. I said then that when he got his new job he would be on probation for at least a year.
Under the conditions of Clause 11(2) (a) he could argue that he was only a temporary resident in his new
1078
home in Birmingham and be eligible for the 50 per cent. discount. I felt that that was very encouraging. I am sorry if this amendment is to be accepted because that man will miss out. He will have to pay three-quarters and not just half the tax. I felt that people looking for another job deserved some help.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, nobody disputes the sincerity of his anxiety. But the example he gives is not that of a second home. He is talking about someone who leaves behind a family in a home near Ravenscraig. Under the terms of the Bill, the definition of a second home is a home with no resident.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to ensure that the owners of permanent second homes—not the sort of people to whom the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred—pay their council tax in full or if not in full, at least at a rate considerably greater than the 50 per cent. proposed by the Government.
Like the noble Baroness—and like, I suspect, a number of your Lordships—I own two homes. Although nobody in this world is disposed to look a gift horse in the mouth, in all honesty I do not see that I, or we, deserve this gift from the Government, especially bearing in mind that under the old rating system owners of second homes paid rates in full. Under the poll tax, owners of second homes paid the poll tax in full. If they were among the relatively few owners of second homes who were single, they may have paid double the poll tax on their second home.
Why should the unfortunate permanent inhabitants of Cornwall, many of whom are fishing folk or people who are not particularly well off, have to pay higher tax because the wealthy Londoners who own homes which they inhabit for weekends or for holidays are paying at only 50 per cent.? It is not justice.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government propose that there should normally be a 50 per cent. discount from the council tax bill for any home which is no one's sole or main residence. That follows from the fundamental nature of the council tax, which takes account both of property and of persons. In general, there will be no discount for homes with two residents; a 25 per cent. discount for homes with one resident; and a 50 per cent. discount for homes which are no one's residence. That is a logical progression. This amendment would remove the discount for properties with no residents, and make them subject to a full bill. That flies in the face of the logical system I have described.
I am in something of a difficulty because, although we have amendments on the Marshalled List, I know that my noble friend has spoken somewhat obliquely to this amendment and has spoken to an amendment that does not appear on the Marshalled List. To that extent, Amendment No. 19 is defective.
The amendment would mean that we impose more tax on an empty dwelling than on one with just one resident. That cannot be right. If enacted, the

1079
amendment would have two more effects, which I do not imagine were intended by my noble friend. The first would be to levy a full charge on a dwelling where all the residents fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount. So a house occupied by two youth training trainees, or by a number of members of a religious community, would give rise to a full bill instead of the 50 per cent. bill proposed by the Government.
The second effect of the amendment would be to introduce incentives for couples with two homes to try to manipulate the system to their own advantage. Under the Government's proposals a couple with a country cottage who were both mainly resident in their town flat would pay a full 100 per cent. bill on the flat and a 50 per cent. bill on the cottage. If one of them were resident in each place, they would pay a 75 per cent. bill on each; and if they were both resident in the country they would pay 100 per cent. there but only 50 per cent. on their town address. Noble Lords will note that, wherever they are resident, these bills add up to 150 per cent. of a full council tax. The exact amounts will of course depend on the banding of the properties and the local authority's spending.
Under my noble friend's amendment, the couple would still only pay 150 per cent. if one of them was deemed to be mainly resident at each address. But if they were both deemed to be resident in one dwelling, their total bill would rise to 200 per cent. I would expect that to encourage some couples to try to arrange their affairs so that it appeared that one of them was mainly resident in each dwelling. I do not think that we should devise a system which contains incentives to abuse of this kind.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, an expression of guilt about making, or not making, a full contribution to the council tax on a second home. We recognise that unoccupied properties impose costs on local authorities, because they increase the need for services such as street lighting, refuse disposal, policing, planning and highways. It is therefore right that their owners should contribute to local taxes. But occupied properties impose greater demands on services. If a dwelling is no one's sole or main residence it is unlikely that the owner will make much use of local education or social services. These services together represent a substantial proportion of local authority spending. A 50 per cent. payment will fully reflect the acknowledged costs which noble Lords' second homes are likely to impose upon the community. Noble Lords therefore have no need to feel guilty.
Turning to the Welsh amendments, in England and Scotland these arguments of fairness must prevail, and we must restrict the council tax for empty properties to 50 per cent. of the full bill. However, in some parts of Wales there are very special circumstances, none of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, which have led us to make different provisions. These are contained in Clause 12 of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 seek to extend the special Welsh provisions to England and Scotland. The Government are convinced that that would not be appropriate.
1080
First, I must tell the noble Lord that Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are defective because Part I of the Bill, which contains Clause 12, relates to England and Wales only. But aside from that technical point, we disagree with the principle of the amendments. Many parts of Wales, particularly rural areas, have large numbers of second or holiday homes. Before noble Lords rise to say that the same is true of parts of England, perhaps I may give a few examples.
According to the Welsh intercensal survey of 1986, the proportion of the housing stock in the districts of Dwyfor and Meirionnydd in Gwynedd which consisted of properties known, or thought to be, second or holiday homes was 17.5 per cent. and 16.8 per cent. respectively. That is a very large percentage in anyone's book. A number of other districts had a high incidence of second homes: Aherconwy, 7.2 per cent.; South Pembrokeshire, 7.1 per cent.; Anglesey, 5.3 per cent.; and Ceredigion, 5 per cent. A total of nine districts out of the 37 in Wales had an incidence of second homes of 4 per cent. or more.
Demand for second homes in Wales means that in some areas house prices are pushed higher, beyond the reach of local people, particularly first-time buyers. That may lead to displacement if local people cannot find alternative accommodation and is probably a factor in outward migration from Wales, the tide of which successive governments have sought to stem. The highest incidence of second homes is often found in the rural areas where Welsh is widely spoken. That can lead to the break-up of local Welsh-speaking communities. In extreme cases, virtual ghost villages can be created, villages where nearly all the houses have been turned into second homes which lie empty for most of the year.
The Government have done much to help local people enter the housing market in rural areas. Housing for Wales—the Welsh equivalent of the Housing Corporation—spends 27 per cent. of its budget, or £32 million, in rural Wales. That includes a village housing initiative to provide continuity of low-cost home ownership. In addition, the Welsh Office has provided over £6.8 million this year for rural housing initiatives.
The Government's proposals for second homes under the council tax in Wales complement those policies and would allow district councils in Wales to continue to have discretion about the level of taxation for second homes, just as they have discretion at the moment in setting multipliers for the standard community charge.
The position is quite different in England. Just one in 15 English districts has more than 4 per cent. of properties which are second homes, compared with 25 per cent. of Welsh districts. There is no comparison between the two. Up to 17 per cent. of properties in some parts of Wales are second homes. By comparison, only one English district outside of London has over 10 per cent. of unoccupied properties.
Second homes in Wales have a particularly pronounced effect on local communities because of the language difference. The areas with most second homes are the predominantly Welsh-speaking ones.

1081
There is, of course, absolutely no parallel to the situation in England. However, it is a matter of degree. There seems to be considerable evidence to show that the situation in Wales is different from that in England.
Nothing noble Lords have said today has shown that the circumstances in England and Scotland are similar to the particular circumstances of Wales. The Government do not accept that the provision in Clause 12 is necessary elsewhere. It is there to meet the particular needs of Wales. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment to a vote; but, if he does so, I ask the House to reject it.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does she agree that unoccupied homes are more likely to be burgled or catch fire than occupied ones? To that extent at least, are not unoccupied homes a greater drain on local government resources than occupied ones?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure to which amendment the noble Lord is speaking. However, I believe that I have already said enough on the matter; indeed, my noble friend Lord Balfour mentioned the injustices of going for a full 100 per cent. flat rate on unoccupied homes. I said that there would be no hardship to the noble Lord or to other noble Lords in the House. But I am suggesting that the proposal would be unfair to some people. Simply because we in this Chamber feel that we can afford to pay more, it would be quite wrong to subject other second home owners to such a provision.
I should remind the noble Lord that the amendment to which my noble friend would have preferred to speak related to all second homes. However, we are at present speaking to an amendment which deals with unoccupied homes. In Wales, I have spelt out that the degree and the quantity of unoccupied homes—in other words, almost genuinely holiday homes—is much greater. Therefore, there is flexibility for the Secretary of State for Wales to exercise that a class of home shall be treated in a slightly different way.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, there seems to have been a total change of attitude in the department. I do not think that the Minister was in the department when the poll tax legislation went through, but at that time a person was charged two-and-a-half times for a second home. That was the property element. What has suddenly come across the department for it to change its attitude and to cut the charge right back to half?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there was a great deal of unfairness in that the discretion that was given to local authorities to implement the community charge was invariably exercised to the full. The charge was not two-and-a-half times the average, but twice. It was 200 per cent., rather than 250 per cent. We believe that such discretion would again be exercised in a blanket way across all local authorities and that there is
1082
therefore a case for charging second homes in this country at 50 per cent. and for allowing flexibility because of the nature of the difference of unoccupied homes in Wales.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I rise yet again before the Minister attempts for the third time to sit down. I seek simply to correct a mis-statement of my own. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I suggested that his example was not apposite to the amendment. On reflection, I accept that the person about whom he was talking, who came from Ravenscraig and was seeking a job in Birmingham, would pay the council tax at his Birmingham address as a second home although his sole or main residence would still be in Scotland. To that extent, the noble Earl is quite correct—and I was wrong. Perhaps, however, that is an argument for my more flexible approach, rather than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank those who have supported the spirit of my amendment and am only sorry that its technical wording is not correct. I do not accept the argument of my noble friend the Minister when she said that we should not give people an incentive to abuse the system. That is a small part of it. Our whole taxation system is designed in that way. We continually give people incentives to work out tax avoidance schemes. To me, that is a minor matter.
The major matter is that although it has been said that the provisions might be hard on people with second homes, the legislation is much less fair to those without second homes. My noble friend the Minister made an interesting point and I can see the sense of having a one-person element attached to the second home provisions because that would mean that there would never be any argument about how many persons were in or using the property. I can see that there is an argument for a 75 per cent. rate rather than for the full rate that I propose.
Second homes undoubtedly push prices higher in some areas and disadvantage local people. My noble friend the Minister talked about villages in Wales. I could name some villages in England that are occupied almost only at the weekend and at no other time. That is wrong. Surely people who undertake professional holiday lettings could apply to have the business rate applied to their property if they did not want to pay the full council tax. They would be able to choose. There must be a way of dealing with cases such as those that were raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour. Some type of rebate should be available for such hardship cases.
I hope that the Government will look again at this matter and note that all sides of the House have taken the view that this is a fair amendment, and a fair attitude to adopt. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will ensure that her department looks again at this matter because the present proposals are not just. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 26, at end insert:
("( ) On any day when a person who is liable under section 6 is in receipt of council tax benefit in respect of 100 per cent. of the council tax bill, the billing authority may determine that the council tax payable shall be subject to no discount.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a modest and simple amendment, and is basically an administrative tidying-up of the clause. We said much in Committee about the complexity of inter-relating rebates and discounts. The amendment seeks to ensure that where somebody is eligible for a 100 per cent. rebate and for a discount, at that person's request, or with his or her consent, he or she should be able to move straight to the 100 per cent. rebate instead of receiving the discount first and the rebate later. In other words, the amendment seeks to reduce two calculations to one.
It is administratively simple, but we are suggesting the word "may" rather than "must" because that makes better sense for somebody whose income is constant and does not fluctuate—in other words, where somebody would be in and out of the 100 per cent. rebate. That might apply, for example, to single-person families, the long-term sick and disabled or the elderly pensioner. It is someone who may be in and out of work and who has a fluctuating income. For such a person it might be simpler to go for the 25 per cent. discount and adjust rebates according to income. Where the position is straightforward a local authority should not be required to make two sets of calculations which have the same financial result when one would do.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is an interesting little amendment which I believe the noble Baroness recognises creates some anomalies and has some perverse effects. However, in the majority of cases the amendment would have no effect on the amount of tax payable by an individual. Its effect would be to transfer the cost of the discounts involved to the Exchequer through the subsidies payable in respect of council tax benefits. The noble Baroness recognises that fact. She has not made out a good case, and the amendment is not acceptable. Why should local authorities be able to grant themselves additional, automatic Exchequer support? Is that a commitment that the noble Baroness is making on behalf of the Labour Party? Has it been approved by the shadow Chancellor and should it be added to the £37 billion?
Under our proposal, local authorities will be fully compensated through the RSG system for the cost of granting rebates within the fixed total of Exchequer finance for local authorities. The cost of each additional discount will therefore be borne by local authorities as a whole rather than by individual councils. That is fair. It would be wrong to go further and to pin the additional cost on to the Exchequer.
I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that it would be wrong to accept an amendment which placed a new and uncosted burden upon the Treasury. I have explained why I cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that she will withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was confused by the Minister's reply, because he moved from rebates to discounts and benefits with free abandon. At one point he referred to rebates when I believe he meant discounts which normally would have been taken to have meant benefit. I shall respond to what I believe the Minister meant to say and not to what he said. He will no doubt correct me if I have misunderstood him. It is a mistake into which one can easily slip, because I agree that to some extent the words have changed their meaning.
The basic point that the Minister was making is one I understand: local authorities receive 95 per cent. reimbursement for their benefit payments but receive compensation for discounts through the RSG only. The Minister was therefore suggesting that it was unreasonable to add to direct reimbursement through the Exchequer for benefit as opposed to going through the RSG for additional discount. He is right. We were assured, nonetheless, by Ministers earlier and by Ministers in another place that local authorities would be compensated properly for the number of discounts that they offered. The Minister cannot have it both ways. If that is correct, the amendment would be financially neutral.
If local authorities are to be compensated for their discounts and rebates, they are merely compensated in two different ways. By accepting my amendment, administrative complexity would be reduced. I should have thought that the Minister would support that. The only reason he can have for rejecting it is that local authorities will not be compensated properly for the number of discounts they will have, as compared to the number of rebates involved. That suggests, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said on earlier amendments, that local authorities and their local taxpayers will have to pay, through higher bills, for the discounts given to single occupants. If the Exchequer is not going to pay, they will have to. Which is it? By going for single person occupancy discounts, will everyone have to pay more, or will they be paid for by the Exchequer? In that case the Minister just might as well accept the amendment, because there is little difference between that and reimbursing benefit. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what will happen.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not wish to use up noble Lords' patience. I hope that there is no confusion here. I said that the cost of each additional discount would therefore be borne by local authorities as a whole rather than by individual councils. I am not sure that I can help the noble Baroness much further. Where there is an additional cost per discount, it will be borne by local authorities as a whole. Local authorities as a whole will pay for discounts, whether or not the recipients get the benefit, but the individual local authority will not have to pay. There is a collective rather than an individual responsibility per local authority.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister's position was clarified in the course of his comments. I sympathise. However, he will accept with this side of the Chamber the fact that discounts will cost someone £780 million. Is he saying that with the finite revenue support grant, any local authority area which has a larger than average number of discounts will be reimbursed and that as a result other authorities will receive a smaller than average revenue support grant by virtue of the occupancy discount? In that case, if the taxpayers in the local authority which is affected will not pay for it, other local taxpayers will. The Minister cannot have it both ways.
It is interesting that with what I thought was a modest, little, inoffensive administrative tidying up, we have blown a large hole in the Government's philosophy as to who pays for what. Throughout the earlier debates, Ministers said that discounts would be compensated for through the revenue support grant. They were therefore at pains to establish that some council tax payers would not pay more because other people were paying less. Now the Minister has conceded precisely that.
I hope that I have made my point. I suspect that because of this difficulty we may need to come back to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Discounts: special provision for Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Reduced amounts]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25 I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 26. We had what I suppose I might describe as a more rigorous version of this amendment at Committee stage. The significant amendment is Amendment No. 26. In Amendment No. 25 we are talking about transitional relief. The clause is entitled, "Reduced amounts". It is really transitional relief and an attempt to spare Tory voters from the early effects of a slightly less unjust system of local government finance than the poll tax. That is the dictionary definition of transitional relief.
Amendment No. 26 provides that:
"The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement",
about what he intends to do on transitional relief. In doing that,
"he shall consider whether such rule should have the effect of setting an amount for the purposes of subsection (2) (a) above which is calculated from the liability of domestic rates which a person would have borne in the same property during the last financial year in which a liability was applicable".
I shall give an abbreviated version of the more complex argument which was necessary at Committee stage. Basically, we had a system which, while far from perfect, worked for local government finance. It was called the rates. We then moved to a system called the poll tax which was not only wildly unjust but did not work at all. It was introduced because the
1086
Government felt that Conservative supporters would benefit from a flat rate tax in which all attempts at consideration of ability to pay was completely abandoned. When that was introduced a whole series of provisions were implemented for transitional relief so that the change to a new taxation system should not be too sudden. Indeed it was intended for some time that the change to a poll tax should be carried out over a period of four years and that the rates and the poll tax should co-exist. The Government decided—wrongly from their own point of view—that the benefits to them of moving immediately to an unjust system which benefited Tory voters were great. Little did they realise what damage the poll tax would do to the Government from an electoral point of view as well as in terms of a common reputation for good administration.
Transitional relief between the rates and the poll tax could be considered a good thing on the whole in that it tempered the move towards a more unjust system. What we now have is a move from the most unjust system to the next most unjust system, that is the council tax. Transitional relief in this case is designed purely to protect Conservative voters and purely to protect better off people. It is also designed to ensure that, although the poll tax has in theory been abandoned, its effects will linger on after its death. That is why we have transitional relief which is left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Previous attempts at transitional relief, however clumsy they may have been and however often they may have had to be changed, were at least carried out in public. Secretaries of State had to make statements to Parliament when they made changes either to the period over which transitional relief was implemented or to the amount of money concerned or when they made changes to who should pay, that is to say whether the relief should be paid out of an equalisation fund or should come from the Treasury. All of those were considered to be matters of considerable public concern and Secretaries of State made announcements to Parliament accordingly.
Under the Bill as drafted, transitional relief is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State. It is a provision he can extend as long as he likes. He may spend as much Treasury money as he likes and Parliament has little say in what he decides to do. In Committee we pointed out that that position was unsatisfactory. Apart from its obvious failings there was no attempt whatever to consider the longer term effect of the changes. After all, we have a tax system for local government which is being changed dramatically not once but twice within the course of one Parliament. We have a local government finance system where the effects of the rates still apply. The effect of rating revaluations is still coming through and affecting the council tax to be charged. That will certainly be the case in inner London next year. Arrears from the rating system are still outstanding.
Under the circumstances, to have such a modest amendment as to suggest that the Secretary of State should consider whether the rule he applies will have the effect of setting an amount which is calculated from the liability of domestic rates is not a great

1087
change. It seeks to insert a little realism in the headlong flight towards and from disaster which has been the history of the Government in local government finance in the course of this Parliament. I hope that in the light of those temperate words the Minister will feel inclined to accept this modest little amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the prime purpose of these amendments is to build an additional and undesirable feature into the transitional arrangements which we propose for the council tax. Our proposals for limiting excessive increases in local taxation between the community charge and the council tax are straightforward. In essence we propose to take a snapshot of community charge liability at the end of March 1993 and compare it to a snapshot of council tax liability at the start of April 1993. Increases in liability will be limited to a fixed amount, though the council tax payer would have to meet the cost of any increase which was not due to the change in tax systems but was the result of additional local spending.
The aim of the amendments appears to be to prevent the council tax transition scheme from producing bills lower than those under the old domestic rating system. I wonder how many people will thank the noble Lord for taking them back to the bad old days of the rates. The underlying assumption of the amendment seems to be that in some way that produces a fairer transition by punishing those who gained from the introduction of the community charge. That is an assumption I find hard to accept. Many single people gained from the replacement of the rates by the community charge. A single person this year could expect to pay an average of about £250 in community charge compared with a rates bill for the property of perhaps £500 or £600. It would be quite wrong to disqualify that person from any significant help in the transition to the council tax simply because of the rates that used to be paid—perhaps by another person altogether—on that property.
If anything the amendments appear to be designed to deny help to those who need it most. By April 1993 the community charge will have been in place for three years. Household budgets will have been tied to the community charge for three years. It is against that background, not the rates, that we should provide transitional help. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister can stand up here and say that a very large number of people have benefited from the introduction of the poll tax but she would find great difficulty in standing up on any public platform around the country and making that claim. I am bound to say that statistically she must be correct. Some people benefited from the poll tax and some people were worse off. The Minister failed to say that, with obvious exceptions, the bulk of the effect of the poll tax was to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That has been shown over and over again. It has been shown by the CIPFA analysis, which proved it by
1088
looking at the incidence of poll tax liability on the different deciles of household income. I shall not repeat in detail the figures which I gave in Committee, but noble Lords who were present will recall that it was found that 80 per cent. of those in the top decile of household income benefited from the introduction of the poll tax as compared with the rates whereas about 70 per cent. of those in the bottom decile were worse off as a result.
At that time I pointed out that transitional relief between the rates and the poll tax was not particularly effective and that transitional relief now between the poll tax and the council tax is not necessary because the amounts of money involved in most cases are not very great. This is a pay out. It is what the Americans call payola. It is an attempt to make sure that the hard road back to a just local government finance system, on which only the first faltering step is made in this Bill, will have no noticeable effect on Conservative voters until after the election is over. The intent is that they should not notice what is happening. I can assure the Minister and the Government that notice is being taken and that it will be a major topic of political concern in the next election. It is not necessary, therefore, for me to pursue the matter to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 9, line 2, after ("dwelling") insert ("including where a garage, whether or not it forms part of a larger property which is itself a dwelling, is needed for use by a disabled person.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when the Minister was kind enough, very courteously and helpfully, to see a group of us, we raised with him the issue of garages. I hope that he may be able to indicate to us whether he feels able to move towards the arguments which we put to him.
This is a probing amendment. Clearly we shall not press it. The intention is to discover whether a dwelling will be eligible to move down one band because it contains a garage needed by a disabled person. That may be not only a person who is physically disabled and who, because of the problems of manipulating or storing a wheelchair, may need not just a single garage but a double garage; it could be a disabled person who is severely mentally impaired, who may be liable to bizarre behaviour and who is able to travel only by private car. For example, as a result of earlier discussions 18 months or so ago, they may well be eligible for the highest rate mobility element. If so, it is only logical to assume that a garage is as essential for them as is a ground floor bathroom for others.
RADAR sent a letter dated 26th November to Mr. Portillo, the Minister in another place, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at the Committee stage. RADAR thanked Mr. Portillo for the banding arrangements and drew his attention to the problem of garages. It said that a garage should be regarded:
"as an extra room if used by a severely disabled person".
We sought to persuade the Minister of that at an earlier meeting. I wonder whether he could indicate to us that on the strength of the arguments we put to him he has in any way been persuaded. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I support this amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who apologises to the House for not being present. She had to go to an important meeting at half-past eight. I hope I am right in saying that there is already a concession to such people, who have been moved down a band. That is obviously very welcome. This amendment seeks to ensure that they will not be pushed back up a band if they happen to have a double garage or something of that kind, which is obviously extremely necessary and which could add value to the property. One could visualise a number of houses of a similar type, some of which have garages and some of which do not. One of the properties with a garage might be necessary for someone very disabled who needs a car to enable him to get about.
The amendment seeks an absolute assurance that such a garage would not affect the reduction of one band. I am sure that we should be very happy if the Minister could give us that assurance.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this point was discussed at the meeting we held when she was so securely chaperoned. It is not necessary for me again to go through the scheme under Clause 13 and the reductions that it will give to people who need wheelchairs and so on. As the noble Baroness said on the occasion that we discussed the scheme under the regulations which will be introduced under Clause 13, we considered the features that should trigger a reduction and the case for including a garage.
I am afraid that I cannot move on this occasion in the way that the noble Baroness would like me to do. However, let me explain the thinking behind the use of garages by those who are severely mentally impaired, which is the point that she and her advisers raised at that meeting. The fact of the matter is that it is very unlikely with a banded system that a garage would result in a higher band and thus a higher bill. I shall certainly consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, as to whether there might be occasions when a particularly large garage is necessary. However, I cannot imagine a case which could raise the banding. I hope that I shall be able to write to the noble Lord and give him the assurance that there would not be cases in which people were pushed up into a higher band as a result of a garage which it could be argued was necessary.
The reduction scheme takes into account features which are required for a disabled person and which could affect the banding of a dwelling. As I said, we believe that a garage is unlikely to affect the banding in that way. We also have to bear in mind that, even in these days, by no means all dwellings have a garage. It would not be fair if one person were allowed a reduction because he had a garage but another equally disabled person could not benefit from a reduction
1090
simply because he did not have a garage and parked his car in the street. Clearly many disabled people will require a car as essential to their mobility. But I question whether a garage to house that vehicle is necessarily essential. The case was put by the noble Baroness that a disabled person needs a garage because of difficulty experienced in getting into and out of a car and the need to do it sometimes under shelter.
Certainly for wheelchair users we accept that that will often be the case. However, such people are almost certainly likely to be in receipt of the reduction under the scheme as it stands. I certainly remain to be convinced that the same applies to people who have difficulty in walking but who are not wheelchair users. They may be severely mentally impaired. In fact, one could argue that the garage would have to be extremely well proportioned to make it easier for such people to get into the car inside the garage rather than outside, given the confined space of most garages.
I recognise that the 1978 Act allowed a reduction in rates where a garage was provided. However, one of the reasons for that, as the noble Baroness knows, was historical. At one time having a garage was a condition of obtaining an invalid carriage. It was therefore reasonable to assume that those who required an invalid carriage also required a garage, but that is no longer the case.
I believe that the measures we have taken ensure fair treatment for all those who have to live in a dwelling which is in a higher band than would be the case were it not for their disability. However, we must guard against discrediting the scheme by allowing features which are not necessarily essential to a disabled person. One must also remember the very different nature of the reductions under the old rating system of so much for each day. That system is very different from a banded scheme. Therefore to allow something separate for a garage when it was probably already going to be allowed for as regards other disabilities would not be necessary.
I am sorry that I cannot go as far as the noble Baroness would like me to go. I hope she will understand that we have considered the matter. I do not see the issue as being the problem that she envisages. If the noble Baroness wishes, I am prepared to have a further look at what she stressed at our meeting is a small group consisting of the severely mentally impaired. However, I very much doubt that I shall be able to take the matter further. I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that conciliatory reply. I accept the contours within which he is negotiating. With reference to our meeting, I made the point that it was he who was chaperoned rather than the remainder of us. Nonetheless we welcome his assurance that he will review the position raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to ensure that, where a garage might have pushed a property into a higher band, that will not occur.
I accept that a severely physically disabled person is likely to enjoy a material reduction under one of the

1091
four circumstances outlined earlier today. Apart from the garage there would he other physical adaptations. The amendment continues to be urged strongly by MENCAP on behalf of the severely mentally impaired. For the most part any adaptations to the property relating to a severe mental handicap would be quite modest. It might involve additional sound proofing or some additional secure glazing on windows so that people cannot smash glass. Special taps might be required so that one does not bang one's head against them, and so on.
The severely mentally impaired groups had hoped that the garage, if essential, would count. It could be
1092
associated with receipt of higher mobility allowance or some such allowance at a later stage. Nonetheless those categories of people who would not, by virtue of their disabilities, enjoy a reduction with regard to their property, would hope that the garage, where it is essential, would count.
It is a probing amendment. If the Minister is minded to consult further with associations, in particular MENCAP, associations relating to Alzheimer's disease and so on, perhaps we can achieve some further movement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1093
Clause 14 [Administration, penalties and enforcement]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, line 38, at end insert:
("and billing authorities shall in undertaking preparations in the financial year beginning on 1st April 1992 for the fulfilling of the requirements of that Schedule as to the administration of the council tax have regard to any determination made by the Secretary of State which is applicable to that financial year in accordance with section (Determination of liability for personal community charge contributions) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 108, which provides a new clause after Clause 102. The new clause is a modified version of that which we debated in Committee. It provides first that,
"the Secretary of State shall not later than 13 March 1992 lay before Parliament the results of a determination by him under this section".
In other words, he has until the time that the Bill is likely to become law to make up his mind what he wishes to do.
Subsection (2) provides that in doing so he shall,
"consider and determine whether the appropriate maximum community charge benefit for the purposes of section 131(10) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Community Charge Benefits) should be up to 100 per cent."
One could not get more tentative than an amendment of this kind. It provides that the Secretary of State shall make a determination, but in doing so he shall consider and determine whether the maximum community charge benefit should be up to 100 per cent.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the issue to which the amendment refers. We hardly need a reminder because the issue was a matter of continuing public anxiety before and after our discussions on the subject in Committee. It is common knowledge that whatever one says about the individual figures, the decision of the Government in the name of accountability to ensure that everyone, however poor, should pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax assessment has been the cause of considerable dispute. I am putting the issue as moderately as I can. The evidence suggests that a high proportion of non-payment of the poll tax has related to those who are condemned to pay 20 per cent. and who have only an 80 per cent. rebate on their tax, however poor they may be. In terms of the collectability of the poll tax the 20 per cent. rule appears to have been enormously unsuccessful.
It is also common ground that the cost of collection of that 20 per cent. minimum payment is high in relation to the proceeds. I shall not return to the arguments in detail, and I shall not raise again the constitutional points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—I should not dare to do so. Nevertheless, it is clear that those are anxieties not only for the Exchequer but for the reputation of government and law enforcement. It is right that your Lordships should concern yourselves with such matters, even if the effect of a determination by the Secretary of State might involve increased public expenditure.
It cannot be said that these are matters of great political principle. Both of the principles on which the 20 per cent. minimum collection were based have been abandoned by the Government. Noble Lords will recall that the principles were, first, that the 20 per cent. collection was needed because it was necessary that everybody who used any local authority service should contribute something and therefore feel responsible. That principle will be abandoned as from 1st April 1993 because the council tax does not contain that provision. The second principle was that as regards the poorest people, the 20 per cent. minimum collection was supposed to be covered by increased social benefits. It was argued that if the 20 per cent. minimum rule were abolished, the social security benefits would have to be clawed back. Mercifully and admirably the Government have abandoned that principle, too. They have said that from 1st April 1993 not only will there be 100 per cent. rebates were appropriate but there will be no claw back of the social security benefits which were given to compensate in part for these payments.
I shall not enter into the technical arguments about the adequacy of the social security benefits. I do not believe that would be appropriate in a Bill which is concerned primarily with local government finance. In any case, the issue has in principle been conceded by government. I am now making a purely practical plea. I am saying that this a remnant of a discredited tax is self-evidently very expensive to collect and is the cause of a high proportion of the law breaking which has resulted from the poll tax.
In some local authorities 30 per cent., 40 per cent. or even 50 per cent. of poll tax payers are in default and are breaking the law for the first time in their lives. We now have an opportunity to put right that situation. This amendment would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to say, as I believe the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, "Let us cut our losses. Let us recognise that the principle which has been recognised for 1993 could and should be adopted from 1st April 1992".
By doing that, the Government would not lose face. They would not be adopting any alien principle. They would not be doing anything other than bringing forward a principle which they have accepted for 1993. They would gain great credit for flexibility and realism. They would gain the undying thanks of local authorities, which are pursuing people for relatively small sums, and would gain the undying thanks of those who at present are suffering from being pursued for relatively small amounts of money which are large amounts of money to them. The benefits would be enormous were the Government to accept the amendment. The payment by government would be slight. I hope that the Government will look more sympathetically at the amendment than they have done in the past.
I say that because it is common knowledge that senior Ministers in the Department of the Environment are in favour of this amendment. The dispute has been between the Department of the Environment and the Treasury on this matter. In this case I hope that the Department of the Environment,

1095
which is closer to the issues, may be persuaded to prevail in the debate within government. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord made what he called a practical plea and asked the Government to make further moves which would gain the undying thanks of the noble Lord and others.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that I did not say they would gain my undying thanks. I suggested that they would gain the thanks of local authorities on the one hand and the thanks of those who have to pay the amounts which, although small, are significant to them. The noble Lord will have to do a lot more to gain my undying thanks.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall look elsewhere for the noble Lord's undying thanks. The noble Lord said he would not re-argue the case and proceeded to spend nine minutes telling us why he would not re-argue it. I shall be considerably briefer and I shall not re-argue the case as to whether the 20 per cent. contribution should be removed for the last year of community charge. That was argued and debated at considerable length in Committee and the issue was decided by a good majority.
The noble Lord brings back the amendment in a new guise and I do not object to that. However, the amendment simply seeks to give discretion to the Secretary of State to remove that 20 per cent. contribution.
There are two or three points which I should like to make. First, I stress, as did my noble friend Lady Blatch on a previous occasion, that this would involve considerable cost. Whatever noble Lords opposite may say, the cost would be some £500 million. That is a large figure of which one should take note in these matters.
Secondly, it has been said that the costs of collection of the 20 per cent. are so great that, in fact, the cost is much less than £500 million. At that earlier stage the Audit Commission made the point that the 20 per cent. charge payers were contributing a mere £6 per year net to the public purse compared to the collection costs of some £15 per person. That was based on a thoroughly misleading comparison. It looked merely at amounts charge payers were asked to pay—on average around £71—minus the amount added to their income support. There was no validity in comparing that notional amount with the collection costs. The real comparison is between the actual amount paid and the collection costs. In 1991 they amounted to around £12.50 and not £15. The net revenue was therefore almost £60.
As I said, it would have cost around £440 million to increase the benefit rate to 100 per cent. in 1991–92. No government could lightly add that amount to net public expenditure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean 1991–92? The amendment is about 1992–93.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was giving the figure for 1991–92, which is £440 million. In 1992–93 the figure would be £500 million, as I said earlier.
I should add also that the Audit Commission's comparison assumes that the amounts added to income-related benefits to help people meet that 20 per cent. minimum contribution would be clawed back in 1992–93 if we were to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That would cost the benefit recipients some £580 million. I do not believe that the noble Lord himself would argue that we should claw back that money from the benefit recipients. If the noble Lord is suggesting that that is the Opposition policy, then he must say so. On the basis that it is not their policy we can say that the amendment would cost £500 million.
On those grounds I must resist the amendment. The Secretary of State does not wish to have the discretion to remove the 20 per cent. contribution. The cause was argued well at an earlier stage. The Committee came to a decision and I do not propose to take the matter any further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I recognise that the Committee made a decision on an amendment on this subject, but it was not the same amendment. I did not seek to enter a debate regarding the quality of the advice given by the Audit Commission. I still find it surprising that the Government should be so sceptical of the analysis of the Audit Commission. Even if the Government have good cause to query the figures given, in particular for the cost of the collection of the 20 per cent. minimum poll tax, I am surprised that they should concentrate on those costs rather than on the final conclusion; that is, that the introduction of the council tax would be helped enormously if local authorities no longer had the obligation to collect the 20 per cent. minimum from all poll tax payers. That is the most important element of the Audit Commission's conclusions and that is an issue which the Minister has not addressed.
I did not refer back to claims made by Ministers at Committee stage regarding the £500 million cost. The main reason is that I do not have independent evidence on the subject, although I strongly suspect that the £500 million —which incidentally is only one quarter of the cost of taking 1p off the income tax at the next budget—is a gross figure which takes no account of the cost of collection of the 20 per cent. minimum. Above all, it takes no account of the fact that a large number of defaults on the poll tax concern those who are due to pay that 20 per cent. minimum.
If the figures were to be more realistic and took into account the reality of non-payment and costs of collection, we should arrive at a different figure from the £500 million mentioned by the Minister. However, as in all these matters, we in Opposition do not have access to independent information. We must accept that Ministers are telling the truth when they give us the figures. We can only look at the basis of the figures and try to understand whether or not they are calculated on a credible basis. I do not find the gross figure of £500 million credible. I am not convinced by the arguments which Ministers have put forward.

1097
In a sense, I would be helping the Government if I succeeded in persuading the House that this amendment should be accepted. I would be helping the Government because I would be giving them an opportunity to introduce their own council tax in a more orderly way among local authorities which no longer had the extraordinary burden for one more year, and one more year only, of collecting a tax which is clearly ineffective in fiscal terms. But Ministers do not wish to listen. Under those circumstances, there is nothing that I can do to help them any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Valuation tribunals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 10, line 6, at end insert:
("(3) Such tribunals shall compile, and the Secretary of State shall publish annually in respect of each financial year from 1st April 1993 reports summarizing—

(a) the total number of appeals;

(b) the proportion of appeals allowed; and

(c) estimate of the average delay (if any) in hearing appeals.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 is a version of an amendment which we debated at Committee stage and which referred to information on appeals to valuation tribunals.
Ministers were critical of the wording of Amendment No. 93B at that time because we used the phrase, "the proportion of appeals which were successful". They suggested that perhaps "successful" was not the right word, because an appeal is successful from the point of view of the applicant if it is allowed, and successful from the point of view of the authorities if it is not allowed. I take that point. Therefore, we have amended the amendment in order to provide that the information which the Secretary of State shall publish annually shall be as before, the total number of appeals; but now also, the proportion of appeals allowed; and instead of an estimate of the waiting time before appeals are heard, an estimate of the average delay (if any) in hearing appeals. I hope in that sense the amendment is no longer technically defective, and that Ministers will feel less opposed to it on those grounds.
I find it very difficult to understand on what other grounds Ministers can effectively oppose the amendment. I do not think that I shall be very encouraged if I hear a repetition of the argument about unnecessary and expensive work, either for local authorities, for local authority associations, or for valuation tribunals and anybody else. I cannot believe that the valuation tribunals will not know the number of appeals that they hear and the proportion of the appeals which are allowed. I cannot imagine that it will be enormously difficult for them to record the date on which the appeal is set down and the date on which the appeal is determined, which would meet the requirements of paragraph (c) of the amendment. Therefore I shall not be impressed by arguments that there is any great administrative difficulty in introducing this amendment.
However, the issue behind the amendment is, in our view, as powerful as it was when we first tackled the subject at Committee stage. We do not believe that the valuation system which is proposed will produce a smaller number of appeals simply because it is crude and because the numbers of bands are relatively small and because, above all, individuals do not know the valuation of their own property but only know into which band their property falls.
For all the reasons we have already given, and for the reasons we elaborated earlier this afternoon when we began to look at the preparations which the estate agency profession, or trade, is now making to anticipate a large number of appeals, we think that the number of appeals will be very high, and we think the public should know about it.
The purpose of the amendment is no more than to secure that the tribunal shall compile the necessary information, and that the Secretary of State shall publish it annually in respect of each financial year from April 1993. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I support the amendment although my grounds for doing so are not quite the same as those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I believe that it will persuade valuation officers, who presumably will have to deal with the appeals, to buck up. Perhaps I may point out that when I qualified estate agency was a profession and not a trade. However, I admit that I made money out of estate agency, and therefore I suppose that that criticism falls fairly and squarely upon me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I am a tradesman myself in market research. I meant no disrespect in calling it a trade.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, neither would my father, because his mother was horrified when he announced after the First World War that he was going into the trade. However, that was long ago.
I believe that the amendment will buck up valuation officers to get on with the job and the courts to hear these appeals. There is every ground for putting down the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, admitted when I intervened during the Committee stage, the timetable to deal with appeals against the uniform business rate has been a disgrace. I do not know whether my words were listened to when I made that point earlier but I have to say that the district valuer is now actually dealing with both of my cases. However, it has taken nearly two years, which is far too long.
If I were to put down a Question in a year's time to ask how many appeals had been submitted and how many had been dealt with, the Government would have to provide those statistics. They are provided under the uniform business rate. Therefore, to suggest that this would be an extra piece of bureaucracy does not stand up. I do not believe that there will be quite so many appeals because, having used the profession of valuers to help in deciding the bands into which houses are put for the council tax, those who consult

1099
other valuers about whether or not an assessment is fair will probably get the answer that it is fair. There will not be so much attraction to other members of the profession to encourage people to appeal. However, it is important that we should know. I see it as a gee-up to valuation officers and courts to get on with the job and deal with them and not leave them lying about as they have done with the uniform business rate. That is why I support the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this amendment seeks to add a statutory duty on valuation tribunals to compile statistics and for the Secretary of State to publish these in an annual report. None of the suggested items will, in itself, enhance the rights of any prospective appellant; nor will it have an effect on the number of appeals.
Debating a very similar amendment during Committee my noble friend Lady Blatch mentioned that the department has just undertaken a wide-ranging financial management and policy review of valuation and community charge tribunals. One of the key aims was to involve tribunals more in their own strategic management, and in particular in setting targets for the clearing of appeals.
Statistics concerning the handling of appeals are already presented in a quarterly monitor. Aggregate clearance rates for the service as a whole are included, as appropriate, in my department's annual report. At the moment we do not maintain statistics on waiting times. But we will discuss qualitative measures such as these with the tribunals with the aim of incorporating them into the management strategy for tribunals. Targets should not only encompass broad measures of the number of appeals cleared each year, but also measures of the quality of the service provided. Achievement of such targets would be very much in the spirit of the Citizen's Charter.
We are committed to encouraging tribunals to strive for the highest standards of service, in line with the Citizen's Charter. But this is a management rather than a policy question. Therefore I do not think the face of the legislation is an appropriate place for this type of detailed statistical requirement to be made. Further, I am not sure that the formulation of the statistics proposed in the amendment has been well thought through.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggests that the effect of using broad valuation bands will be to encourage taxpayers to appeal against their banding. I must say that I find his argument unconvincing. Basing bands on capital values, about which most householders have ample evidence, will result in greater understanding of the valuation process than was ever the case under domestic rates. I believe that that will result in a readier acceptance of valuations than would otherwise have been the case. It seems to me that a system of precise capital evaluations would be bound to give rise to more appeals almost by definition than would a banded system. I hope that on reflection, and in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will not feel bound to press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose it is intended that I be encouraged by the noble Earl's remarks about the Citizen's Charter provisions and about targets. Indeed, to that extent, I must say that I am. I think that that was a response which could well have been given with advantage in Committee, instead of some of the slanging which took place across the Chamber at that time. I am glad that the noble Earl has found it possible to give that response. I am satisfied to a considerable extent on the technical question of reporting of quality of service by rating tribunals. I am grateful for that part of the answer.
The noble Earl then went on to say something with which I am much less in agreement. He repeated the argument that, because there is a banding system and because it is based on a single criterion of capital values, that, in turn, will result in a smaller number of appeals. I can only repeat what I said before; namely, that the very fact that it is a banding system which has a noticeable step at each boundary and that no one knows how close he is to the boundary because he does not know the individual value of his property is in our view likely to increase the number of appeals rather than reduce it. That is confirmed by the preparatory activity already taking place in the estate agency trade or profession. We shall not know for some months which one of us is right. It is clear that each of us will hold our views until that time. In the meantime, in the light of the noble Earl's earlier remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Appeals: general]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 10, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of the amendment has not been discussed before. It is not a matter with which I intend to take up much of the time of the House. There is a provision in Clause 16(1) whereby an aggrieved person may appeal to a valuation tribunal on certain grounds which are set out therein. But in subsection (3) the right of appeal is qualified if the grounds,
"fall within such category or categories as may be prescribed".
I simply do not know what that is intended to achieve. I do not know what grounds will disqualify appeals, although I presume that they will be in the regulations. On the face of it, I cannot imagine on what grounds appeals might be disqualified. I suggest that the provision in subsection (3), which we would propose to delete by way of Amendment No. 30, is undesirable. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly looking for some clarification as to what the regulations will say. I believe that that is the point he was trying to make. The regulations will provide for the executor or administrator of a deceased person to become liable to pay any sum outstanding before the death of the liable person. Any outstanding payment can be deducted from the assets or effects of the deceased person.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was moving Amendment No. 30, but the Minister was

1101
speaking to Amendment No. 31. Perhaps I should have let him finish—it would have been much more interesting.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I apologise for that and thank the noble Lord for interrupting me.
The primary purpose of this power will be to prescribe that any grievance which arises from assumptions made about entitlements to council tax benefit cannot be the subject of an appeal to a valuation tribunal. Grievances about entitlement to council tax benefit are quite properly a matter to be pursued with the benefits review board established by the billing authority. Such boards already deal with queries about benefit entitlements under the community charge. Questions about entitlements to benefits are not, and should not be, matters for valuation tribunals.
I hope that, having said that, the noble Lord agrees that this amendment would be counter-productive. I hope that I have made myself clear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot for the life of me see why it would be counter-productive. If the Minister had argued that it would be unnecessary, I might have listened to him even more carefully than I did, but to say that it is counter-productive seems to be going much too far. What damage could be done by accepting this amendment? The word "counter-productive" means that things would be worse if subsection (3) were to be left out. I am sure that the House will give the Minister leave to respond on that point.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I can go a little further. We do not think the proposal would be appropriate because tribunal members do not currently adjudicate on benefits. They would need more training in both housing and council tax benefit. Tribunals will also face a significant workload. It would not be right to overstretch them.
In the light of research carried out by the social policy research unit, we intend to recommend to local authorities a number of procedural improvements to the internal review process. The need for further change is still being considered, including the need to replace housing benefit review boards. The Department of Social Security will be consulting relevant organisations as proposals are developed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must seriously question whether the Minister is dealing with Amendment No. 30. Perhaps I may repeat its purpose. Clause 16 relates to appeals. Clause 16(1) states:
"A person may appeal to a valuation tribunal if he is aggrieved by—

(a) any decision of a billing authority … or

(b) any calculation made by such an authority".

Subsection (3) states:
"Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the grounds on which the person concerned is aggrieved fall within such category of categories as may be prescribed".
In other words, subsection (3) states that the Secretary of State may, by regulation, say that there are grounds on which an aggrieved person cannot appeal to a
1102
valuation tribunal, but the Minister did not refer to that in his reply. What are the proposed grounds on which somebody may be denied the right to appeal to the valuation tribunal? It is a simple question, but it deserves an answer.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that we are not talking at cross-purposes. I feel that I have made the Government's position clear, but perhaps I should repeat that grievances about entitlement to council tax benefit are quite properly a matter to be pursued with the benefits review board established by the billing authority. Such boards already deal with queries about benefit entitlements under the community charge. Questions about entitlements to benefits are not, and should not be, matters for valuation tribunals.
I hope that I am not mistaken about the point that the noble Lord is trying to make. I shall read his comments carefully and may write to him.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister would do that. Clearly, we cannot pursue the matter on Report. As I understand it, Clause 16 has nothing to do with benefit. It relates to the decision of a billing authority that a dwelling is a chargeable dwelling and that a person is liable to pay council tax in respect of such a dwelling. There is no reference to benefits. I shall not strain the procedures of the House on Report by pursuing the matter. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me on the subject. It appears to me that we have been talking largely at cross-purposes, and since it is my amendment, I am not the one who can be crossed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Death of persons liable]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 11. line 42, leave out ("as he thinks fit") and insert ("to give effect to any of the provisions of subsections (3) to (6) below or as he considers appropriate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we move to the issue of the death of the liable person. Clause 18 contains a provision that,
"The Secretary of State may make such regulations as he thinks fit to deal with any case where a person dies",
and the consequent liability for council tax. In the amendment we suggest that the wide provision that the Secretary of State may make such regulations as he thinks fit should be qualified to reflect the wording of Clause 18(3) to (6). The regulations that he makes under subsection (1) should follow the points made sensibly, and relatively clearly, in subsections (3) to (6).
It seems that Clause 18 is a belt and braces clause; in other words, the Government seek, admirably, to try to set out in the clause the conditions which might apply in the case of the death of a person liable to council tax; but then in subsection (1) they negate all the admirable precision of the clause by giving the Secretary of State a wide and undesirable power. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the amendment, the noble Lord is seeking clarification of how the regulations will be drafted. I shall deal with that point. As the noble Lord is aware, liability for the tax is to be calculated on a daily basis; it is necessary therefore to make it clear that any liable person who dies will not be liable to pay the council tax for any part of the day on which he or she dies, or for any part of the remaining financial year.
Regulations made under this clause will provide for the executor or administrator of the deceased person to become liable to pay any sum outstanding before the death of the liable person. Any outstanding payment can be deducted from the assets or effects of the deceased person as with other outstanding debts. Similarly, the executor or administrator would be entitled to receive any sum which was owing to the deceased person where he or she had paid in excess of his or her liability. They will also enable the executor or administrator to act on behalf of the deceased person by instituting, continuing or withdrawing any relevant proceedings, for example, appeals.
The regulations have not yet been drafted. I can assure the noble Lord, however, that it is our firm intention that regulations made under this clause will reflect the provisions in subsections (3) to (6). I hope that the noble Lord will accept those assurances.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the assurance, but subsections (3) to (6), which we are told will be the basis of the amendments, are qualified in two ways: first, by the provision contained in subsection (1), that the Secretary of State may make such regulations as he thinks fit, and by the provisions contained in subsection (2) that,
"Nothing in the following provisions of this section shall prejudice the generality of subsection (1) above".
In other words, it is a case of when I use a word, it means what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less. What is the point of having subsections (3) to (6) if subsections (1) and (2) provide that the Secretary of State can do what he wants? It does not make good sense. I have noted what the Minister says about the intention in the regulations which have not yet been drafted. I note in particular—and I repeat it for the record—that it is the intention that the regulations shall reflect—that was his word—subsections (3) to (6). But I seriously question whether in saying so he has not made a nonsense of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 18. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Exclusion of Crown exemption in certain cases]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 12, line 33, at end insert ("and he shall within three months of the date of Royal Assent specify the classes of dwelling which are eligible for such an order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is a probing amendment on the issue of Crown exemption. Clause 19 is the last clause of Chapter I of the Bill and it provides that council tax is payable on dwellings
1104
which would otherwise be subject to Crown exemption. However, for some reason Clause 19(4) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (2) above".
Subsection (2) provides that Crown exemption,
"shall not prevent … the dwelling being a chargeable dwelling; or any person being liable to pay council tax in respect of the dwelling".
Subsection (4) provides that it,
"shall also apply in relation to any dwelling of a class prescribed by the order".
This again seems to be an example of the Government making a tentative move towards open government, a tentative move towards setting out on the face of the Bill the Government's intentions, and then saying, "Oh no, we can't go that far. We can't really make a commitment about Crown exemption, so we will protect ourselves by saying that the Secretary of State may alter anything in the clause that he likes, by order".
Although the subject matter is different, I think that the issue is similar to that which was raised in Clause 18. I urge Ministers, when replying, to be a little more cautious about the conflict between the general powers provided and the specific examples which are included in the Bill.
If we go on like this, attempting to define Crown exemption, attempting to define liability of dead people and then taking back all the provisions by giving an overriding regulation-making power, I seriously question whether the clauses are worth having at all. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Clause 19 ensures that Crown exemption shall be ineffective so far as concerns police houses and similar dwellings. The residents of such dwellings will be liable to pay the council tax in the usual way. If a dwelling covered by the clause is left empty, liability will fall on its owner. For police houses, this will of course be the police authority. Subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to prescribe by order additional classes of dwelling to which the clause shall apply. Amendment No. 32 would require him to specify the dwellings which are eligible for such an order.
I take that to mean that the Secretary of State is to be required to specify the classes of dwellings which are to be subject to Crown exemption. But eligibility for Crown exemption will depend on whether the Crown is the liable person in a particular case. That is a matter which could ultimately be determined in the courts. Any specification by the Secretary of State under the amendment could not affect a court's determination of what is a matter of fact. The amendment would therefore have no effect.
However, the noble Lord may be seeking some indication of the likely scope of Crown exemption and of the Government's intention for the use of subsection (4). On the first point, the principal class of dwellings which will be affected by Crown exemption are Ministry of Defence barracks and married quarters in which no one has his sole or main residence. In fact, we propose that all barracks and married quarters should be exempted under Clause 4 of the Bill and that the Ministry of Defence should pay

1105
contributions in lieu to the appropriate local authority. The cost of those contributions will be recovered from service personnel at rates which depend on the type of accommodation rather than on the local authority area. I am sure that that will be welcomed by many service personnel. Other dwellings likely to be covered by Crown exemption will be relatively few in number. They will include empty dwellings owned by government departments and retained for the use of a variety of employees ranging from night duty staff to agricultural workers. I do not have a list to hand and in any case it would be a tedious and, I suspect, rather long list.
The Government's intentions for the use of subsection (4) are simple. We have no plans to use the power. It is there only in case dwellings come to light that should be treated in the same way as police houses. With that explanation which I hope has been helpful to the noble Lord, I hope he will not feel the need to press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the explanation was helpful. I wish the Bill, as drafted, stated that provision with the same clarity as the Minister has managed to use in responding to the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 [Different amounts for dwellings in different valuation bands]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 75 [Persons liable to pay council tax]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 35:
1106
Page 50, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to any person on any day who is a person to be disregarded for the purpose of discounts under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
Clause 76 [Liability in prescribed cases]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 77 [Liability of Spouses]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 51, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any person on any day who is a person to be disregarded for the purpose of discounts under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 79 [Discounts]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 80 [Reduced amounts]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 82 [Appeal procedure]:
[Amendments Nos. 40A and 40B not moved.]
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before eleven o'clock.

  COUNCIL SCHEMES: ESTIMATES
  COUNCIL SCHEMES: ESTIMATES
  PRIMARY EDUCATION: REPORT
  PRIMARY EDUCATION: REPORT
  ANIMALS IN TRANSIT: WELFARE
  ANIMALS IN TRANSIT: WELFARE
  INTERVENTION BOARD: GUARANTEES
  INTERVENTION BOARD: GUARANTEES